Collaborative learning is considered to be an effective learning method. In principle, it promotes two key conditions for effective learning, namely good (social) control of metacognition and internal regulation of learning behaviour. Both require healthy social interaction in addition to good cognitive engagement. This social interaction and cognitive engagement cannot be imposed on groups, but can be fostered, among other factors, by individual accountability. Group self-assessment can help to achieve this. We have developed a group self-assessment procedure and shown in a previous study that it steers students towards internal regulation of behaviour (autonomous motivation). As we use the procedure in many collaborative projects, the question is whether students accept it and whether it has the intended effect on the group work experience. An acceptance survey was developed for this purpose. Students’ responses indicate that they find the self-assessment procedure convenient, that the assessments are fair, that it improves the collaborative experience and strengthens group beliefs.

Assessing group functioning can be part of group-based learning, referred to here as collaborative learning. The aim of assessment is to encourage collaboration and ensure individual accountability, thereby reducing social loafing and increasing fairness for members. There are many rules proposed by experts, behavioral criteria that promote effective group work, against which group members can be assessed (category-based assessment). In our group-assessment protocol, students define their own rules; a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7. The main reason for this approach is to give students maximum autonomy. A possible objection to such an approach is that students may overlook some essential criteria and thus (learn to) collaborate incorrectly. To see to what extent expert- and student rules match, we compared expert rules (124 from 12 publications) with student rules (810 from 147 secondary school and university groups). We find that they create the same rules, but that there are some differences in emphasis. We conclude that students have sufficient understanding of collaboration and that when they participate in multiple projects in different groups, they are likely to be exposed to all of the experts’ rules.

This study is situated in the problem of student retention in a first-year science course at a large, open-enrollment university. The study examines student performance in a moderate-structure cell biology course characterized by group classroom activities, frequent knowledge quizzes, a mid-semester exam, and a moderate impact final exam. The design is learning-oriented with a gradual transition from an external, instructor-based arrangement, to an internal, student-based arrangement. Although, consistent with numerous reports, we observe much better overall student performance in this course format, the improvement is largely due to scores on the quizzes and mid-semester exam, with little improvement on the end-of-semester final exam. Using self-reports, scores, and learning analytics from a population of 462 students, we sought to understand what factors contributed to this phenomenon. We found that despite good intentions, an awareness of essential cognitive skills, and an a priori appreciation of the subject matter, about a quarter of the students dramatically reduced their viewing of web-based learning materials in the period leading up to the final exam. This group scored well below average. We conclude that unintentional disengagement is a factor in failing the final exam.

The transition from secondary to higher education remains problematic given low retention figures in science courses, in particular in open-enrolment universities. Adjustment to a new learning environment and dealing with the mass experience are factors at play. We looked for ways to ease the adjustment and to moderate the mass experience by creating a moderate-structure Cell Biology course, characterized by broup-based activities, frequent in-course assessment and reduced weighting of the final exam score. Comparison of 4 years of low-structure with 4 years of moderate-structure courses, after corretion for annual cohort ability, revealed that moderate-structure yields 8% higher grade points and 5% higher retention. However, the overall gain in performance was largely dependent on in-course scores and improvements were only weak for the final exam. The frequency of students underperforming on the final exam, relative to their in-course scores, increased enormously in moderate-structure courses, rom 53 to 90.3%. We see this as a sign that for a substantial number of students, the final exam remained a destructive friction. As a result, we are still dealing with a population that has not assimilated a considerable portion of the Cell Biology knowledge and is starting the second year with significant gaps.

We look at group work from a self-determination theory perspective and argue that internalized motivation is the best condition for productive collaboration. A perceived sense of autonomy plays an important role herein. This autonomy is determined by the characteristics of the task and the openness and acceptance of the group. Group dysfunction, or the fear of it, impedes autonomy, even if the task context is fully autonomy supportive. Means of uncovering the functioning of group members could reduce dysfunction or lower the fear of it. Using a full scale intrinsic motivation inventory, we measured the impact of group self-evaluation on the quality of motivation over a 4-year period with a total of 355 participants in a collaborative learning project in high schools (K11). We show that, compared to the control population, students exhibit a much more internalized motivation profile, with effect sizes in the range of medium to large for the different parameters. We conclude that group self-evaluation primes students for autonomous motivation. We suggest that the procedure should be applied systematically in substantial collaborative projects.