Group-work Evaluation Strategy to Reduce Free-rider Behavior

on Project-based Learning

Gaffar Hafiz Sagala

, Rakhmat Wahyudin Sagala

, Ramdhansyah

and Tri Effiyanti

Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan –Indonesia

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Keywords: Project-Based Learning, Group Learning, Free Rider, Evaluation Design, Learning Satisfaction

Abstract: Learning in higher education requires a dynamics of learning which able to grow up the critical thinking,

analyzing, communication, negotiating, cooperation, and argumentation. The term to describe those

personal attributes that indicate the various ability is a soft skill. Definitely the all sort of ability is about to

build through project-based learning. In general, project-based learning implemented by using group work.

Interestingly, previous study indicate the implementation of group work in higher education has been

accompanied by free riders or social loafing in a group work. Even though, the evaluation practice provides

an opportunity to control that problem. This study aims to: 1) developing evaluation design to controlling

the free rider's behavior on project-based learning; and 2) developing evaluation design which improves

group work learning satisfaction. This study conducting to Borg and Gall research and development design

and Plomp and Nieveen involves: analysis, design and develop prototype and evaluation. The population in

this study are the students of Departement of Accounting Education, Faculty of Economy in the Universitas

Negeri Medan (UNIMED). Meanwhile, the purposive sampling technique is used to selecting the students

who engaged in Learning Evaluation subject. The instrument of evaluation which developed has been

validated by judgment expert and received a positive response from students. Student response of

satisfaction, which collected by questionnaire, shows that student satisfaction were high by evaluation

learning design that tested to them. The design highly potential to be tested and adopted in another subject.

1 INTRODUCTION

Basically, individual and group learning have an

essential value for students to develop their

comprehensive thinking. Individual learning

provides a freedom for students to encourage their

profundity and autonomous in action, meanwhile, a

group working allow them to deliver activities which

cover the process of sharing knowledge, soft skill,

and creativities in its turn will produce effective

individual performance, group, and organization

(Dalkir, 2013; Dyball, Reid, Ross, & Schoch, 2007;

Maiden & Perry, 2011).

Furthermore, project-based learning (PBL) put

special interest in higher level education. The

implementation of PBL usually using group work

which is focused on the quality of professional

worker, including the accountant and a teacher

which strive for own the abilities of communication,

cooperation, collaboration, and good compromise

(Maiden dan Perry, 2011). So, it can be concluded as

a person who wants to be a professional accountant

or professional teacher, they must have an

accounting cognitive ability and soft skill to apply

their knowledge (Herawati, 2012). In other words,

the student needs an activity to produce their

experience in order to develop their hard skill and

soft skill. This is the core of group working learning,

in the previous section learning activities emphasize

to technical knowledge in traditional or conventional

learning activities that has been shifted into the

process on provide a place for student to develop

themselves about theory, principle, and concept

which support accounting and business practice

(Flood dan Wilson, 2008) and so in teaching.

Science and practical knowledge gained from group

work learning through sharing knowledge activities,

interaction amongst the group member,

brainstorming, sinters analysis, and teamwork on

one project.

The previous study has been observed group

work in developing skills to transferred by means of

the dynamics on group work, self-management,

planning process and organizing in the accounting

Sagala, G., Sagala, R., Ramdhansyah, . and Efﬁyanti, T.

Group-work Evaluation Strategy to Reduce Free-rider Behavior on Project-based Learning.

DOI: 10.5220/0009492702270234

In Proceedings of the 1st Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science (UNICEES 2018), pages 227-234

ISBN: 978-989-758-432-9

227

students environment (Dyball, Reid, Ross, Schoch.,

2007). Then they testing a group work that formed

informally in the classroom. Meanwhile, Maiden

and Perry (2011) stated that group work is an

essential part of effective student integration to

developing interpersonal skills and learning. And so,

Maiden and Perry (2011) leads a mandatory and

intend to facilitate by educators.

A group work encourages individual to learn by

the culture process of participating in the teamwork

with the sequential process and submissively do an

interaction on social norm (Lave and Wenger, 1991).

But basically, group work has its own dilemma. It

shows by some of academician evaluating group

work activities causes a trouble by the process.

