Group projects often come fraught with tensions for both students and the instructor. One area that I wrestle with is how to accurately assess group dynamics and make the teamwork fair for everyone involved - this was especially tricky as in-person sessions are dedicated to learning clinical skills, meaning guidance in group dynamics was more remote. 

This was the third year that I have run a project and in reflecting on my what my main learning outcomes were - I decided that group work skills had equal billing to the topic for which the students needed to learn. A group contract and peer evaluation has always been in place but for this year I added in two mechanisms which I hoped would improve communications if difficulties were experienced and a framework for positive group interactions.

The first of these two mechanisms was the nomination of a communication 'buddy' or partner at the beginning within the group project contract - this was implemented to support those students who ran into difficulties at any stage and who may not feel comfortable with letting their team members know. As part of their post-project evaluation, students were asked to comment on the value of this system. These comments really fell into 2 camps - one was of great benefit and the other was neutral and not seen as needed. This makes sense as we expect there are groups that often run very well. I consider the implementation of this a success and worthwhile pursuing as it gave an additional support structure to those students who may be more reserved and allowed them to build their voice within the group, and to stay more organised due to opening communication channels and accountability to one member of the team. 

The second mechanism I put in place was through the provision of greater transparency for how the assignment of peer evaluation would affect grades and scaffolding for how to improve team work communication channels. 

1. A clear assignment of 25% was formalised to contribute to the final mark
2. A poll was given to the students at the beginning of the project - they had agency in how they wanted this peer evaluation to be graded. This prevented a bias or unintended advantage to groups where all students were given the highest rating as opposed to those groups who gave a truer evaluation and even self-rated lower. 
3. The Knowles Group Behaviour Dimensions, A Handbook for Face-to-Face and Online Environments (2007), David Jaques & Gilly Salmon, provided a model based on the social dimensions requisite for positive group dynamics. Students were asked to conduct 2 observations during the term project meetings - these observations help identify and then seed group behaviours that contribute to building a team environment and, secondly, contribute to task activities.

This change directly indicated to students that the interactions and learning of group skills was given a place on the table for importance as a learning outcome. By active involvement in the group, the learning requirements for the topic content will take place. The reflections from the students support this reasoning - a few comments have been shown below.

Note this project also falls under the following dimensions

• Teaching and supporting student learning - Teach-1, Teach-3, Teach-4