One group submission, individual judgements: plan the evidence before the project starts

To assess individuals fairly within a group project, decide what will be judged collectively and individually, explain the marking arrangements before work begins, and collect proportionate evidence against the intended criteria. Use the shared output alongside each learner’s explanation of their understanding and contribution—not as a substitute for it.

By the EduMark team

Agree the assessment arrangements first

Start by checking your programme or qualification rules. Use group assessment only where permitted, and confirm which outcomes require individual evidence. Do not introduce a shared mark where individual achievement must be demonstrated separately.

As an institutional example, UCL’s 2026–27 assessment framework requires clear instructions about whether and how individual contributions will be assessed. Your own applicable rules remain the starting point.

Separate three questions in the brief:

• Shared output: how well does the finished proposal meet the published criteria?
• Individual understanding: can each learner explain the evidence, reasoning and limitations behind the proposal?
• Teamwork, if assessed: how did each learner contribute to planning, discussion, decisions and agreed actions?

Publish any shared and individual marks, weightings, minimum achievement requirements, submission arrangements and permitted collaboration. Explain whether peer feedback affects marks, what follow-up may involve, and how absence or non-participation will be handled.

A worked example: four learners, one service-improvement proposal

In this fictional project, four learners propose improvements to a community centre’s booking service using a supplied, fictional evidence pack. They submit one proposal containing a problem analysis, options comparison, implementation plan and evaluation measures.

Each learner also submits a short individual evidence map and explanation. Everyone must demonstrate the required subject understanding, even if one person coordinated research and another assembled the final document.

This combined approach has institutional precedents: the University of Glasgow’s group-work guide includes shared outputs accompanied by individual reports or reflections. These are examples, not universal requirements.

A reusable individual evidence map

Adapt the following illustrative criteria to your approved assessment. Complete one map per learner, using precise section references.

For example, a learner might explain that they rejected an online-only booking system because the supplied feedback identified access barriers. Assess the reasoning against the criterion, rather than simply recording that they wrote the options section.

Collect enough evidence—not everything

UCL Arena Centre’s group-assessment guidance recommends planning evidence collection and distinguishing the product from the process. For this project, a proportionate starting point could be one brief planning record, a midpoint check and each learner’s final explanation.

Do not treat an allocated role or document-edit count as sufficient evidence of both understanding and teamwork. Instead, ask what the learner decided, why, and how that connects to the relevant criterion. Use activity records to locate questions, not to convert visible activity automatically into attainment.

Plan accessible ways for learners to explain their decisions within the permitted assessment arrangements. If oral follow-up is allowed, publish its purpose and scope. Record the question, the substance of the answer and its relevance to the decision.

Respond to difficulties before the deadline

The University of Glasgow’s policy calls for regular supervision and a named staff contact to help resolve difficulties. Build an early checkpoint into your own design rather than waiting for competing accounts after submission.

• Absence: discuss the effect on participation and evidence, then use the approved support, mitigating-circumstances or reassessment route. Do not assume absence establishes what someone knows.
• Disputed contributions: ask for specific examples, hear the relevant learners separately where appropriate, and compare accounts with the agreed records. Avoid deciding through a group vote.
• Uneven opportunities: intervene early if one learner is controlling decisions or another cannot access the work. Rebalance opportunities without removing required outcomes.

Apply the published rules; do not invent penalties or alter weightings retrospectively. Where peers award marks, explain staff oversight in advance. UCL’s framework, for example, explicitly requires instructions about staff second marking and moderation of peer-awarded marks.

Keep each judgement connected to its evidence

For every learner, record the criterion, relevant shared section, individual explanation, any follow-up and the reason for the outcome. Keep feedback on the group product distinct from feedback on individual achievement.

EduMark Studio brings submitted work, criteria, feedback and human review into a connected marking workspace. AI assistance is optional and in beta, with a person confirming decisions. Confirm how your proposed submission structure fits your assessment setup; this approach does not depend on automatic contribution scoring or a particular group-submission feature.

Before launch: check that every learner has a realistic opportunity to produce evidence for every individual criterion—not merely a task on the group’s allocation list.