The good, the bad and the controversial: the practicalities and pitfalls of the grading of class participation.

The good, the bad and the controversial: the practicalities and pitfalls of the grading of class participation. INTRODUCTION The concept of student involvement and participation in thelearning process is rooted in the Socratic Method of inquiry, traceableback to the times of Plato and Socrates. It is utilized to facilitatethe development of critical thinking skills, particularly related toconceptually complex or controversial issues. Indeed the Socratic Methodhas provided the foundation for classroom instruction in law and otherdisciplines as well as been widely applied in various modes oforganizational training (Maxwell, 2007). Researchers have beenattempting to determine the impact of class discussion and participationon learning and performance since as early as 1925. These early studiesfound no significant relationship between levels of participation andtest scores but a significant relationship between levels ofparticipation and the ability to recall material several months afterits presentation (Bane, 1925). Numerous subsequent studies over theyears have attempted to assess the impact of class participation onlearning as well as determine factors that affect levels ofparticipation, as will be discussed herein. Many of the more recent studies of class participation have focusedon participation as a critical component of shifting learner-centeredteaching paradigms. As instructional methodologies have evolved from thetraditional lecture, which encompasses passive learning, to more activelearning pedagogies in which students participate, more attention hasbeen paid to the role of class participation on learning. Indeed, it hasbeen argued that grading class participation is consistent with andreinforces the popular paradigm of teaching that focuses on activelearning and student development (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005; Dallimore,Hertenstein and Platt, 2006). Such ideas are premised on the assumption that academic performancecan not and should not exclusively be measured simply by assessments ofthe quality of written work turned in. The reason for this is that noteverything learned in class will appear on exams or form the basis forassignments (Marnola, 2005) and more so, class participation is"live" and, as a result, can't be faked or plagiarized.Indeed class participation requires that students be actively, ratherthan passively, involved and engaged in the learning process (Halgas andStoner, 2007). Within the management disciplines class participation hasbecome somewhat of a norm. Assessment of class participation is almostubiquitous in management courses, especially the capstone strategycourse. One survey found that 94.3% of respondents evaluated classparticipation in undergraduate management classes (O'Neill, Snyderand Townsend, 1986). Another reported that 93 percent of core curriculumcourses included class participation as a component of course grades,even though the assessments were used in some cases as a "fudgefactor," where a student's final borderline course grade wasultimately decided based on their participation (Bean and Peterson,1998). Clearly the popularity of grading class participation merits aclose look at the factors which affect it as well as the controversiesand issue surrounding its use. CRITICISMS Despite this proliferation of graded class participation inmanagement education, many criticisms of the process have been levied.Among the most prominent of these criticisms is the fact that thegrading of class participation is highly subjective and theinterpretation of student behavior can be difficult (Bean and Peterson,1998). In addition to this subjectivity, it has been argued that gradingclass participation also requires a very diligent and systematictracking and recording system which can be cumbersome and time-consumingto design and implement (Lord and Melvin, 1994). Some have gone to sofar to characterize this inherent subjectivity as means of behavioralcontrol and manipulation and an abuse of power by faculty (Gilson,1994). As passionate as these assertions may be, it is important torecognize that while the grading of participation can be highlysubjective, the nature of performance feedback that students willencounter in the real world is similarly highly subjective. More so,"performance" relative to class participation is probably oneof the truest measures of actual performance that instructors haverelative to other means of grading students due to its focus onbehavior. Combine this with the fact that the grading of most writtenwork submitted by students is similarly highly subjective. The onlydifference between graded class participation and graded written work isthat with graded class participation there is generally no evidenceavailable after the fact for disputes of grades (Bean and Peterson,1998), unless the participation took place in an online environment andhas been archived. These factors greatly weaken the argument against thegrading of class participation due to its subjectivity. A second criticism of graded class participation is that it can beintimidating to certain students whose personalities usually render theminto more passive modes of interaction (Bean and Peterson, 1998; Manzerand Rassuli, 2005). Indeed, it has been argued that gradingparticipation does not reward learning, per se, but rather rewards thosewho possess the ability and willingness to verbalize their learning(Gilson, 1994). It has been further noted that while gradedparticipation is a "useful pedagogy," it suffers from theproblems that 1) some students still fail to prepare adequately forclass and 2) some students prepare but are unable to communicate thisreadiness to the instructor (Litz, 2003). More so,participation-intensive classes can often turn into high-pressureenvironments where students compete/fight to get appropriate "airtime" (Litz, 2003). In larger classes it may simply be next toimpossible for students to get sufficient "air time" as welldue to the sheer numbers of students who may be waiting to be called onby the instructor. While these criticisms do have some validity, they need to beconsidered within the context of the realities of the workplace. Thoseemployees who are most prone to be noticed by management and "getahead" are those who are active and contributing participants inthe work of their units and able to lead/influence others. Classparticipation is an exceptional means of preparing students for therealities they will encounter in their workplaces. Indeed, one of thekey jobs of management educators is to create a classroom environmentconducive to sharing, risk taking, debate and developing interpersonalcommunication and persuasion skills. A third criticism of graded participation is the assertion thatmany cultures, particularly those of Eastern/Asian societies, don'tpromote active involvement in learning but, rather passive compliance.Confucian principles see teachers as "givers of knowledge"with that knowledge considered a gift to students and acknowledged assuch. More so, the strict respect and reverence which many culturesadvocate for teachers implies that a teacher is not to be challenged andthat questions should not be asked for fear of insulting the teacher aswell as embarrassing the student and class. The educational systems ofsuch societies do not encourage or even condone participation, hencestudents are not provided with the skills necessary to articulate theirlearning or effectively participate in class (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005).Adding to this challenge is the fact that, for some students,participation is stifled further by being brought up in a country orsociety where citizens are fearful of government surveillance