Collaborative Assignments

Choice of Role 

• Level of Instructor Implementation: Medium effort
• Description of Activity: In this collaborative exercise, students are assigned to a group but are allowed to choose their specific role within that group based on their interests or strengths. This is highly customizable; roles can be professional (e.g., “Project Manager”, “Lead Researcher)” or functional (e.g., “Skeptic”, “Synthesizer”, “Scribe”).
• Discipline / Field: Any
• Course Type: Seminar, Lab, Studio, or Lecture with breakout groups
• Course Level: Any
• Approximate Class Size: <25, 25-50
• Benefits to Students: 
  • This activity can help to lower group work anxiety by allowing students to pick a role they are comfortable with, or conversely, it can allow them to challenge themselves by trying something outside of their comfort zone.
  • Professional alignment approach may allow students to embody roles that mirror their future career goals, making the activity feel more relevant.
  • Use of distinct roles can help to increase accountability and make individual efforts more easily distinguishable; students have a clear, personal responsibility to the group, which helps prevent uneven distribution of workload within the group.
• Potential Challenges: 
  • Students may lean toward the same “popular” roles, leaving other roles empty.
  • Some students may be pushed by their group members to accept certain roles.
• Implementation Recommendations:
  • Provide a clear “menu” of roles with descriptions of what is expected. For example, in a STEM lab: “Procedural Lead”, “Data Aggregator”, “Lead Experimenter”, and “Analyst”.
  • To avoid empty roles within groups, give the groups the first 5 minutes to negotiate roles. If two people want the same role, they can choose to “co-lead” (splitting the task) or to switch halfway through, if the assignment is a larger project.
  • In long-term projects, instructors may opt to encourage or require students to rotate roles to avoid students’ being familiar only with one component of the project.
  • For grading purposes, incorporate into the assignment rubric that students must identify their role in the group and detail their contributions to the group in their role.
  • Adding a peer and self-evaluation process can be very useful in keeping students accountable and determining participation levels.
  • To deter AI-generated participation (when applicable), require students to complete a brief reflection on which part of their role was the easiest and which was the most difficult. Prompt them to explain the specific steps they took to complete the difficult portion, as well as what resources made the “easy” part easy.
• Resource: 
  • Effective Teaming Resources for Instructors and Students 

Choice of In-Class Participation Modality 

• Level of Instructor Implementation: Medium effort
• Description of Activity: Instead of requiring students to speak aloud to earn participation credit, instructors provide a “menu” of ways to contribute to class discussion. Students can choose to participate orally, through a live digital platform (e.g., a chat or collaborative doc), or via a post-class written reflection.
• Discipline / Field: Any
• Course Type: Any
• Course Level: Any
• Approximate Class Size: <25, 25-50
• Benefits to Students: 
  • This approach can help to remove barriers for introverted students, students with social anxiety, and multilingual learners. Offering multiple modalities for engaging may help the instructor create a trusting, comfortable environment where all students can express their ideas without the pressure of immediate verbal performance.
  • Choice in participation directly enhances a student’s sense of belonging. As Fleming (2023) notes, when students feel empowered to engage in a way that matches their strengths, they feel more seen and valued, which is a primary driver of academic success and retention.
  • Students can learn to evaluate which medium allows them to express a specific idea most impactfully, which is helpful in building their metacognitive communication skills.
• Potential Challenges: 
  • Instructors may feel they are not “hearing” a fraction of their class (those opting for digital participation) during discussions.
• Implementation Recommendations:
  • To ensure all voices are “heard” regardless of choice of in-person versus digital modality, high-quality comments from digital channels can be read aloud during class to integrate them into the verbal discussion.
  • Provide a QR code to a collaborative tool (like Padlet or a Google Doc) where students can post questions or comments in real-time during a lecture.
  • Consider using tools, such as Padlet, that allow for anonymous digital reflection.
• Reference: 
  • • Fleming, E. C. (2023). UDL for inclusive teaching: Offering choice to increase belonging through technology. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v12i1.36327 
  