Trouble, in this case, means appear from forming a

group at the beginning, for instance, a group work

made by teacher instruction or student make their

own group without teacher instruction. At that time

choosing the group member might be affecting a

homogeneous in their knowledge capacity, while in

the process of brainstorm each group member needs

some heterogeneous character. It is different from

Rust (2001), he states that when the group member

chosen by teacher some students feels inconvenient

then they unwilling to participate each other.

Meanwhile, in other words, the terms usually called

as free-rider.

This happens because when the group's

performance is well-regarded by the teaching staff

then the good value also be obtained by members of

the group who are not involved. So the free riders

get the benefits even though he does not participate

in the group and of course the situation is

detrimental to other group members. In the

educational point of view, this problem should be

taken seriously. Because such circumstances can

disrupt character building, such as responsibility,

initiative, participatory, mutual ownership, and

cooperative, in a free rider. While the other group

members will be disturbed in the attitude of

indifference and concern for others. Therefore this

study aims to develop a learning evaluation

instrument that is able to stimulate students to

remain active in the group. The design of the

evaluation instrument is done so that the free rider in

project-based learning is possible to reduced.

2 THEORICAL FRAMEWORK

The Dynamics of PBL and Group Work

PBL is generally organized with various complex

activities during the learning process (Grimm and

Blazovich, 2016). These activities include classroom

learning, project implementation, development of

draft papers, peer reviews, and paper improvements

(Grimm and Blazovich, 2016). In more detail, Baron

et al. (1998) offers a series of procedures in the

implementation of PBL. First, Collaboration Design:

Students are divided into several groups. Then

students are given the topic of current issues that are

appropriate to the learning objectives. This topic will

stimulate student curiosity. Second, Ranking: After

the project is implemented, then it is assessed by the

lecturer. Assessment is useful to confirm the

suitability of the understanding possessed by

students with learning objectives. Third, Revised: In

the last case, students are asked to make

improvements to aspects that are not true. In this

process, the lecturers provide guidance so that

students know the strategies to implement the

project correctly and can achieve the learning

objectives. Finally, Presentation: After going

through a series of improvements, students must

submit project achievements that are being carried

out in front of the class. The results of this project

should be an indicator of the completion of learning

objectives.

To implementing the complex procedure of PBL,

lecturer is usually using group work among the

students. Therefore, every member of the group is

mandatory to engage in the entire project. The

situation is inline from the activities that occur in the

real work activity. In the business sector as well as

the public sector working groups are still used to

improve the performance of individuals and

sustainable organizations. From the standpoint of

knowledge management, the working group is called

the Community od Practice. The Community of

Practice (CoP) is a group of individuals

(practitioners) who share the same interests and take

the place to share, participate and build friendships

(Dalkir, 2005). Thus in CoP is expected to occur

knowledge sharing process related to their work,

problems, and obstacles that they experienced,

which led to problem-solving. Solving the problem

will be the creation of new knowledge to overcome

practical problems in work so that will contribute to

innovation, both process and product (Nonaka dan

Taekuchi, 1995; Dalkir, 2005). Dalkir (2005)

explains initially this concept is standing informally,

but gradually the company's management realizes

that this concept can contribute to the company to

achieve competitive advantage. Along with its

development, some companies keep this community

in non-formal conditions, and some companies are

beginning to formalize it. Likewise, although in a

non-formal state, the company still facilitates and

provides the container to the CoP. In the context of

teaching and learning activities, the concept can be

absorbed to support student academic performance.

The concept can give students the opportunity to

UNICEES 2018 - Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science

228

develop their practical and conceptual understanding

that is supported by the principles and theories that

have been conveyed in the classroom. CoP among

students can stimulate the exchange of knowledge

and innovation in learning among students.

In another side, On the other hand, to ensure

students gain experience working in teams or

groups, group-based learning should be designed to

be a liability in certain learning processes. It is

necessary not only to build habits and expertise in

teamwork, but also to be important in solving cases

and getting an understanding of the case, project

assignments, synthesis analysis, observation, mini

research, and other activities. In a mandatory group

learning situation, this problem arises. The

emergence of problems ranging from the

composition of group members, group performance,

to group members' dissatisfaction with the group.

The root of the problem lies in the presence of

passengers or free riders in group members.

