Although practiced widely in management education, grading of student participation in class discussions has been criticized by researchers: The instructor simultaneously adopts two incompatible tasks of facilitating class discussion and evaluating student participation; students play for points instead of focusing on learning; and common, instructor-based grading schemes do not motivate all students equally. This article proposes a grading system that addresses these three concerns. The proposed system gives students peer feedback within the domain of participation in class discussion enabling instructors to focus on creating learning opportunities in the classroom. The proposed grading system, with interrater reliability exceeding .80, can easily be modified by individual instructors to suit their teaching styles.
Academy of Management Code of Ethical Conduct. ( 2005). Academy of Management Journal, 48, 358-361.
2.
Alexander, L.D., O'Neill, H.M., Snyder, N.H., & Townsend, J.B. (1986). How academy members teach the business policy/strategic management case course. Journal of Management Case Studies, 2, 334-344.
3.
Alsop, R. (2004, September 22). WSJ guide to business schools: Recruiter's top picks. The Wall Street Journal, p. R6.
4.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000). An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student learning and class participation in an Internet-based MBA course . Management Learning, 31, 503-519.
5.
Athanassiou, N., McNett, J.M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom's taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education,27, 533-555.
6.
Auster, C.J., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical study of the effects of the faculty members' behavior on students' participation. Teaching Sociology, 22, 289-300.
7.
Barnes, C.P. (1983). Questioning in college classrooms. In C. L. Ellner & C. P. Barnes (Eds.), Studies of college teaching (pp. 61-82). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
8.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
9.
Borman, W.C., & Bracken D.W. (1998). 360 degree appraisals. In C. Cooper & C. Argyris (Eds.), Encyclopedia of management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Business.
10.
Brookfield, S.D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Desiraju, R., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Encouraging participation in case discussions: A comparison of the MICA and the Harvard case methods. Journal of Management Education, 25, 394-408.
12.
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395-430.
13.
Ferris, W.P., & Hess, P.W. (1985). Peer evaluation of student interaction in organizational behavior and other courses. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 74-82.
14.
Fileva, M. (2004). Change-adept classroom. Journal of American Academy of Business,5, 183-187.
15.
Ghorpade, J., & Lackritz, J.R. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 274-281.
16.
Gilson, C. (1994). Of dinosaurs and sacred cows: The grading of classroom participation. Journal of Management Education, 18, 227-236.
17.
Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 10-14.
18.
Hiller, T.B., & Hietapelto, A.B. (2001). Contract grading: Encouraging commitment to the learning process through voice in the evaluation process . Journal of Management Education, 25, 660-684.
19.
Kane, J.S., & Lawler, E.E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin,85, 555-586.
20.
Kesner, I.F. (2001). The strategic management course: Tools and techniques for successful teaching. In M. A. Hitt , R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 671-696). Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
21.
Litz, R.A. (2003). Red light, green light and other ideas for class participation-intensive courses: Method and implications for business ethics education. Teaching Business Ethics, 7, 365-378.
22.
Lord, A.T., & Melvin, K.B. (1994). The prof/peer method: A technique to rate class participation. Issues in Accounting Education, 9, 109-118.
23.
McKeachie, W.J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
24.
Melvin, K.B. (1988). Rating class participation: The prof/peer method . Teaching of Psychology, 15, 137-139.
25.
Reeves, C.A., & Bednar, D.A. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and implications . Academy of Management Review, 19, 419-445.
26.
Serva, M.A., & Fuller, M.A. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28, 19-38.
27.
Sherrard, W.R., Raafat, F., & Weaver, R.R. (1994). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. Journal of Education for Business , 70, 43-47.
28.
Smith, W.J. (1994). Comment on “Of dinosaurs and sacred cows: the grading of classroom participation.” Journal of Management Education, 18(2), 237-240.
29.
Thomas, A.S. (1999). Introducing students to business policy and strategy: Two exercises to increase participation and interest. Journal of Management Education, 23, 428-436.
30.
Toegel, G., & Conger, J.A. (2003). 360-degree assessment: Time for reinvention. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 297-311.
