Jury
A group presentation gives you two kinds of evidence: what the group produced together and what each student demonstrated. Decide which you are assessing before the work begins. A polished slide deck does not prove equal contribution, and a hesitant answer does not prove that a student did no work.
Separate the shared outcome from individual understanding
Tell students which criteria are shared and which are individual. The Eberly Center’s guidance on assessing group work distinguishes group products and processes from individual contributions and understanding. Your assessment needs to make that distinction visible.
You do not have to use one universal split. A presentation about collaborative problem-solving may weight the joint reasoning more heavily; a language exercise may focus more on each speaker. Follow the objectives and rules of your course.
A worked example: shared and individual marks out of 20
This is an illustrative rubric, not an exam standard. Announce and explain it before students prepare.
- Shared evidence — 10 points: accuracy and relevance of the joint answer, 6; coherent structure and useful transitions, 4.
- Individual evidence — 10 points: explanation of the student’s contribution, 4; use of relevant evidence, 3; response to a follow-up question, 3.
If the shared result is 7/10, a student with 8/10 on the individual criteria receives 15/20. Another with 5/10 receives 12/20. The arithmetic is simple; the important work is defining the observable evidence behind each score. Adapt the split rather than copying it automatically.
Capture one concrete observation per student
Prepare a short note structure: student / criterion / observed fact / next step. For example: “Alex / evidence / explains why the second example contradicts the claim / add that distinction to the conclusion.” This is more useful than “confident speaker” or “weak contribution”. Do not infer unseen preparation from confidence alone.
Make the individual moment predictable
Let every student know that they will explain a defined part and answer a relevant question. Allow preparation and respect agreed accommodations. Avoid surprising students with a random reassignment of their entire section on presentation day.
A follow-up can be as simple as “Which example supports your claim, and why?” Ask questions of comparable scope. If you did not obtain enough evidence, record what remains to be clarified rather than automatically treating an unobserved skill as absent.
Assess cooperation only where you have evidence
You can observe transitions, references to a teammate’s argument and how questions are handled. The final presentation alone may not show how preparation was shared. If the preparation process is assessed, plan suitable evidence beforehand, such as short checkpoints or individual reflections. Explain how those records will be used.
For useful peer observations, use the peer-assessment guide. Peer feedback can inform your review; it should not become an unexplained popularity score.
Use Jury to keep observations attached to the right student
Tissyo Jury supports group oral assessment and observations linked to the student concerned. Prepare your criteria, capture relevant moments and review the individual evidence before finalising marks. The app organises your observations; it does not establish who contributed or make the judgement for you.
Build the criteria with our grading-rubric guide, then check the bias checklist before finalising the feedback.