Free Rider and Evaluation Design

Free riders are those who do not participate or

participate at least in the group but get maximum

benefit from other group members through good

group assessment results. Free riders can be aligned

with social loafing, defined by Maiden and Perry

(2011) as gradations along the continuum,

representing lost productivity and hampering success

and smooth work, thereby reducing the benefits of

teamwork. The working group often raises the

perception of lack of justice and transparency among

students, and amongst teachers, it is equally caused

to frustrate (Maiden and Perry, 2011). Group work

often consumes energy and time with unproductive

meetings and discussions because of the presence of

members who are indolently (Kaye, Kayes, and

Kolb, 2005).

In certain circumstances, problems also occur

when in the same group and different courses

students divide responsibilities based on courses and

take roles according to their own ability in certain

courses. Social loafing also occurs on the

economically motivated aspect, at a given moment

there are group members who feel they can

contribute financially so that they can reduce the

participation of the group's work (Albanese and Van

Fleet, 1985), but those who are not involved in the

extreme group and not financially involved (Gachter

and Thoni, 2004)

Basically social loafing is the tendency of group

members to act down from their actual abilities if the

work has to be done on their own then it will be able

to do it well (Brooks and Ammons, 2003;

Chidambaram and Tung, 2005; Karau and Williams,

1993; Kravitz and Martin, 1986). Hence the issue of

justice emerged. Because free riders or social loafing

explain the situation where the individual is actually

capable, it's just that he took an unfair part in the

workload of the group compared with other group

members.

Therefore, the assessment within the working

group often leads to contradictions. The individual

performance in the group is tied to his group's

overall performance so that he is forced to accept

group assessment as a result of his work (Scotland,

2016). This situation allows the student to get

numbers that are not in accordance with the

knowledge or skills that he actually has. The

incompatibility can be higher or lower. Some

researchers have found that individual judgments do

not represent group judgments, so they conclude that

assessment should still be done on individuals, not

on group performance (Bourner, Hughes, and

Bourner, 2001; Gammie and Matson, 2007; Knight,

2004; Plastow, Spiliotopoulou , and Prior, 2010).

In this case, the student has the right to question

what assessment approach the lecturer uses to

evaluate group performance. And some studies

indicate that students are not satisfied with the

group's performance results obtained (Burdett, 2003;

Li and Campbell, 2008). The discontent arises from

the gap between the ability he has with the group

performance he gets and if the result has been

matched by the expectations of the students

disturbed because of the passive group members but

gets good judgment based on group performance, so

that view leads to the perception of injustice

(Livingstone and Lynch 2000; Gammie and Matson,

2007; Li and Campbell, 2008)

Previous studies have offered and tested several

methods for reducing free riders in group tasks,

including:

1. Group evaluation: Brooks and Ammons (2003)

have offered and tested a group evaluation

model with peer evaluation design among group

members. The evaluation was performed with

the initial implementation instrument,

multipoint evaluation, and the use of the

evaluative specific criteria. The results of the

Brooks and Ammons (2003) study indicate that

these instruments successfully mitigate the free

rider action within the group's stake in the cross-

disciplinary business class. While Maiden and

Perry (2011) also develop evaluation designs

similar to instruments that allow each member

of the group to mark the performance of each

group member and can also be scored.

Furthermore, from the existing evaluation

indicators, each group member can do a split

based on the results of his evaluation of his

group's peers (Rust, 2001). friction in the

questionnaire. Maiden and Perry (2011) adapted

these instruments from Brooks and Ammons

Group-work Evaluation Strategy to Reduce Free-rider Behavior on Project-based Learning

229

(2003), Rust (2001), and Strong and Anderson

(1998).

2. Viva warning and two card stick. Both models

were adapted by Maiden and Perry (2011) from

Abernethy and Lett, (2005); Lejk (1994); Leijk,

Wyvill, and Farrow (1996); and Rust (2001).

Viva warning and two card stick have the same

principle. In the process of group work

internally team members verbally warned by

team members who are inactive, they can give a

specific challenge to improve the performance

of the group. If it does not work then the second

warning will be done by the tutor and the tutor

can give a warning or yellow sticks to mark the

status of passive group members and write

down the due date of improvement to be done.

If the improvement is not met then the tutor can

provide a red mark on a card or stick that

indicates a person is leaving the group member

and must personally take responsibility for his

or her duties.