andretribution for their words or actions (Simpson, 2002). This criticism of graded class participation is probably the mostsalient as it forces an instructor to question value systems as well asthe responsibility of the instructor toward understanding andaccommodating cultural differences. Many, of course, can adopt the"when in Rome" mindset and argue that students from othercultures have chosen to study in America due to perceptions of both thevalue and perceived superiority over the kind of instruction they wouldreceive in their homelands. Because American culture is more active thanpassive, it can be argued that these students seek the benefits ofstudying in such a culture. More so, these students retain theopportunity to salvage their course grades via other components of finalgrades, such as exams and papers. As ethnocentric as such an argumentmay be, there is validity to and strong support for it (Soontiens,2004). Regardless, an instructor still needs to consider the ethicaldimensions of forced, graded participation on students who are notprepared for such an environment. On a more moderate level, it can be argued that students from othercultures, whether they actively participate in class or not, stillbenefit from hearing the experiences and opinions of their classmates.Indeed, active learning strategies are based on the premise thatstudents can contribute greatly to the learning of their peers through asharing of their own experiences and points of view. More so, as will beexplained later, the grading of class participation can take manydifferent forms and need not consist solely of individual spokenexpression in front of classmates. A fourth criticism of graded participation is that it can providevery little "value added" to a class, particularly if studentsare focused on the quantity rather than the quality of theirparticipation. Indeed, participation can often involve thecounterproductive norm of simply talking rather than demonstratedthinking (Gioia, 1991). It can also impact class dynamics if not managedproperly, as students who talk excessively in class become thought of as"rate busters," who raise the instructor's expectationsfor the remainder of the class (Karp and Yoels, 1976). This isparticularly true if participation is graded on a relative basis butalso holds true if participation is graded on an absolute basis. The lack of "value added" criticism of classparticipation can be quite true but, more than any of the othercriticisms, is one of over which instructors have total control. Inposing questions to the class, instructors can ask thought, synthesis,and application questions rather than those which focus strictly onrecall or restatement. More so, an instructor can easily define what isexpected and to be rewarded relative to class participation by providingspecific behavioral examples in a course syllabus. Indeed, one of thechief concerns that students express relative to the grading of classparticipation is that they are unaware of what constitutes acceptableparticipation for the instructor. Some students simply assume thatattendance is participation while others may assume that any verbalinput to the class constitutes participation. Instructors not only havean obligation to define and provide specific behavioral examples of whatconstitutes meritorious participation in their minds, but doing soweakens the criticism of participation providing limited or no valueadded. BENEFITS To counter many of the criticisms of graded class participation,numerous benefits have been cited that derive from grading classparticipation. The first benefit reported is that graded classparticipation generally results in better prepared students. Because onecan truly only participate if one prepares for class, the grading ofclass participation sends a strong message about the importance of andneed for preparing for each class session. Grading participation resultsin improved class discussion through enhance preparation (Reinsch andWambsganss, 1994; Dallimore, Hertenstein and Platt, 2004). Graduatebusiness students have reported that the quality of participation andeffectiveness of discussion were enhanced by making participationrequired/graded (Dallimore, Hertenstein and Platt, 2004). The second benefit is that graded class participation encouragesstudents to share their personal experiences, facilitating real-worldlearning and application of material. While this may hold true more forgraduate than undergraduate students, all undergraduate studentsconsider verbal participation in class to be essential as an aid totheir own learning process (Fritschner, 2000). Students with any kind ofwork experience can provide application of course concepts or discussionpoints that are grounded in the reality of the workplace. This not onlyfacilitates deeper learning on the part of classmates but allowsinstructors to learn from their students as well and gain a betterconnection to the real world, creating a true learning environment. A third benefit of graded participation is that it preparesstudents for "participation" on the job. This is true relativeto the development of a variety of skills and preparation for variousparticipative management practices, including, but not limited to,verbal presentations, career advancement, teamwork and interpersonalcommunication skills, peer evaluations and multi-rater (360 degree)feedback. The particular value of encouraging student participation inthe classroom is that the risk factors associated with possiblepenalties for errors are much lower in the classroom than they are inmost organizational settings. Participation allows students to developmore confidence, practice researching their points and being prepared torebut challenges with facts and data, and point out flaws in the logicof counter arguments. Indeed, students generally do not takeexaminations (except for licensure) on the job; they are evaluated basedon their behavior, contribution and outcomes. Many studies have argued the merits of graded participationrelative to workplace preparation. One study found that active classparticipation strengthens public speaking skills, in addition tofacilitating class cohesion and helping instructors identify materialwhich students may be having difficulty comprehending (Zaremba and Dunn,2004). Another found the direct benefits of graded participation toinclude the development of critical thinking, active learning andlistening skills (Bean and Peterson, 1998). Even one of the more vocalcritics of graded class participation has admitted that it reflects thereal world of management practice where verbal presentation andarticulation of arguments are important skills (Gilson, 1994). In tandem with the benefit of preparation for the realities of theworkplace but deserving of special mention is the fact that graded classparticipation facilitates the development of critical communicationskills, which hiring managers frequently cite as one of the mostsought-after skill sets for the hiring of entry and mid-level jobs.Grading class participation has been found to help satisfy the demand ofemployers for graduates with better communication as well asinterpersonal skills (Smith, 1994). This is, in part, due to the factthat participation requires students to listen to others as well asvoice their own opinions and positions (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005).Indeed, AACSB-International has cited "communicationabilities" at the top of its list of knowledge and skills areas tobe evaluated for assurance of learning (AACSB, 2007). A fifth benefit of graded class participation is its focus onbehavioral outcomes, which are less readily available for measure andfeedback than other traditional methods of assessing performance in theclassroom. Indeed, outcomes of class participation include an increasingmotivation to