Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article explores factors influencing classroom assessment approaches by analyzing survey data from 326 U.S. college instructors teaching business, communication, and composition. Business and communication instructors adopt nontraditional grading methods far less than composition instructors. Departmental culture and disciplinary norms are major influences, along with constraints like class size, time, and technology. The article argues that instructors can and should question departmental grading norms to develop assessment methods that enhance learning in interdisciplinary courses like business communication.

Keywords

academic identity assessment grading grading contracts specifications grading ungrading

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blum

S. D.

(Ed.). (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/20/edited_volume/book/78367

Brookhart

S. M.

Guskey

T. R.

(Eds.). (2019). Reliability in grading and grading scales. In Guskey

T. R.

Brookhart

S. M.

(Eds.), What we know about grading: What works, what doesn’t, and what’s next (pp. 17–37). ASCD.

Cain

Medina

Romanelli

Persky

(2022). Deficiencies of traditional grading systems and recommendations for the future. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(7), 8850. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8850

Carillo

E. C.

(2021). The hidden inequities in labor-based contract grading. University Press of Colorado. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv20zbkwn.4

Carless

Kwan

Kwok

(2023). Disciplinary perspectives on feedback processes: Towards signature feedback practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863355

Chollet

Marsella

Scherer

(2022). Training public speaking with virtual social interactions: Effectiveness of real-time feedback and delayed feedback. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 16(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-021-00371-1

Cowan

(2020). A legacy of grading contracts for composition. Journal of Writing Assessment, 13(2), 0j28w67h. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0j28w67h

Danielewicz

Elbow

(2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 244–268.

Davis

H. T.

(2023). Ungrading: Self-assessment, effort, and motivation. Composition Studies, 51(2), 143–147.

10.

Elbow

(1997). Grading student writing: Making it simpler, fairer, clearer. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(69), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.6911

11.

Elkins

D. M.

(2016). Grading to learn: An analysis of the importance and application of specifications grading in a communication course. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 35(2), 26–48.

12.

Fernandes

Brier

McIntyre

(2023). We’re all still grading: A call for honesty in writing assessment discourse. Composition Studies, 51(2), 148–152.

13.

Ferns

Hickey

Williams

(2021). UnGrading, supporting our students through a pedagogy of care. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 12(2), 5.

14.

Fielding

Hughes

(2013). Opening up open-ended survey data using qualitative software. Quality & Quantity, 47(6), 3261–3276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9716-1

15.

Froehlich

D. E.

Guias

(2021). Multimodal video-feedback: A promising way of giving Feedback on student research. Frontiers in Education, 6, 763203. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.763203

16.

Gartner

W. B.

(1993). Dr. Deming comes to class. Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299301700201

17.

Guskey

T. R.

Brookhart

S. M.

(Eds.). (2019). What we know about grading: What works, what doesn’t, and what’s next. ASCD.

18.

Henderson

Phillips

(2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1878

19.

Iamarino

D. L.

(2014). The benefits of standards-based grading: A critical evaluation of modern grading practices. Current Issues in Education, 17(2), 1–10.

20.

Inoue

A. B.

(2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. University Press of Colorado.

21.

Inoue

A. B.

(2024). University Press of Colorado—Cripping labor-based grading for more equity in literacy courses. WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/practice/cripping/

22.

Johnson

(2022). Grading for process: Using the portfolio to emphasize process in technical communication [Conference session]. 2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), Limerick, Ireland, 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1109/ProComm53155.2022.00052

23.

Jones

Hidiroglou

(2013). Capturing, coding, and cleaning survey data. In Snijkers

Haraldsen

Jones

Willimack

D. K.

(Eds.), Designing and conducting business surveys (pp. 459–504). Wiley Online Library.

24.

Jones Miller

(2013). A better grading system: Standards-based, student-centered assessment. The English Journal, 103(1), 111–118.

25.

Lauer

J. M.

(1984). Compositionstudies: Dappled discipline. Rhetoric Review, 3(1), 20–29.

26.

Mathison

(2019). Sojourning in disciplinary cultures: A case study of teaching writing in engineering. University Press of Colorado.

27.

Mathison

Berkland

M. K.

(2019). Sojourners and third cultures. In Mathison

M. A.

(Eds.), Sojourning in disciplinary cultures: A case study of teaching writing in engineering. University Press of Colorado.

28.

Nilson

L. B.

(2023). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447061

29.

Rivera

Groleau

(2021). Student and faculty transformations from teaching wicked geography problems: A journey of transdisciplinary teaching between business and geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(4), 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1869925

30.

Sorensen-Unruh

(2024). The ungrading learning theory we have is not the ungrading learning theory we need. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(3), es6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-01-0031

31.

Spidell

Thelin

W. H.

(2006). Not ready to let go: A study of resistance to grading contracts. Composition Studies, 34(1), 35–68.

32.

Tchudi

(Ed.). (1997). Alternatives to grading student writing. National Council of Teachers of English.

33.

Tierney

W. G.

(2023). The impact of culture on organizational decision-making: Theory and practice in higher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447887

34.

Vaughn

Turner

(2016). Decoding via coding: Analyzing qualitative text data through thematic coding and survey methodologies. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105035

35.

Vealey

K. P.

Rivers

N. A.

(2014). Dappled discipline at thirty: An interview with Janice M. Lauer. Rhetoric Review, 33(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2014.884418

36.

Von Bergen

(2023). Defining ungrading: Alternative writing assessment as Jeremiad. Composition Studies, 51(2), 137–142.

37.

Waisbord

S. R.

(2019). Communication: A post-discipline. Polity.

38.

Welsh

(2019). Standards-based grading. In Guskey

T. R.

Brookhart

S. M.

(Eds.), What we know about grading: What works, what doesn’t, and what’s next (pp. 132–165). ASCD.

39.

Woods

(2024). Student attitudes and perceptions of justice toward specification grading in an undergraduate management course. Global Journal of Business Pedagogy (GJBP), 8(1), 1–20.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

Nontraditional Grading at the Nexus of Business,Communication,and Composition

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material