3. Team-led Individual (Rust, 2001; Maiden and

Perry, 2011). In this group's work model the

lecturers provide group work projects to the

students, only the results of group work

collected are not graded. Each individual still

has to do follow-up work based on group work

and collected as a result of individual work.

4. Examination follow-on adapted Maiden and

Perry (2011) from Gibbs, Habeshaw, and

Habeshaw (1993); and Rust 2001. This model is

slightly different from individual team-leads. In

this model, the work of the group is still

required to be collected and assessed. It's just

that the assessment does not stop at the work of

the group. But at the time of the class test,

testing is done based on the project, this is to

identify the depth of knowledge and reference

wealth that the group members have of the

project tasks that have been done.

In this study, the design of group evaluation was

adapted from the study of Brooks and Ammons

(2003) and Maiden and Perry (2011). Likewise,

adjustments should be made to the instances of these

studies to fit the characteristics of students in

Indonesia and improve the efficiency of the

evaluation. Referring to Maiden and Perry (2011)

the instrument will be extracted and designed in the

form of a diary. In this study, the evaluation model

that will be adapted is group evaluation, viva

warning, and examination follow-on. If Maiden and

Perry (2011) tested the five models applied to

different classes, the three models will be combined

and extracted into one evaluation instrument tested

in one group, although it can consist of several

classes. And will be compared to its performance

with the control class with the assessment based on

the results of group work alone. Instruments that

have been built will be published in the network

(electronic). So that students will easily fill the

instrument through the phone or his computer.

Instrument design that allows translated into a scale

of numbers will be more easily analyzed with the

help of computers so that decision-making can be

done more efficiently. This is important because in

viva warning conducted in this study was not

publicly announced in class. Teachers maintain the

confidentiality of the assessment to maintain the

privacy of the students, only the additional

assignment is given based on that assessment.

The study was designed not only to reduce free-

riders and improve user satisfaction in group

learning activities. But more than that, this study

seeks to maximize the process of sharing knowledge

in groups so that knowledge gaps within the

classroom can be narrowed down. Satisfaction in

classroom learning and free-rider reduced perception

in terms of questionnaires to be given to students

before and after group learning activities. While the

mapping of knowledge can be reviewed from the

test results held by students, by reviewing the

variance of exam results in groups and classes.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

This research is operated as development research.

The intended development is the development of an

evaluation instrument that embodies a group work

evaluation design. The population of this study is

taken from students who are in the third semester

which oriented to the Indonesian National

Qualification Framework (KKNI). Samples were

taken by purposive sampling. The unit of analysis in

this research is individual. The research will be

conducted on the subject of learning evaluation

because that in many of group work during the

subject conducted in the classroom. The number of

samples in the class is 76 students. Although the

sample size is relatively small, referring to a

conservative perspective, the results of the study can

still be translated on a wider scale (generalization).

For example, if under the conditions of the teaching-

learning strategy and evaluation of the learning

result is successful, it can also be implemented in

other courses, because the essence of this research is

not in the course, but the group learning dynamics in

the learning activities.

Research Procedure

The development of evaluation instrument in this

study is referring to the Borg and Gall (1984) and

UNICEES 2018 - Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science

230

Plomp and Nieveen (2013) development procedures

but is limited only to the validation and testing

stages. The result of the development of a final

prototype that has been through a series of validation

and testing stages is then implemented and evaluated

for continuous improvement so that the built

instrument has reliability in evaluating group

learning. The activities carried out during the

development process are:

1. Needs Analysis: Activity began with an analysis

of the situation and problems that occur in

group work in Accounting Education Study

Program on the Faculty of Economy UNIMED.

The results of the situational analysis are then

examined theoretically based on theories and

developed research.

2. Development: The results of the Needs Analysis

are further used as the basis for the development

of relevant evaluation instruments. Relevance in

this context is the conformity of the problem

with the theory used to construct evaluation

design. Activity begins by designing an

evaluation design taking into account the latest

research findings and adapting the product from

the research. The adaptation of the design from

the previous development research was

conducted in the hope that the adapted design

already has good validity and reliability.

Although in this study the instrument remains

re-validated to ensure the validity of the

instrument. The design of the evaluation design

that has been determined for use is further

constructed into an evaluation instrument for

group work. Evaluation instruments that have

been built subsequently realized in the learning

tools of the Semester Lesson Plan (RPS) and

Lecture Contract. Instruments that have been

built at this stage are categorized as prototype 1.