learn and focus on the student's individualresponsibility for learning (Le Brun and Johnstone, 1994). More so,instructors can explain, model and reinforce sought-afterparticipation-related behaviors and provide more measured and regularfeedback on this dimension of performance than can be provided byexaminations or written papers. A sixth benefit of graded participation is that it teaches studentsto "think on their feet," which is often necessary in anemployment setting when dealing with supervisors, co-workers andcustomers. Students are able to assume a greater role in andresponsibility for their learning as graded class participationencourages active learning in the classroom (Smith, 1994). This isparticularly true in situations where an instructor utilizes "coldcalling" as a means of engaging students to participate (Dallimore,Hertenstein and Platt, 2004). Another benefit of graded participation is the simple fact thatclass participation can't be faked. In order to participatestudents need to attend class and verbally demonstrate their learning.There is a voluminous literature on the prevalence of academicdishonesty, which including cheating on exams, plagiarism and simplypurchasing or obtaining the work of others to be submitted as one'sown (Evans, Trevino and Weaver, 2006; McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield,2001; Jendrek, 1989). Indeed, management education relies heavily onout-of-class work that is to be submitted for a grade and numerousstudies have documented the questionable ethics of many businessstudents, both at the undergraduate and graduate level. Participationaffords no opportunities for academic dishonesty. A final but generally unacknowledged benefit of gradedparticipation is its value as a diversity initiative. By encouraging theparticipation of students from diverse backgrounds, the depth oflearning can be enhanced by considering different viewpoints andexperiences on an issue or subject. As an example, certainly anydiscussion of ethical beliefs, which are often grounded in religious,societal and/or ethnic values, can be enhanced by the contribution ofdiverse points of view. However, as mentioned previously, some culturesstress very passive compliance in the classroom so mere physicalpresence in classroom is insufficient to allow students to fully takeadvantage of this learning opportunity. Indeed a lack of participationin diverse classroom settings reinforces majority status of gender,race, class, etc. However, if facilitated and managed appropriately,class participation can greatly enhance learning by providing a deeperunderstanding of diversity. WHAT WE KNOW In light of the above benefits and criticisms, in order to morefully understand how to best utilize graded class participation formaximum effectiveness it is useful to take a look at what we know aboutclass participation. Numerous empirical studies have examinedparticipation relative to a variety of variables and provide a very richevidence-based literature to consider. First, perceptions of what constitutes participation differ amongstudents. "Talkers" define participation as voluntarilyspeaking out whereas quieter students define participation much morebroadly, to include attendance, active listening, sitting in theirseats, completing assignments and being prepared for class (Fritschner,2000). Students also believe that non-traditional students have betteropportunities to participate because they have more to offer in terms ofthe experience they bring to the classroom (Fritschner, 2000). Thesefacts certainly have implications for instructors relative to the needto define participation for class as well as offer examples of the typesof participation that are to be valued. In addition, even in smallclasses, only a few students tend to participate and in classes of allsizes, students became irritated with peers who were especiallytalkative (Karp and Yoels, 1976). In general, three to five studentsaccount for 50-75% of all student comments in any given class,regardless of size (Howard, Short and Clark, 1996). This has obviousimplications for the need to prevent domination by individual studentsand ensure that a variety of students are allowed to participate. Second, there are factors that clearly correlate with the level ofparticipation in classrooms. As role distance between students andinstructors decreases, participation increases. Participation alsoincreases with the number of years in college (Auster and MacRone,1994). Increased participation becomes apparent as the semesterprogresses and the impact of a student's age on verbalparticipation is far more pronounced than that of gender. Confirming thebeliefs that non-traditional students have enhanced opportunities forparticipation, a greater percentage of nontraditional students thantraditional students participates in class discussions (Howard, Shortand Clark, 1996; Fritschner, 2000). Relative to the type ofparticipation, student-initiated discussion is the most frequent meansof participation in upper-level courses while for lower-level classes,instructor-initiated questions form the basis for the majority ofparticipation (Fritschner, 2000). Third, there are numerous reasons why students may fail toparticipate in class. Among them are 1) the fear of being ridiculed byother students; 2) larger classes sizes, which inhibit participation; 3)an aversive instructor; 4) the inability of the instructor to facilitateparticipation effectively; 5) a traditional classroom layout with allstudents facing the front of the room (and the instructor); 6) a lack ofstudent interest in the subject; 7) insufficient sleep the previousnight on the part of students; 8) introversion of individual students;and other factors such as room temperature, time of day, and classlength (Berdine, 1986). Another study found additional factors thataffected non-participation include shyness, classroom dynamics(domineering students) and culture and barriers (Vandrick, 2000). A number of studies have looked at gender and its role in classparticipation and yielded varied conclusions. One general study found nostatistical gender-based differences in student participation (Hyde andDeal, 2003). Another found that males did not predominate in classdiscussion, either in rate or participation or weight of contribution(Dillon, 2001) while still another found that females tend toparticipate more as course levels increase (Fritschner, 2000).Differences in male-female participation can be accounted for by no morecomplex a factor than male-female presence in the classroom (Dillon,2001). More instructor-initiated questions, instructor-directedinteractions and instructor feedback are given to males than females(She, 2001). Several studies have found that the medium of communicationmoderates the relationship between gender and participation. Electroniccommunication favors women in that the medium gives everyone the sameopportunity to "speak" and join the conversation withoutanyone necessarily dominating the conversation (Finley, 1992; Strauss1996). Electronic communication, unlike a classroom setting, providesthe opportunity for multiple students to participate simultaneously.Also, social cues and physical presence that may allow men to dominateclassroom participation are removed in an electronic setting (Rice,1984; Sproull and Kiesler, 1991; Tannen, 1995). Female participation in class discussion is enhanced in aninternet-based course as collaboration is better facilitated by thismedium (Arbaugh, 2000). This is due to the fact that men communicate viathe internet in a more competitive mode, designed to elevate their ownstatus or lowering that of others, whereas women see cyberspace as ameans to develop increased collaboration and support networks to enhancethe learning experience of the entire group (Brunner, 1991; Canada andBruscha, 