Name: Dr Bid Webb
Role: Lecturer in Agroforestry
Department: School of Environmental & Natural Sciences
Tool used: BuddyCheck
What inspired or motivated you to use this tool/resource?
We include group work in our assessment approach because we believe that teamwork and collaboration are essential skills for both the workplace and life. While many students appreciate this aspect, a common concern is that some group members may not contribute fully yet still receive credit for others' efforts. To ensure students benefit from group work while being recognized for their individual contributions, we use Buddycheck..
What was your aim in using this tool/resource?
We use Buddycheck to adjust each student’s final grade for group work. Half of a student’s grade comes directly from the group’s overall grade, while the other half is adjusted based on individual contributions. Buddycheck generates a multiplier for each student to determine this adjustment. The two parts are then combined to create the final individual grade. You can customize the setup by choosing to include self-assessments or only peer assessments, and you can also set limits on how much grades can fluctuate.
What did you use this tool/resource for?
In our suite of MSc Forestry programs, we use Buddycheck for several assessments, including a rapid literature review and poster presentation. In this task, students collaborate to conduct a literature review, allowing them to cover a broader range of sources than they could individually. They then present their findings in the form of an academic poster. Once the assessment is submitted, each group member receives a link to a confidential questionnaire where they rate themselves and their peers on key criteria such as communication, organization, attitude, and participation, using a 1–5 scale.
After the evaluation period closes, we can access the results, which include both raw data and Buddycheck’s analysis. The tool provides insights by highlighting high and low performers, identifying substantial disagreements within groups or members who had conflicts, and flagging individuals who may be over- or under-confident.
How well did the tool/resource perform, would you recommend it?
Overall, I would recommend using this tool. It’s fairly intuitive, though it’s helpful to have someone walk you through it, or to watch a YouTube tutorial first. There are a few initial settings that might be tricky to evaluate until you’ve gone through the process once. For instance, you can choose to let students provide feedback to each group member. While this could be encouraging for some, it might feel discouraging for others; personally, I’ve been hesitant to use it. However, I do recommend adding an open-ended question at the end, which has been great for gathering additional insights on both the assessment and group dynamics. Asking students to justify their ratings also makes it easier to interpret the results.
While Buddycheck simplifies data collection, there is additional time required to the overall assessment process. Reviewing the data, especially when there’s disagreement, can be time-consuming and may work best with smaller class sizes (my module has around 25–30 students). The tool does require extra effort to calculate final grades, but once a spreadsheet is set up, it’s straightforward. Ultimately, the added effort is balanced by the confidence that group assessments are fair and accurate.
How well was the tool/resource received by students?
This tool is generally well-received by students, but some do find it difficult. Some students are loathe to say anything bad about their colleagues, particularly if they are friends. This can over-inflate poorer performing students’ grades. These students may also underrate their own contributions. On the flipside, some students are over-enthusiastic about denouncing their colleagues and exaggerate their own contributions. The bigger the group size, the less of a problem this is. Despite common frustrations with group work, this tool offers students a space to express their concerns and feel heard. While not perfect, it provides a much fairer way to evaluate group work, and the positive feedback in module evaluations strongly reflects this.
Share a ‘Top Tip’ for a colleague new to the tool/resource
My two top tips are: first, make sure to explain the tool thoroughly to students before they begin their assessment; and second, treat it as a guide, not the final verdict. There should always be room for judgment on each person’s contribution. For example, I set grade fluctuation limits, but if a student hasn’t contributed at all, I override the multiplier and assign them 0%.
Contact for more information:
The digital T&L support team are an excellent source of expertise to get you set up. If you would like to discuss how the tool is used in practice, feel free to contact me bid.webb@bangor.ac.uk