How can we prevent free-riding in group assignments and ensure everyone participates fairly? We explore effective methods for managing group assignments.
In high school, when group assignments are given, it’s common for the top student to handle all the work alone, while the other members briefly glance over it before the presentation. From the perspective of the top student—the one doing all the work—they might think it’s better to handle everything themselves. They worry that if the work is shared, the quality might suffer, and the grade could be lower. However, doing all the work alone takes too much time, and it feels unfair because the group members get credit for the score earned through their own hard work without putting in any effort themselves. When presentations are shared, it’s natural to struggle with the presentation if it’s not your own preparation, so the score might not be as high. Therefore, having all group members participate as much as possible in the group assignment is a better approach than having one person do it all. Let’s consider how to achieve the best possible group project while ensuring all members participate. In short, we’ll explore methods to produce optimal results without free riders during group assignments.
The first approach involves penalizing the least active member, determined by a group vote. This could involve lowering the maximum possible score or deducting points from the group total. The advantage of this method is objectivity, as the least engaged member is determined by the ongoing evaluation of fellow group members. Furthermore, from the perspective of a diligent group member, it can be perceived as fair since the score of a less diligent member is lower than their own. The disadvantage of this method is that in group assignments where maintaining good relationships and teamwork are crucial, asking members to identify and vote for the least active person creates a situation where everyone is monitoring and evaluating each other. If one is singled out as the least active, they face a disadvantage, leading to heightened self-consciousness, suspicion, and distrust among members. Group assignments in such an environment cannot produce optimal results.
The second method involves gathering the members with the lowest participation rates during the first week of the group project through a vote and forming a new group with them. These individuals then proceed with the group project together. The advantage of this method is that since the least active members are removed from the original group, the remaining members can focus on working hard without worrying about low participation, potentially achieving the best results. Those voted into the new group due to low participation will likely work hard on the assignment to prove they can perform well. This allows everyone to achieve the best possible results. The disadvantage of this method is that if the new group consists of members who didn’t participate diligently in their original group either, it could lead to the adverse effect of the group accomplishing nothing at all. Even if someone didn’t participate much in their original group, they would have handled a certain part of the task. However, since the person responsible for that part is gone, the remaining group members must take on that part, potentially increasing their workload.
The third method involves selecting one group leader from among the members. The remaining members divide the group task equally among themselves, while the leader manages everyone and helps each member perform well. If someone neglects their assigned part, the leader will constantly monitor progress, inevitably catching any missed work. The leader will either force them to complete it or provide assistance. The advantage of this method is that tasks are divided fairly, eliminating free-riders. While the assigned person primarily handles their part, the leader’s support creates an effect as if two people are working on it. This significantly increases the likelihood of achieving the best possible outcome. The downside is that the group leader must review and assist with every member’s work, potentially overburdening them. Additionally, some members might rely solely on the leader and neglect their own tasks.
These are three methods I’ve considered for preventing free-riding in group assignments. Fundamentally, however, we have learned from childhood that causing harm to others is wrong, and that one should handle one’s own responsibilities—moral principles that are self-evident. Reflecting on what we naturally learn, free-riding is clearly harmful to others and constitutes shirking one’s duties, making it something we should not do and is inherently wrong.
So, is there a reason to live rightly? My answer to this question is ‘yes’. If one does not live rightly—that is, if one acts or speaks in ways long taught to be wrong and considered morally unacceptable by society—it ultimately harms oneself. People cannot treat someone who does not live rightly with fairness forever. If one does not live rightly, one will inevitably become isolated within that group. And isolation means having no one to help oneself. Ultimately, one will inevitably suffer harm. If one lives a morally upright life, instances of suffering harm will decrease. Furthermore, if everyone avoids harming themselves and others, the world would become a happier and more livable place. Therefore, people believe one must live rightly.