3. Product Testing: Prototype 1 that has been

produced at the realization stage, then tested its

validity by 2 experts from UNIMED, North

Sumatra. Based on the results of this validation

test, then made a small revision to obtain the

evaluation instrument in the form of prototype

2. After obtained this prototype 2, then

conducted field testing. Field testing activity is

divided into two aspects, namely 1) review

legibility of students related to the instrument

that has been built; and 2) review the level of

student satisfaction with the evaluation

instrument used. The results of these trials were

used to evaluate the performance of the

evaluation instruments and carried out further

improvements.

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Needs analysis in this study refers to the background

of the problem to the theoretical studies described

earlier. Based on these descriptions, then emerged

evaluation design options that can be adapted to

improve project-based learning performance, such as

1. Group Evaluation; 2. Viva Warning and Two-

Card Stick; 3. Team-Led Individual; and 4.

Examination Follow On. The four designs are then

reviewed in relevance to the research problems and

their compatibility with student characteristics in the

Faculty of Economy UNIMED.

In the development stage, adaptation is made

between the latest research findings with the

characteristics of students and instruments that have

been used by some lecturers in the Faculty of

Economy UNIMED. Basically some lecturers in

Accounting Education Study Program on Faculty of

Economy UNIMED has used peer ranking systems

in assessing group assignments. It's just that the

assessment still has various weaknesses in

determining the score value in accordance with the

portion of student participation.

Therefore, in the group evaluation instrument, a

scoring item was added which allowed the students

not only to rank but also to score the performance of

their group mates. Further developed instruments

also adapt the concept of viva warning (Abernethy

and Lett, 2005; Lejk, 1994; Leijk, Wyvill, and

Farrow, 1996; and Rust, 2001) but with little

modification. Instruments are built by allowing

students to explain the dynamics within their group.

Under certain circumstances, students will be

reluctant to perform direct reprimand on members of

the group. Because the instrument is privacy and

confidential, students are expected to be free to tell

the dynamics of his group honestly and reprimand

against colleagues a group of inactive can be written

on the instrument. Furthermore, the lecturer can take

follow-up wisely based on the findings in the

instrument.

Decision-making lecturers in the classroom may

refer to one or a combination of Warning, Team-Led

Individual (Rust, 2001; Maiden and Perry, 2011) and

Examination Follow-On (Gibbs, Habeshaw, and

Habeshaw 1993; Rust 2001) strategies, depending

on dynamics in the classroom. In general, this

evaluation instrument is built based on the

instruments have Maiden and Perry (2011) with

various modifications and adaptations in accordance

with student characteristics and assessment

instruments that have been available before. Based

on various theoretical studies the evaluation

Group-work Evaluation Strategy to Reduce Free-rider Behavior on Project-based Learning

231

instrument developed in this study is considered to

have fulfilled the validity of the content. However,

to ensure its validity, construct validation is assessed

by expert judgment on the evaluation instrument that

has been successfully developed. The validity of the

evaluation constructs was assessed by two experts in

education evaluation from the Faculty of Education

UNIMED. The process of validation by such experts

resulted in some minor improvements to the

evaluation instruments that have been developed.

Table 1: Satisfaction Response and Perception of

Student Justice Related to Design of Group Work

Evaluation

No Variables Min Max Avg SD

Perception of Justice

1. Fairly to assess group

performance

3 5 4,25 0,76

2. Usefully for controlling

the free-rider

3 5 4,20 0,71

Perception of Satisfaction

3. I am satisfied with this

method of assessment

3 5 4,20 0,71

4. This format of assessment

agreed with my

expectations

3 5 4.05 0,65

Furthermore, after passing the development stage,

then enter the process of this research in the test

phase. The practicality of a developed learning

device, including the evaluation instrument, is based

on the implementation of the tool in the learning

execution. The value of practicality is obtained

based on the results of field trials. Field trials were

conducted in 2 aspects, namely: 1) readability of the

instrument by the students, and 2) student

satisfaction response related to the evaluation

instrument used. Therefore, at this stage of the test is

still open opportunities for improvement in the

instrument that is easily understood by users

(Lecturers and Students) and has a value of benefits

on student learning satisfaction. From field trials

obtained feedback and response satisfaction and

justice owned by students. The response of learning

and justness satisfaction was obtained through the

instrument adapted from the learning satisfaction

variable in this study collected using questionnaire

instruments that were adapted from Maiden and

Perry (2011) and Brooks and Ammons (2003).

