Fairness in Student Group Formation:Perspectives, Priorities, Compromises, Mechanisms, and Tooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allocating students to groups is a critical yet under-researched challenge in computing education, with significant implications for fairness and student outcomes. Little is known about existing allocation approaches and their treatment of fairness, whilst practical realities faced by educators and students remain largely undocumented. Without rigorous attention to fairness, group formation risks amplifying bias and disadvantaging vulnerable students. This study provides the first holistic exploration of fairness in group formation within higher-education computing contexts through a systematic review of 262 papers, analysis of 18 allocation tools, interviews with 20 educators, and six student focus groups. Findings reveal a lack of evidence linking fairness definitions to groupwork characteristics, processes, and outcomes. To address this gap, we propose a framework for pedagogically informed group formation that embeds fairness, supporting educator decision-making and improving student experiences. We also establish definitions of fairness, groupwork characteristics, and processes to guide future research in computing education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".