Citation :

Gerald Munyoro, Lewis Madhlangobe, 2026. "Collaborative Assessment for Learning: Group Work as a Formative Assessment Strategy in Southern African Higher Education: A Comparative Study of the University of Dar es Salaam and the University of Zimbabwe" ESP International Journal of Science, Humanities & Management Studies(ESP-IJSHMS)  Volume 4, Issue 4: 78-90.

Abstract :

Collaborative assessment for learning has emerged as a transformative pedagogical approach that promotes active knowledge construction, learner autonomy, and graduate competency development within higher education. Despite its growing adoption across Southern African universities, limited comparative evidence exists regarding how institutional contexts shape the effectiveness of group work as a formative assessment strategy. Guided by social constructivist theory, Vygotsky's sociocultural perspective, and the constructive alignment framework, this study comparatively examined collaborative group assessment at the University of Dar es Salaam and the University of Zimbabwe. A pragmatic paradigm informed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design involving 456 participants comprising undergraduate students, lecturers, departmental leaders, and quality assurance personnel. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative evidence underwent reflexive thematic analysis before integration through triangulation. The findings indicate that collaborative assessment significantly enhanced conceptual understanding, critical thinking, teamwork, communication, and self-regulated learning. However, its educational value was mediated by assessment design, lecturer facilitation, institutional support, peer assessment mechanisms, and transparent marking criteria. Comparative analysis further revealed that institutional implementation, rather than the pedagogical model itself, accounted for observed differences between the two universities. The study concludes that equitable, context-responsive, and constructively aligned collaborative assessment strengthens assessment for learning and offers an evidence-informed framework for improving quality assurance, graduate employability, and learner-centred pedagogical innovation across Southern African higher education.

References :

[1] AAU. (2024). African higher education outlook 2024: Advancing quality, innovation and graduate employability. Association of African Universities.

[2] Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2023). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 347–360.

[3] Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2021). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–8.

[4] Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2021). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 26(5), 1472–1484.

[5] Bearman, M., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2024). Assessment for inclusion in higher education: Promoting equitable learning through assessment. Routledge.

[6] Biesta, G. (2023). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.

[7] Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university (5th ed.). Open University Press.

[8] Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2024). A systematic review of collaborative learning in higher education: Outcomes, challenges and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(1), 1–29.

[9] Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2024). A systematic review of student engagement research in higher education: Trends, challenges and implications for learning and teaching. Educational Research Review, 42, 100603.

[10] Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2024). Emergency remote and digital learning in higher education: Recent developments, challenges and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(1), 25–48.

[11] Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). Assessment for inclusion in higher education: Promoting equity and student learning. Routledge.

[12] Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 158–171.

[13] Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). What is assessment for learning in higher education? Routledge.

[14] Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). What matters in assessment: Challenging notions of standards and quality in higher education. Routledge.

[15] Boud, D., Ajjawi, R., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (2nd ed.). Routledge.

[16] Bowen, G. A. (2021). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(2), 157–169.

[17] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

[18] Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., et al. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661.

[19] Carless, D., & Winstone, N. E. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and student feedback literacy: Enhancing learning through dialogic feedback. Routledge.

[20] Carless, D., & Winstone, N. E. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1153–1168.

[21] Chiriac, E. H., & Forslund Frykedal, K. (2022). Managing group work assessment in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1247–1261.

[22] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2023). Research methods in education (9th ed.). Routledge.

[23] Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.

[24] Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2024). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (4th ed.). Sage.

[25] Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Walji, S. (2023). Digital equity and higher education in Africa: Emerging challenges and opportunities. Journal of Learning for Development, 10(2), 180–197.

[26] Denson, N., & Bowman, N. A. (2020). University diversity and preparation for a global society: The role of diversity experiences in shaping student learning and development. Higher Education, 80(4), 721–739.

[27] Fetters, M. D., & Guetterman, T. C. (2021). The mixed methods research workbook. Sage.

[28] Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2023). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research: Advancing integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 3–11.

[29] Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (6th ed.). Sage.

[30] Garrison, D. R. (2022). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (4th ed.). Routledge.

[31] Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2023). Dialogue across difference and its contribution to student learning in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(2), 189–203.

[32] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

[33] Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2024). Toward a definition of mixed methods research: Recent developments and future directions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(1), 5–23.

[34] Kahu, E. R., & Picton, C. (2022). Institutional support, student engagement and success: A conceptual framework for understanding the student experience in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2365–2380.

[35] Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2024). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(2), 453–466.

[36] Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), Article 33267.

[37] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

[38] Morgan, D. L. (2024). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research (2nd ed.). Sage.

[39] Munyoro, G. (2014). The significance of group work in the assessment of students in higher education: A case study of University of Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom. Africa Development and Resources Research Institute, 11(11(2)), 57–65.

[40] Nicol, D. J. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 756–778.

[41] Nieminen, J. H. (2022). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(6), 856–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839745

[42] Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2023). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–13.

[43] OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.

[44] Pallant, J. (2024). SPSS survival manual (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

[45] Panadero, E., Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2023). Fusing self-regulation and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 30(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2150188

[46] Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2022). Using formative assessment to influence self- and co-regulated learning: The role of collaborative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1189–1203.

[47] Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2023). Using formative assessment to influence self- and co-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 58(2), 89–104.

[48] Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2024). Using formative assessment to influence self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 14.

[49] Panadero, E., Fraile, J., Fernández-Ruiz, J., Castilla-Estévez, D., & Brown, G. T. L. (2023). A review of peer assessment in higher education: Progress, challenges, and future directions. Educational Research Review, 39, 100530.

[50] Resnik, D. B. (2023). The ethics of research with human participants. Springer.

[51] Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2023). Research methods for business students (9th ed.). Pearson.

[52] Taber, K. S. (2024). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in education. Research in Science Education, 54(1), 1–17.

[53] Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 11(1), 8–27.

[54] Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2022). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1019–1033.

[55] Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2023). Developing evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 557–571.

[56] Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2023). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(4), 857–871.

[57] Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2023). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(2), 123–140.

[58] UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.

[59] UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO Publishing.

[60] UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024: Leadership in education. UNESCO Publishing.

[61] Volet, S., Vauras, M., Khosa, D., & Iiskala, T. (2024). Social regulation processes in collaborative learning in higher education: Recent advances and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 12.

[62] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

[63] World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025. World Economic Forum.

[64] World Medical Association. (2024). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human participants (2024 revision).

[65] Yin, R. K. (2024). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (7th ed.). Sage.

[66] Zhu, C., & Ergulec, F. (2023). Student perceptions of collaborative learning and peer assessment in higher education: A systematic review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 78, 101287.

[67] Zhu, C., & Ergulec, F. (2023). Students' perceptions of fairness and effectiveness in peer assessment during collaborative learning in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(4), 487–499.

Keywords :

Collaborative Assessment for Learning, Formative Assessment, Group Work, Social Constructivism, Constructive Alignment, Higher Education