Feedback obtained from students results in minor

improvements to the statement-statement editions

and questions within the instrument. While student

satisfaction response indicates that students tend to

feel satisfied with the instrument used. Besides, the

students also tend to feel the evaluation design that

is used fairly in group learning so that it can reduce

the free rider action in the group. The satisfaction

and justice response can be reviewed in Table 1.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This research has produced several conclusions as

follows:

1. This study has succeeded in developing a

groupwork evaluation design that is able to

produce learning satisfaction and perception of

justice for students related to the potential of

free riders in project-based learning.

2. The evaluation design developed in this

research has fulfilled the criteria of validity,

practicality, and effectiveness. Validity is

gained through expert opinion, while

practicality is obtained through trials to

students, and effectiveness is gained through

student satisfaction and student perception of

justice responses,

3. The realization of project-based learning with

the implementation of evaluation instruments

that have been developed in this research seeks

to control the risk of free rider present in doing

the task or project of the group. The design of

this evaluation also seeks the growth of

scientific culture and cooperation among

students in accordance with UNIMED's goals

written in Vision and Mission (No. 4)

UNIMED.

Relating to the conclusions, this study produces

some of the recommendations as follow:

1 This research has a practical recommendation

on updating evaluation design that has been

used by lecturers in teaching and learning

activities using the cooperative method. The

update is done to control the risks that may arise

from the application of the method, one of

which is the presence of free riders.

2 For stakeholders, it can review evaluation

designs that have been developed or re-

validated, and further developed to be generally

acceptable and standardized at both the faculty

and university level. Despite its limitations,

however, further development of this instrument

has the potential for the presence of a generally

acceptable evaluation design.

3 Further research probably to test empirically the

implementation of the developed instrument.

Further empirical testing is very important to

obtain evidence of performance of the

UNICEES 2018 - Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science

232

instrument. Performance of the instrument can

be reviewed based on student's learning

satisfaction and academic performance obtained

by students as a result of the use of the

instrument. Other studies that combine specific

learning methods with evaluation design are

interesting to review further.

4 Limitations of this research are the homogeneity

of the sample and the narrowness of the sample

scope only in the Accounting Education Study

Program and the limitations of empirical testing

related to the causality of this instrument to the

satisfaction of learning and academic

performance. Development of the sample is not

yet possible by vocational varieties and actual

conditions that are running. It's just for the next

research can develop a sample of the object

across department and university. The level of

confidence in a study can be improved by the

use of experimental methods to test the

relationship of causality empirically. Besides,

the experimental research method can be an

interesting option to improve the internal

validity of a study.

REFERENCES

Dalkir, K. (2013). Knowledge management in theory and

practice. Routledge.

Dyball, M. C., Reid, A., Ross, P., & Schoch, H. (2007).

Evaluating Assessed Group-work in a Second-year

Management Accounting Subject. Accounting

Education, 16(2), 145–162.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280701234385

Maiden, B., & Perry, B. (2011). Dealing with free-riders

in assessed group work: Results from a study at a UK

university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, 36(4), 451–464.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903429302

Abernethy, M.A., and W.L. Lett. (2005). You are fired! A

method to control and sanction free riding in group

assignments. Marketing Education Review 15, no. 1:

47–54.

Albanese, R., and D.D. Van Fleet (1985) Rationale

behaviour in groups: The free-riding tendency.

Academy of Management Review 10, no. 2: 244–55.

Balyer, A., Karatas, H., & Alci, B. (2015). School

principals’ roles in establishing collaborative

professional learning communities at schools.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1340-

1347.

Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A.,

Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998).

Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on

problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the

learning sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.

Brooks, C.M., and J.L. Ammons (2003) Free riding in

group projects and the effects of timing, frequency,

and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. Journal

of Education for Business 78, no. 5: 268–72.

Bourner, J., M. Hughes, and T. Bourner. 2001. “First-year

Undergraduate Experiences of Group Project Work.”

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26 (1):

19–39.