1991; Gefen and Straub, 1997; Herring, 1996). This is rooted ingender-based communications theory that finds that men tend tocommunicated based on social hierarchy and competition whereas womentend to be more network-oriented and collaborative (Kilbourne and Weeks,1997; Tannen, 1995). As previously noted, graded class participation has been criticizedfor showing partiality to Western cultural mores over Eastern traditionsof harmony and respect. One significant study examined this dynamic indepth, noting that one of the most visible differences Asian studentsbring to class is their significantly lower level of class participation(Tani, 2004). Such behavior is rooted in Confucian values which stressthe value of harmony over conflict, and of collective versus individualexpression. As a result, many students prefer to confer in private withthe instructor rather than in front of the class. This is attributableto students' need to maintain "face," or the personaldignity of themselves and others. Asking questions during a lecture canbe considered disrespectful or threaten the student's standing inthe larger class. Responding to inquiries of understanding from theinstructor in the affirmative, regardless of level of understanding,also helps to maintain 'face." Because correctness is a highlydesired component of Asian culture and communication, students will dowhatever they can to prevent themselves from appearing foolish in class,whether related to the subject matter or grammar or pronunciation.However, this behavior appears to be confined to the classroom as, incontrast, most Asian students are very talkative outside of the classand during instructor office hours (Tani, 2004). These results show onedimension of the cultural influences on classroom behavior, notablyparticipation, which must be considered by an instructor who wishes tomaximize the pedagogical value of having full participation amongstudents in the classroom. AREAS OF UNEASINESS As noted earlier, even the staunchest advocates of gradingparticipation can struggle with both its content and process. This islargely due to the fact that those who chose to grade participation needto confront four issues; 1) defining participation; 2) managingparticipation; 3) addressing the subjectivity of participation; and 4)rethinking the role of the instructor in a participation-oriented class. One frequent criticism of students at the end of a semester is thatthey have no idea how their participation grade was determined and/orthey disagree with the grade they received. Typically this is the resultof an assessment by students that their participation merited a highergrade than that assigned by the instructor. Indeed, it has been notedthat the lack of clarity on what participation really is and differinginterpretations of what constitutes participation can confound gradingdilemmas faced by instructors (Cole and Gunz, 1998). Faculty who choose to grade participation face two issues in thisregard; 1) setting appropriate expectations for students by defininggood from poor participation and 2) developing a means of measuring thequality of participation that is as free from bias as possible (Lord andMelvin, 1994). It is critical that instructors clearly explain, both inthe course syllabus and during the initial class meeting, the criteriathat will be used to arrive at a participation grade for each student.Providing a clear explanation of instructor expectations relative toparticipation can remove erroneous student assumptions that simplyshowing up for class constitutes participation or that any kind of"talk" is to be considered participation (Helms and Haynes,1990). Toward this end, it is important to not reward everything that issaid but rather acknowledge those points that further a discussion orlead to heightened understanding of a concept (Gioia, 1991). However,there is no prescription as to what should constitute acceptableparticipation as such decisions should be left to the instructorrelative to specific objectives, goals and learning outcomes that havebeen set for the course. Once the instructor has defined participation for a class, the nextissue that must be addressed is how to effectively manage participationwithin the classroom. Instructors have tremendous latitude relative tohow they manage and control, as well as define participation, and indoing so need to consider the various sources of interaction in theclassroom, which include 1) instructor initiated dialog, 2) studentinitiated dialog, 3) direct questions from the instructor, and 4)offhand comments (Howard, Short and Clark, 1996). While some instructors may have a set means or strategy formanaging participation, others are less comfortable dealing withclassroom dynamics. In areas such as accounting, for example, facultyhave often not been trained to specifically evaluate oral communicationsand presentation skills and are also faced with a curriculum that has a"correct" answer, which is not subject to interpretation (Lordand Melvin, 1994). This is true of most quantitatively-baseddisciplines. Management disciplines, on the other hand, particularlythose that deal with human behavior, legal issues, ethics and strategy,lend themselves to more discussion and analysis of issues that often donot have a "right" answer. In managing participation, instructors also need to remaincognizant of the fact that faculty reactions to student efforts toparticipate have reinforcing consequences. Hence, more desired forms ofparticipation should ideally elicit more favorable reactions forinstructors than reactions to less desired forms of participation.Instructor reactions can certainly extinguish the less desirable formsof participation but failure to recognize and have a positive reactionto desirable forms of participation can result in similar consequences.Faculty members are often unaware of the effects of their nonverbalcommunication, such as facial expressions, body language and tone ofvoice, and the effect that they had on class participation, particularlyin discouraging class participation. Students also form perceptions ofan instructor's interest in student participation based on theinstructor's speed of speech and pacing / pausing during theirspeech (Fritschner, 2000). The subjectivity inherent in the grading of class participation isan issue with which even the most staunch advocates of gradedparticipation struggle. Instructors often express displeasure oruneasiness over subjective grading procedures, which requireconsiderable care in balancing student perceptions and expectations overtheir grades (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005). As noted above, one issueassociated with grading participation is the individualinstructor's definition of exactly what constitutes"participation" (Helms and Haynes, 1990); however, this isjust the beginning of the dilemma. Even once participation has beendefined, it still remains a subjective, usually non-quantitative,assessment of performance. Indeed, it is virtually impossible togenerate truly objective assessments of class participation (Lyons,1989). This however, need not be problematic. As will be explained below,there are a variety of methods available to instructors to limit thepotential subjectivity biases inherent in the grading of participation.Above and beyond this, instructors can also clearly state in theirsyllabi and directly address with a class the fact that the grading ofparticipation is highly subjective and, for that reason, theinstructor's bases for grading participation is being clearlypresented to the class. This can greatly aid in reducing some of theanxiety inherent in the process for both students and instructors,particularly if done in tandem with providing students feedback duringthe semester as to how they're doing relative to participationrather than simply assign