  Back to Top ↑
  

Independent vs. Partner Work 

• Level of Instructor Implementation: Low effort
• Description of Activity: For a specific assignment or in-class exercise, students decide whether they want to complete the work independently or collaborate with a partner. This choice allows students to select the social environment that best supports their focus and productivity for that specific task.
• Discipline / Field: Any
• Course Type: Any
• Course Level: Any
• Approximate Class Size: Any
• Benefits to Students:
  • Choice in this area can help a student build confidence as they reflect on their own learning needs (Flores et al., 2022) and identify the environment that would benefit their learning most in a specific activity; e.g., hearing their classmates’ differing perspectives versus decreasing their social stressors by working independently.
• Potential Challenges: 
  • Students in pairs may rely on a single partner to do the work.
  • The workload may feel uneven between the two formats.
• Implementation Recommendations:
  • Students who work in pairs write a summary of the division of labor. Independent workers write a reflection where they identify one area they would have liked to brainstorm with a peer.
  • To make the workload more equitable, pairs can respond to a different type of task than independent workers (e.g., technical question vs nontechnical question). Instructors can also have pairs provide multiple examples/solutions, while individuals provide one.
• Reference:
  • Flores, M., Kehoe, M., & Thompson, C. (2022). Assessment choice and student voice with UDL. The AHEAD Journal, 15. https://www.ahead.ie/journal/Assessment-Choice-and-Student-Voice-with-UDL 

Choice of Partner 

• Level of Instructor Implementation: Low effort
• Description of Activity: Students are given the autonomy to select their own partner(s) for a specific project or in-class activity.
• Discipline / Field: Any
• Course Type: Seminar, Lab, Studio
• Course Level: Any
• Approximate Class Size: <25, 25-50
• Benefits to Students: 
  • Choice of partner provides an opportunity for students to self-organize based on existing rapport, shared schedules, or complementary skill sets (e.g. “big picture” thinker vs. “detail-oriented” organizer).
  • For many students, especially those with social anxiety or those from marginalized backgrounds, the ability to work with a trusted peer may help reduce social anxiety, allowing them to put more cognitive energy to the actual task rather than navigating social friction.
• Potential Challenges: 
  • Students who are friends or acquaintances may not be the best pairings for staying on task.
  • Students who have not formed social bonds may feel uncomfortable or excluded.
• Implementation Recommendations:
  • • Allow students to choose their partner for some but not all activities, so that they can learn to work with other people.
    • To keep the focus on the task, break the activity into frequent, timed intervals. For example, give the pairs 15 minutes to brainstorm, 20 minutes to draft, and 10 minutes to peer-review. Make project/task milestone timers visible.
    • To bridge the social gap for students with no connections yet in the class, facilitate pairing for students without partners. Consider including an option for students to email the instructor privately if they would prefer to be assigned a partner.
  
  Back to Top ↑
  

Experimental Design Choice 

• Level of Instructor Implementation: High effort
• Description of Activity: Instead of following a manual of pre-defined lab steps, student teams are given a hypothesis or simply a research problem (customizable) and must collaboratively choose the design of the experiment to test it. The team is responsible for deciding which variables to control, which tools to use, and how to structure their data collection.
• Discipline / Field: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math), Psychology, or any field involving data-driven inquiry.
• Course Type: Lab-based, Fieldwork, or Research Methods.
• Course Level: Mid to upper level
• Approximate Class Size: <25, 25-50
• Benefits to Students: Engaging in the critical thinking process can allow students to truly apply and learn the experimental design process. Through this process, students must evaluate different approaches, anticipate potential errors, and justify their choices. This “productive struggle” can help solidify their understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed.
• Potential Challenges: 
  • Student groups may have difficulty selecting or agreeing upon their experimental design.
  • Students may design experiments that are too ambitious for the available lab time.
• Implementation Recommendations:
  • Consider what level of autonomy is best for your class; designing the entire experiment, being given the hypothesis, being told the variable to test, etc.
  • Recommended to “start small”; students’ first exposure to this activity can be more scaffolded (e.g. hypothesis provided) and build to greater autonomy.
  • Have a small menu of options for groups to choose from in case they get collectively stuck during the process (e.g. “pick one of these three variables to test”).
  • Instructors can incorporate scaffolding by providing a bank of hypotheses or research problems, and each group chooses one to build off (more controlled results across the class).
  • To keep teams advancing in a timely manner, use dedicated class time for time-allotted intervals (e.g., “15 minutes to finalize your independent variable,” “10 minutes to list your equipment”).
  • Before groups progress, they can share their design outlines with the instructor or another team for a quick review. This ensures their choice is safe, achievable, and relevant.
  • Ensure the grading rubric rewards the logic and collaboration behind the design rather than whether the experiment “worked.” This fosters a trusting environment where students feel safe to take scientific risks.