Burdett, J. 2003. “Making Groups Work: University

Students’ Perceptions.” International Education

Journal 4 (3): 177–191.

Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong

community, deep learning: Exploring the link.

Innovations in education and teaching international,

42(3), 217-230.

Chidambaram, L., and L.L. Tung. (2005). Is Out of Sight,

Out of Mind? An empirical study of social loafing in

technology-supported groups. Information Systems

Research 16, no. 2: 149–68.

Dalkir, Kimiz (2005). Knowledge management in theory

and practice. New York: Elsevier

Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e

learning: online participation and student grades.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4),

657-663.

Dyball, Cadiz M., Reid, A., Ross, P., & Schoch, H.

(2007). Evaluating assessed group-work in a second-

year management accounting subject. Accounting

Education: an international journal, 16(2), 145-162.

Fernandes, M. F., & Randall, D. M. (1992). The nature of

social desirability response effects in ethics research.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(02), 183-205.

Flood, B., & Wilson, R. M. (2008). An exploration of the

learning approaches of prospective professional

accountants in Ireland. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 32,

No. 3, pp. 225-239). Elsevier.

Gachter, S., and C. Thoni (2004) Social learning and

voluntary cooperation among likeminded people.

Journal of the European Economic Association 3, nos.

2–3: 303–14.

Gammie, E., and M. Matson. (2007). “Group Assessment

at Final Degree Level: An Evaluation.” Accounting

Education 16 (2): 185–206.

Gibbs, G., S. Habeshaw, and T. Habeshaw. (1993). 53

Interesting ways to assess your students. Bristol:

Technical and Educational Services.

Grimm, S. D., & Blazovich, J. L. (2016). Developing

student competencies: An integrated approach to a

financial statement analysis project. Journal of

Accounting Education, 35, 69-101.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global

perspective (Vol. 7). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Herawati, S. D. (2012). Review of the Learning Method in

the Accountancy Profession Education (APE)

Programs and Connection to the Students Soft Skills

Development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 57, 155-162.

Karau, S.J., and K.D. Williams. (1993). Social loafing: A

meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.

Group-work Evaluation Strategy to Reduce Free-rider Behavior on Project-based Learning

233

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 681–

706.

Kayes, A.B., C. Kayes, and D.A. Kolb (2005) Experiential

learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming 36: 330–54.

Knight, J. (2004). “Comparison of Student Perception and

Performance in Individual and Group Assessments in

Practical Classes.” Journal of Geography in Higher

Education 28 (1): 63–81.

Kravitz, D.A., and B. Martin. (1986). Ringelmann

rediscovered: The original article. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 50: 936–41.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:

Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge

university press.

Lejk, M. 1994. Team assessment, win or lose. New

Academic 3, no. 3: 10–11.

Lejk, M., M. Wyvill, and S. Farrow. (1996). A survey of

methods of deriving individual grades from group

assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education 21, no. 3: 267–80.

Leonardi, P. M. (2017). The social media revolution:

Sharing and learning in the age of leaky knowledge.

Information and Organization, 27(1), 47-59.

Li, M., and J. Campbell. (2008). “Asian Students’

Perceptions of Group Work and Group Assignments in

a New Zealand Tertiary Institution.” Intercultural

Education 19 (3): 203– 216.

Livingstone, D., and K. Lynch. (2000). “Group Project

Work and Student-centred Active Learning: Two

Different Experiences.” Studies in Higher Education

25 (3): 325–345.

Maiden, B., & Perry, B. (2011). Dealing with freeriders

in assessed group work: results from a study at a UK

university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 36(4), 451-464.

Plastow, N., G. Spiliotopoulou, and S. Prior. (2010).

“Group Assessment at First Year and Final Degree

Level: A Comparative Evaluation.” Innovations in

Education and Teaching International 47 (4): 393–403.

Reinl, L., & Kelliher, F. (2014). The social dynamics of

micro-firm learning in an evolving learning

community. Tourism Management, 40, 117-125

Rust, C. (2001) A briefing on assessment of large groups

(LTSN Assessment Briefing No. 12).York: LTSN.

Scotland, J. (2016). How the experience of assessed

collaborative writing impacts on undergraduate

students’ perceptions of assessed group work.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1),

15-34.

UNICEES 2018 - Unimed International Conference on Economics Education and Social Science

234