a grade at the end of the semester. Thecritical component of addressing the subjectivity issue is open andhonest communication with students regarding participation thatencourages a dialog between them and the instructor at the start of thesemester. An instructor who opts to grade participation, and particularly onewho is doing so for the first time, needs to consider the nature of therole of an instructor in a participation-oriented classroom. The role ofinstructor in such an environment needs to change from being subjectmatter expert who communicates knowledge to students to that of coach orfacilitator of student-centered learning (Gopinath, 1999). Managingparticipation requires a special skill of the instructor; a skill forensuring that participation is managed equitably (Gioia, 1991). Inaddition the instructor may need to assume diverse and multifacetedroles, which include facilitator, coach, cheerleader, iconoclast,questioner, integrator, supporter, referee, Socratic muser, occasionalanarchist and feigned dunce (Gioia, 1991). These different roles can bedisplayed via a variety of instructor behaviors which include 1)providing recapitulations and summaries; 2) making observations whichintegrate concepts and discussions: 3) citing relevant personalexamples; 4) asking key questions that lead to revealing discussions; 5)engaging in devil's advocacy; and 6) affording opportunities todisagree with the instructor (Gioia, 1991). Instructors need to not only facilitate discussion but move theclass toward a heightened understanding of the topic or subject ofdiscussion. This requires the creation and maintenance of anon-intimidating classroom environment or culture (Gioia, 1991). To makeparticipation effective, instructors need to facilitate participation,ask appropriate questions, create a supportive classroom environment andaffirm contributions via constructive feedback and reinforcement(Dallimore, Hertenstein and Platt, 2004). In order to do thiseffectively, instructors must deal responsibly with students who havepassive personality traits and/or low self-efficacy who, as a result,may not be inclined to participate (Smith, 1994). A variety of strategies can be used by instructors to draw suchstudents out of passive modes. Instructors are perceived to be more opento participation when they move closer to students and walk around theroom. Instructors can also encourage participation by calling onstudents by name, nodding in positive response and relaying their ownpersonal experiences, as self-disclosure by instructors removes any realor perceived psychological barriers of differential status betweenstudents and instructors (Fritschner, 2000). Of course, positivereinforcement of student comments encourages participation as well. VARIATIONS OF TRADITIONAL PARTICIPATION Instructors who see value in grading class participation but stillremain uncomfortable with the practice of doing so typically restrictthemselves by adopting a very narrow definition of"participation" and the their assessment of the behaviors thataccompany it. However, there are a number of variations of thetraditional Socratic method or of voluntary participation where studentsspeak in class and then receive a value-laded assessment frominstructors. As noted above, one of the most critical issues in consideringparticipation is how the instructor defines it. One suggestion is thatinstructors consider participation as either knowledge construction orthe willful intent to aid others with their understanding of materialand to conceptualize it as class "contribution" rather thanparticipation (Gioia, 1991). The manner in which an instructor definesparticipation can open up some variations of how participation can beassessed. One variation of traditional class participation involves allowingstudents themselves to define participation. Here the instructor playsmore of a facilitative role, allowing participation to be definedcollectively by the class or based on individual negotiations with theinstructor as to how each student will participate (or contribute) toclass. As an example, an individual student who is very introverted orunsure of their language abilities might have participation assessedwithin the context of their work in and contribution to a small group oreven on a one-on-one basis with the instructor. Student participation inthe development of the criteria for assessment should result in greateracceptance of process as well as the assessment made by faculty. Inaddition the development of the criteria is a learning experience as itallows students to negotiate or determine for themselves whatconstitutes acceptable versus unacceptable levels of participation(Lyons, 1989). Students can also have input in the process of their participationwhen they are allowed to self-regulate the behavior expected of them inclass. One advocate of such a system proposes giving students green,yellow and red colored name cards that they can display by choice,indicating their readiness to participate in each class session. Displayof the different colored cards results in an appropriate number of"points" (red--do not call on; yellow--acceptable for anythingbut in-depth interrogation; green--ready for unrestricted in-depthinterrogation) and students can not change colors once class begins.This approach attempts to respect the dignity of all students, ratherthan have them sit in silent frustration or be called upon when theywould prefer to remain silent (Litz, 2003). A second variation of traditional class participation involvesremoving at least part of the assessment of participation from theinstructor via one or a combination of two different scenarios. In thefirst scenario, students are allowed to self-evaluate their ownparticipation. Students can be given index cards or asked to submit abrief e-mail summary of their participation at the end of each class.Qualitative comments, such as whether other students commented on whatthey said, can be provided as well as quantitative summaries. Whenstudents write a self-assessment of their own participation, they areencouraged to think reflectively about their role in discussion andprovide the instructor with useful additional feedback about thestudents' perceptions of the classroom environment (Bean andPeterson, 1998). Students do look favorably upon self-assessment oftheir participation as one study found that this technique receivedoverwhelmingly favorable responses (Zaremba and Dunn, 2004). In the second scenario, participation is assessed by peers, eitherwithin the larger classroom or within groups. If done for the entireclass, students can nominate the students who've most contributedto their learning. In smaller group settings students can assess theirteammates' participation in either absolute or relative terms.There is significant support for the value of such assessments.Peer-based assessments have both reliability and validity (Hollander,1957; Love, 1981) and are also highly effective for small groups and incooperative learning environments (Ferris and Hess, 1985; Persons,1988). Peer assessments can also reinforce the need for students todirect comments to their colleagues and to challenge each other andgenerate discussion, rather than simply respond to the instructor'squestions. Knowing how and when to disagree with others is a valuableskill that can be carried into the workplace (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005). Implementation of a system of peer evaluation of classparticipation in tandem with assessments being made by the instructorallows the instructor the opportunity to receive corroboration onhis/her grading relative to whether it is free from bias and providesthe opportunity to revise any inaccurate assessments. Students find moresatisfaction with this grading system due to the fact that theirperceptions of its