The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Free Riding in Group Projects and the Effects of Timing, Frequency, and Specificity of Criteria in Peer Assessments
Abstract
The free-rider problem, also known as social loafing, occurs when one or more members of a group do not do their fair share of the work on a group project. In this article, the authors present a group evaluation instrument characterized by early implementation, multiple evaluation points, and the use of specific evaluative criteria. They tested their assessment method on a sample of 330 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory, crossdisciplinary business course. The results suggest that the use of this instrument can mitigate free-rider problems and improve students' perceptions about groups and group projects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170
Cited by
Cain, J. (2019) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2018.09.010 · Cited by 179
The Role of Communication and Cohesion in Reducing Social Loafing in Group Projects
Lam, C. (2015) · Business and Professional Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/2329490615596417 · Cited by 68
Exploring antecedents of social loafing in students’ group work: A mixed-methods approach
Luo, Z., Marnburg, E., Øgaard, T., & Okumus, F. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education · doi:10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100314 · Cited by 32
Student satisfaction with use of an online peer feedback system
Donia, M. B. L., Mach, M., O’Neill, T. A., & Brutus, S. (2022) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1912286 · Cited by 27
Brannen, S. F., Beauchamp, D., Cartwright, N., Liddle, D., Tishinsky, J., Newton, G., & Monk, J. (2021) · International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2021.150205 · Cited by 26
“Although peer evaluations have been shown to have a positive effect on students’ perceptions about GW (Brooks & Ammons, 2010; Cestone et al., 2008) and were included in the group assignments associated with this study it is important to note that the survey questions were centered directly on the…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Brooks, C. M., & Ammons, J. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Education for Business
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 268-272
- ISSN
- 0883-2323 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-3356
- OpenAlex
- W2063011771
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 44.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
