In this post, Brad Cotton describes an example of using group work in a dynamic learning environment, based on a ‘crisis game’ scenario. He discusses the benefits of not assessing the group work outcome in the game, but instead designing the assessment around individual critical reflection of the process. Brad is a Lecturer in the Business School. This post is part of the Group Work series.
“Ok, we will be putting you into groups for this assessment.”
Cue the eye-rolls and audible groaning. It’s inevitable.
Everybody, especially students, hates group work. Why? Groups can be tough at the best of times. Most research projects are based on uneven group participation. While well-functioning groups enhance active, experiential learning (Davies, 2009), dysfunctional groups create a wide-array of additional issues. We’ve all been part of a low-functioning group structure where one or two members do the work of four or five. This hurts assessment marks and detrimentally impacts student learning and well-being. Think of outcomes like ‘free-riding’, ‘social loafing’, or good students reducing their effort to offset the poor contributions by those less engaged (Morris & Hayes, 1997; Watkins, 2005).
Personally, I believe that learning should be far more than a passive experience, and group work has a legitimate place in learning! Group work is a key part of experiential education, and we all know that teamwork is vital in the real world. To this point, one of my favourite sayings is, “None of us is as strong as all of us”. The fact is, we can’t do it all alone, and little would get done in the modern workplace if we didn’t rely on our colleagues. The principal difference being of course, in the modern workplace if you don’t play well with the team, you may well be trying to find a new team to play with!
So, how do we create these practical, experiential learning opportunities that require students to engage with a team, but remove the impact of poor team members?
We redesign the team activity from the ground up.
Enter the ‘Crisis Game’
The ‘Crisis Game’ is a dynamic learning event I designed for my course, Crisis Management for Organisations. At the start of the course, students are randomly placed in teams of five, assigned a unique company, and told to follow classroom theory in preparation to face a crisis that will threaten the company’s survival. A few weeks later, a crisis that is specific to each company unfolds in real time. The event lasts two hours, broken into five-minute segments. The teams are tasked to decide how to address each new threat to their business. A live media interview raises stress and stakes further, testing their communication under pressure.
This immersive experience pushes students to apply theory under pressure, while fostering critical thinking and teamwork. It also serves as an inoculation against the stresses encountered in reality and helps prepare students to act under pressure (Meichenbaum, 2017).
As important as the Crisis Game is to allow students to practically apply their learning, student teams are not assessed on their performance in any formal way. Yes, the game is scored and crowns the top-performing team overall and the best team interview. But importantly, it is not marked!
What the game does serve is as the vehicle for each student to write an individual, critical reflection on their team’s performance in the Crisis Game and team outcomes, whether they were successful or not. Practically, this means that while the assignment is based on the game, student success is not dependent on it. By separating the group work from the grading focus, I can ensure that strong students aren’t penalised for the shortcomings of others, aligning with Davies’ (2009) findings. Students often find that even if their team under-performs in the game, there is rich material for reflection in their individual assignments. In fact, some of the highest marks come from members of lower-performing teams.
Anecdotally, I have received excellent feedback on this practice from many students who had difficult team members ranging from ‘not showing up at all’ to ‘becoming narcissistic controllers’ during the game. While students admit that the group work was challenging, being freed from a mark tied to unhelpful behaviour and being able to talk about the effects in a positive way, was a tremendous benefit to their individual learning in the course.
By decoupling group performance from grades, the dreaded team assignment becomes a playground for real learning. The group work can then become an anchoring point for the practical application of classroom theory instead of something to “forget and move on” from!
References
Bartle, E. (2015). Experiential Learning: An Overview. The University of Queensland.
Cotton, S. (2025, May 26). We’re not aiming for perfection; we’re aiming for connection: Responding to Student Feedback. https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/teaching-matters/were-not-aiming-for-perfection-were-aiming-for-connection-responding-to-student-feedback/
Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58(4), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y
Meichenbaum, D. (2017). The Evolution of Cognitive Behavior Therapy: A Personal and Professional Journey with Don Meichenbaum. Routledge.
Morris, R., & Hayes, C. (1997). Small group work: Are group assignments a legitimate form of assessment? In R. Pospisal & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (pp. 229–233).
Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(06). https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36
Watkins, R. (2005). Groupwork and Assessment. The Economics Network. https://doi.org/10.53593/n380a
Brad Cotton
Brad Cotton is a Lecturer in University of Edinburgh Business School. With over three decades of frontline and leadership experience, Brad combines his PhD and professional accreditations—including AFHEA and CMBE—to bring a deeply relational and evidence-informed approach to teaching. He specialises in fostering collaboration and breaking down silos, designing learning environments that mirror real-world complexity and encourage cross-sector engagement. Brad’s research on legitimacy and trust in policing shapes a teaching philosophy centred on service, accountability, and genuine human connection. Drawing on his public service and entrepreneurial background, he emphasises applied learning, critical thinking, and strategic innovation to prepare students for the challenges of dynamic, multi-stakeholder environments. Ultimately, Brad is passionate about empowering learners to become effective, ethical, and collaborative leaders.