fairness are higher than that of instructor-onlygraded participation (Lord and Melvin, 1994). To counteract potentialleniency effects that can result from absolute peer ratings, instructorscan require that ranking or forced distribution be used, if the class isof sufficiently manageable size. In either case, peer evaluation can beused as a backup or means of verification of the instructor's(subjective) assessments to provide a significant degree of consistencybetween the participation grades assigned by the instructor and therelative peer assessments (Lord and Melvin, 1994). These potential benefits help to explain why self andpeer-assessment are the two most common alternatives to instructor-onlyassessments of performance (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005). Certainly,sharing of the assessment process with students can eliminate some ofthe uneasiness instructors might have about the subjectivity of theirown assessments as well as provide increased legitimacy in the eyes ofstudents. The subjectivity associated with assessing class participationcan be minimized by involving students in both specifying the criteriaby which participation is be assessed as well as allowing students toassess both themselves and their peers (Dancer and Kamvounias, 2005).However, there remains some instructor uneasiness about sharingresponsibility for grading with students due to bias and concerns aboutreliability as better students tend to underrate themselves and poorerstudents tend to overrate themselves (Manzer and Rassuli, 2005).Nonetheless, self and peer-assessment are consistent with theorganizational trend toward multi-rater or 360 degree feedback systemsand not only provide useful preparation for the world of work (Manzerand Rassuli, 2005) but also provide the opportunity for students todiscuss from a first-person perspective their own feelings about suchkinds of evaluative feedback. Indeed, such reflections could be preparedas journal entries in courses where instructors require students tomaintain reflective journals. Two of the more recent trends in assessing participation involvethe use of online chats and a focus on the development of specificskills. Online chats, of course, can be utilized in both fully onlineand hybrid courses and provide a more "level" playing fieldfor all students, particularly those who might be especially reserved ina classroom setting and/or insecure of their language skills. A focus onskills can turn the measures of participation toward the development andimprovement of skills in areas such as oral communications, platformskills, listening and answering questions skills and analytical skills,among others. Of course, such a focus requires an assessment at thestart of the course as well as at the end. Techniques for such arebeyond the scope of this discussion but have been well documented in themanagement education literature (McEvoy, 1998; Porter and McKibbin,1988). True assessments of class participation should focus on thedevelopment of students' oral communication skills as well as theirability to interact and cooperate with peers (Dancer and Kamvounias,2005). Focusing on either online chat behavior or skills addresses thefact that an instructor can not monitor all dimensions of classparticipation while conducting class in an effective manner. In anonline environment, chats can be archived and reviewed while in aclassroom setting it is possible to record class sessions andsubsequently review them to assign participation grades (Clarke, 1985).In either scenario, however, common standards for participation can beset, which include 1) preparation, 2) contribution to discussion, 3)group skills, 4) communication skills and 5) attendance (Dancer andKamvounias, 2005). One final variation of traditional class participation is for theinstructor to distribute questions beforehand and allow students toprepare written responses which they bring to class. Such a strategyprovides a more level playing ground and gives all students anopportunity to participate (Bean and Peterson, 1998). Of course, thetrade-off here is that students will not be required to "think ontheir feet," unless the instructors uses follow-up, probingquestions, parallel to a semi-structured interview format. On the otherhand, there is much support for random questions and cold-calling, whichallegedly result in better student preparation (McDougall and Cordeiro,1993), given the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding how theinstructor will conduct class sessions. Regardless of the strategy used,an instructor can chose to utilize pre-assigned questions exclusively,unannounced questions exclusively or some balance of the two. In tandemwith whatever strategy that is chosen, the instructor can also use"think breaks" or "time outs" (Gioia, 1991). Herethe entire class will have the option to think about responses beforevolunteering or being called upon. DESIGN ISSUES AND VARIABLES Regardless of whether an instructor wishes to grade participationin a more traditional sense or utilize some of the variations discussedabove, a number of design issues and variables that impact the efficacyof grading class participation need to be considered. While there is noone "perfect" way to incorporate the use of graded classparticipation, these issues and variables allow instructors to considerthe best way for them to do so within the context of how they delivertheir instruction and the learning objectives they have set. Instructors first need to determine whether participation will begraded on an absolute or relative basis. Absolute grading allows theinstructor to consider each student as an individual yet still take intoaccount differences among students. Relative grading assumes a levelplaying field in which the highest performing students receive thehighest grade based on their ranking relative to classmates. A variationof relative grading is placing students in groups for each letter gradeor point total and then ensuring that students within each group haveequal participation and that there is a sufficient distinction in theinstructor's mind on the participation levels betweengroups/classifications. Instructors also need to determine whether participation will bevoluntary or involuntary (i.e., cold calling). In making thisdetermination, instructors face the dilemma of what to do with studentswho are less inclined to volunteer (Dallimore, Hertenstein and Platt,2006). Calling on a student prior to asking a given question can putothers in a more passive mode so it may be advantageous for instructorswho cold call to pose the question to the entire class prior toselection of a respondent. Despite widespread concerns about coldcalling, students are not inherently uncomfortable with it and theprocess will increase voluntary participation frequency (Dallimore,Hertenstein and Platt, 2006). For instructors who don't believe inor feel less comfortable with cold calling, a middle ground can bereached by using the color-coded name cards, discussed above. Instructors also need to determine the frequency with which theywill provide feedback to students regarding their performance inparticipation. Issuing class participation grades at the end of thesemester doesn't allow students room to improve if they discover,after the fact, that the instructor's subjective assessment oftheir performance did not meet performance expectations. By providingformative feedback mid-way through the semester and normative feedbackat the end, students are able to take remedial action to improve theirperformance (Dancer and Kamvounias, 2005). Some instructors advocateweekly written feedback for students; however such a strategy isobviously not practical in large classes (Clarke, 1985). In addition,observations can be recorded without being communicated to students.Some instructors