==Accountability in team assignments==
===Dianne Williamson and Maureen Long, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University.===

Maureen began the conversation about the subject, Interprofessional Practice A, that both she and Dianne have been involved in from the beginning involving team learning; they bring a vast amount of experience in the area. They spoke of the challenges and positives they have experienced in interprofessional subjects.  
Di - FHS large cohort of students. 30 students in workshops - 5-6 students in each team.  Enquiry Based Learning (EBL) - assessments around specific themes - individual and team based. Team based assessment causes some angst. 
Postive comments - students like opportunities to develop networks with other students in a learning community - supporting each other.  
Issues - personality clashes, team member who doesn't contribute.
Facilitator concerns - equity around marking when some students in teams don't contribute. Strategies used to measure - team learning agreement/level of achievement they are strivng for; how will they communicate with each other - split assessment tasks, etc. First team task - reflective exercise follows and to review team learning agreement.
Also using a team journal - students write weekly diary entry re their contributions to team functioning as well as the 'product'. Team to allocate a % contribution for each team member so process is as transparent as possible.

Unsuccessful aspects of assessment of team assignments
-Unfavourable comments about other students in peer assessment - some lacking in diplomacy.  
-Applying a mathematical formula to determine how much each team member contributed also proved problematic.  
-Marks allocated to teams (vs individual). Difficulty in shifting student's focus from individual acheivement, to engaging in a learning task - as part of a group.

Problem of 'Social loafing', questions of equity aren't the only thing to focus on - but important nonetheless. 
Team Contract - one way to navigate the practical and interpersonal issues inherent in collaborating... part of assessment is the evaluation of the contract, and their interaction in the group. A % contribution is given by each student. Also used is a weekly diary, documenting their experiences. 

Social context of learning
Some of the collaborative/team aspects extend beyond assessment, to preparation for individual contributions.
Role of personalities and characteristics in team cohesion and function.
Communication - expectations and capacity to learn and demonstrate learning in teams and as individuals.
Reflection on processes - contributions important as much as completion of task.
Moved away from large number of team based assessments. 
Team 20% Individual 80% - flip from original model.

Workplaces do not always have team cohesion and they may experience some dysfunction so the emphasis on equity has shifted.
Interprofessional practice still reflected in focus even though shift in assessment back to more individual.
Peer assessment of contribution - calls for automated system. How is it done - students can indicate levels of contribution. Everybody gets the team mark and facilitator will note discrepancies and will speak to team to ensure fairness. This has worked well.

"How can we be the best we can be and encourage our students to be the best they can be?"

 
==Teaching learners to notice== 
===Royce Sadler, Professor Emeritus of Higher Education, Griffith University.===

(Sound recording) 
 Traditional tutorials abandoned - "I hoped they learned something"
 Is it any good? How can we know? Am I qualified to judge other students' work?
 What advice can I give to help the other person make it better?
 Become better at making judgements - thinking critically - becoming more aware.
 A = abominable - B = Brilliant somewhere in between ? - what does it mean to notice things in other student's work ? Set criteria = lens through which things are viewed in setting a mark / responding to task. 
Royce includes his own work in the mix "so that they see what is the best I can do". 
 
Value of feedback: Each week a 300 word distillation of sources about a solution for a problem encountered in course material. 1 page; each student brought 3 copies, unnamed to class; papers randomised and passed on. Then Royce asked the question: Is it good? To which students would shrug and say 'Where's the criteria?'. But the criteria is what the students provided, along with appraisal and advice to the original producer of the paper. Randomised again and used same process.

Improving judgement: Peer feedback as a normative/corrective process ... taking notice. The distortion effect of giving numerical marks; maybe better to use a spectrum or scale.

Learning to assess without criteria ... or with limited criteria, and questioning why that particular criteria makes sense. Hard to codify what matters. Royce himself takes the task, to test whether it is worth marks - but to have the students assess his work (!). Not necessarily to benchmark ...

"Some of the things we ask them to detect may not matter."  "If we give them criteria, they may end up writing to the criteria, seeing the world through rose colored glasses".
There is always inbuilt criteria and the task assists students to articulate criteria. 
Still subjective elements - judgement based on practice - guild knowledge that will have guidelines that are articulated for common understanding.