rely on memory to evaluate participation at the end ofthe semester while others record impressions following each classmeeting (Zaremba and Dunn, 2004). The former strategy can easily beclouded by the recency effect whereas the latter can result in the haloeffect relative to early judgments on the part of instructors. Theoverriding concern that must be addressed is that few instructors shareparticipation assessment feedback with students prior to calculatingfinal grades (Zaremba and Dunn, 2004). At that point, it's too latefor students to improve themselves and such a strategy doesn'tfacilitate learning and growth. Students need to know not only thecriteria by which participation is being assessed but also should havethe opportunity to improve as the semester progresses, much like they dorelative to specific subject matter knowledge and expertise. Instructors also need to consider participation within the contextof the classroom environment, class size, level of instruction andpreferred teaching style. The physical layout of a class can facilitateor inhibit participation. Participation can be facilitated by classroomswith moveable furniture (Gioia, 1991) or with a U-shaped layout (Beanand Peterson, 1998). Both of these arrangements allow all students tosee each other and interact more directly with each other through theuse and observation of nonverbal participation cues. Larger classes caninhibit participation but this can be addressed by utilizing smallergroups and/or separate discussion sections. The level of instruction andstudent backgrounds can aid participation as students who are older andhave more work experience generally have a greater opportunity toparticipate via the sharing of personal accounts and stories. Executiveclasses, for example, frequently have a high graded participationcomponent, given how much learning takes place from individual studentcontributions and classroom exchange. Finally, the instructor'spreferred pedagogical style and course objectives can help determine theappropriate level of participation and the extent to which it should begraded. Lecture-oriented classes and those that stress the acquisitionof factual knowledge are less appropriate for participation that thosethat utilize experiential learning or cases analyses. Finally, the culture of the academic program in which students areenrolled as well as the specific classroom culture can affectparticipation. Some programs and courses involve a good deal ofcompetition between students, particularly in highly selective MBAprograms. Instructors need to consider how participation grades shouldbe assigned to students who appear to be prepared yet fail to "gainentry" into the discussion (Litz, 2003). This can be evident whencertain class members dominate a discussion and other students raisetheir hands but then lower them after someone else makes a comment.Highly competitive programs frequently involve a good deal ofparticipation that has no value added. Negative types of classparticipation that have been identified include 1) disruptive talking,2) inaudible responses, 3) sleeping in class, 4) tardiness and poorattendance, 5) failure to prepare for class, 6) cheating on tests andquizzes, 7) unwillingness to speak in the language of instruction(Wadden and McGovern, 1991). Students generally should receive no creditfor asking questions that should be evident from the assignments orother forms of participation that demonstrates that the students was notfully prepared for class (Reinsch and Wambsganss, 1994). To aid in the development of an appropriate class culture thatfacilitates and enhances value-added participation, instructors need tocommunicate those kinds of participation that are sought and valued andreinforce them when they occur. Similarly, instructors need to beactively involved in managing the classroom "climate."Competitive and/or aggressive behavior can happen only if instructorallows it. The setting of class interaction norms, expectations forstudent preparation and encouraged student-to-student interactions allinfluence the level of class involvement/participation (Fassinger,1995). CONCLUSION The grading of class participation is certainly an area in whichmanagement educators have strong feelings, some of which may have beenheightened or possibly altered by the above discussion. Grading classparticipation usually involves a significant amount of work for aninstructor relative to both learning names and actively managingclassroom processes. It can only be effective if an instructor definesand explains what constitutes effective participation. It is alsoimportant that instructors remain cognizant of the fact thatparticipation is value-based and that they need to be aware of theirinherent subjective biases. There is nothing wrong with admitting tostudents that participation assessments are highly subjective and thissubjectivity can be related to the fact that essay exams and papers aswell as real world assessments of performance are similarly generallyhighly subjective. The correlation between grades, performance andlearning is never perfect regardless of the means of assessment(Lewicki, 1991). The reality of the world of work is that employees arerarely evaluated on totally objective criteria and class participationassessments parallel this process. Giving students some"voice" and say in how their participation will be assessedcan greatly assist in gaining their belief in and commitment to not onlythe process of graded class participation but its outcomes as well. Perhaps the most critical caveat concerning the grading ofparticipation is that it should not be cursory but rather linked tospecific learning objectives/outcomes in order to be effective. Successtoward achieving those objectives can be reached as students will adjusttheir study habits when they see participation being graded regularlyand consistently (Bean and Peterson, 1998). However, it is critical foran instructor to have a defensible measure of participation (Helms andHaynes, 1990). Once these systems are in place instructors can develop asystem for grading class participation with which both they and theirstudents will feel comfortable that can also aid in critical learningobjectives or skill development. BIBLIOGRAPHY AACSB (2007). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standardsfor Business Accreditation. January 21, 2007, 72. Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). An Exploratory Study of the Effects ofGender on Student Learning and Class Participation in an Internet-BasedMBA Course. Management Learning, 31, (4), 503-519 Auster, C. J. and MacRone, M. (1994). The Classroom As A NegotiatedSocial Setting: An Empirical Study of the Effects of FacultyMembers' Behavior On Students' Participation. TeachingSociology, 22, 289-300. Bane, C.L. (1925). The Lecture Versus the Class Discussion Methodof College Teaching. School and Society, 21, 300-302. Bean, J.C. and Peterson, D. (1998). Grading Class Participation.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74, 33-40. Berdine, R. (1986). Why Some Students Fail to Participate in Class.Marketing News, 20, (15), 23-24. Brunner, C. (1991). Gender and Distance Learning. Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 133-45, Beverly Hills,CA: Sage. Canada, K. and Bruscha, F. (1991). The Technological Gender Gap:Evidence and Recommendation for Educators and Computer-based InstructionDesigners. Education Technology Research and Development, 39, (2),43-51. Clarke, E. G. (1985). Grading Seminar Performance. CollegeTeaching, 33, 129-133. Cole, N.C. and Gunz, H.P. (1998). Grading Class Participation:Listening for One Hand Clapping? Paper presented at the meeting of theAcademy of Management, San Diego. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H. and Platt, M. B. (2006).Nonvoluntary Class Participation In Graduate Discussion Courses: Effectsof Grading and Cold Calling. Journal of Management Education, 30, (2),354-377. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H. and Platt, M. B. (2004).Classroom Participation and Discussion Effectiveness: Student-GeneratedStrategies. Communication Education, 53, (1), 103-115. Dancer, D. and Kamvounias, P. (2005). Student Involvement inAssessment: A Project Designed to Assess Class Participation Fairly andReliably. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, (4),445-454. Dillon, J. T. (2001). Male-Female Similarities in ClassParticipation. Journal of Educational Research, 75, (6), 350-353. Evans, J.M., Trevino, L.K. and Weaver, G. R. (2006). Who's inthe Ethics Driver's Seat? Factors Influencing Ethics in the MBACurriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, (3),294-305. Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Professors' and Students'Perceptions of Why Students Participate In Class. Teaching Sociology,24, 25-33. Ferris, W. P. and Hess, P. W. (1985). Peer Evaluation of StudentInteraction in Organizational Behavior and Other Courses. TheOrganizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 74-82 Finley, M. (1992). Belling the Bully. HR Magazine, 37, (3), 82-86. Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the Undergraduate CollegeClassroom: Faculty and Students Differ on the Meaning of StudentParticipation. Journal of Higher Education, 71, (3), 342-362. Gefen, D. and Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender Differences in thePerception and Use of E-mail: An Extension to the Technology AcceptanceModel. MIS Quarterly, 21, (4), 389-400. Gilson, C. (1994). Of Dinosaurs and Sacred Cows: The Grading ofClass Participation. Journal of Management Education, 18, (2), 227-236 Gioia, D. A. (1991). Contribution! Not Participation in the OBClassroom. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 11, (4), 5-20. Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternative to Instructor Assessment of ClassParticipation. Journal of Education for Business, 75, (1), 10-14. Halgas, J. T. & Stoner, M. R. (2007). Partnership in Practice:Fostering a Mentoring Relationship to Meet the Challenges of A LargeLegal Environment of Business Class. Journal of Legal Studies Education,21, (1), 109-127. Helms, M. and Haynes, M. (1990). Using A "Contest" toFoster Class Participation and Motivation. Organizational BehaviorTeaching Review, 14, (2), 117-119. Herring, S. (1996). Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier:Gender Differences in Computer-mediated Communication, In V. J. Vitanza(ed.) CyberReader, 144-54. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hollander, E. P. (1957). The Reliability of Peer Nominations UnderVarious Conditions of Administration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,85-90. Howard, J.R., Short, L. B. and Clark, S. M. (1996). Students'Participation in the Mixed-Age College Classroom. Teaching Sociology,23, 8-24. Hyde, C. A., and Deal, K. H. (2003). Does Gender Matter? Male andFemale Participation in Social Work Classrooms. AFFILIA, 18, (2),192-209. Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty Reactions to Academic Dishonesty.Journal of College Student Development, 30, 401-406. Karp, D. A. and Yoels, W. C. (1976). The College Classroom: SomeObservations on the Meaning of Student Participation. Sociology andSocial Research, 60, 421-329. Kilbourne, W. and Weeks, S. (1997). A Socioeconomic Perspective onGender Bias in Technology Journal of Socioeconomics, 26, (1), 243-260. Le Brun, M. and Johnstone, R. (1994). The Quiet (R)evolution:Improving Student Learning In Law Sydney: Law Book Company. Lewicki, R. (1991). Bowing to the King: An Exercise in UncontestedInstructor Power. Journal of Management Education, 15, (1), 58-69. Litz, R. (2003). Red Light, Green Light and Other Ideas for ClassParticipation-Intensive Courses: Method and Implications for BusinessEthics Education. Teaching Business Ethics, 7, 365-378. Lord, A. T., and Melvin, K. B. (1994). The Prof/Peer Method: ATechnique to Rate Class Participation. Issues in Accounting Education,9, (1), 109-118. Love, K. G. (1981). Comparison of Peer Assessment Methods:Reliability, Validity, Friendship Bias and User Reaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 66, 451-458. Lyons, P. R. (1989). Assessing Class Participation. CollegeTeaching, 37, (1), 36-38. Marnola, K. (2005). Class Participation on Trial. The PhysicsTeacher, 43, 330. Manzer, J.P. and Rassuli, A. (2005). Teach us to Learn:Multivariate Analysis of Perception of Success in Team Learning. Journalof Education for Business, 81, (1), 21-27. Maxwell, M. (2007). The Socratic Method and its Effect on CriticalThinking. Retrieved from www.socraticmethod.net (29 February, 2008). McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K. and Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheatingin Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics & Behavior,11, (3), 219-233. McDougall, D. and Cordeiro, P. (1993). Effects ofRandom-questioning Expectations on Community College Students'Preparedness for Lecture and Discussion. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 17, 39-49. McEvoy, G. (1998). Answering the Challenge: Developing theManagement Action Skills of Business Students. Journal of ManagementEducation, 22. (5), 655-670. O'Neill, A. L., Snyder, D, and Townsend, J. B. (1986). HowAcademy Members Teach the Business Policy/Strategy Management CaseCourse. Journal of Management Case Studies, 2, 334-344. Persons, O. S. (1998). Factors Influencing Students' PeerEvaluation in Cooperative Learning Journal of Education for Business,73, 225-229. Porter, L. W. and McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management Education andDevelopment: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century? New York:McGraw-Hill. Reinsch, R. and Wambsganss, J. R. (1994). Class Participation: HowIt Affects Results on Examinations. Journal of Education for Business,70, (1), 33-47. Rice, R. E. (1984). The New Media: Communication, Research andTechnology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. She, H. (2001). Different Gender Students' Participation inthe High-and Low-achieving middle School Questioning- orientated BiologyClassrooms in Taiwan. Research in Science & Technological Education,19, (2), 147-158. Simpson, P. P. (2002). Class Participation: Report from Beijing.Commonweal, 129, (7), 11-12. Smith, W. (1994). Comment On "Of Dinosaurs and Sacred Cows:The Grading of Class Participation." Journal of ManagementEducation, 18, (2), 237-240. Soontiens, W. (2004). When IN Rome: The Realities of SkillDevelopment in an "Anglo" Educational Environment. Journal ofResearch in International Education, 3, (3), 303-317. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways ofWorking in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Strauss, S. G. (1996). Getting A Clue: Communication Media andInformation Distribution Effects on Group Process and Performance. SmallGroup Research, 27, (1), 115-142 Tani, M. (2004). Quiet, but Only in Class: Reviewing the In-ClassParticipation of Asian Students. Proceedings of the 2004 HERDSAConference. Tannen, D. (1995). The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why.Harvard Business Review, 73, 138-148. Vandrick, S. (2000). Language, Culture, Class, Gender and ClassParticipation. Paper presented at TESOL Annual International Convention,Vancouver, BC. Wadden, P., and McGovern, S. (1991). The Quandary of Negative ClassParticipation; Coming to Terms with Misbehavior in the LanguageClassroom. ELT Journal, 45, (2), 119-127. Zaremba, S. B. and Dunn, D. S. (2004). Assessing ClassParticipation Through Self-Evaluation: Method and Measure. Teaching ofPsychology, 31, (3), 191-193. Jeffrey A. Mello, Barry University