Roundtable Discussion: Grading Class Participation

Abstract

Grading class participation is hard. What gets graded is fleeting, has many dimensions, is sensitive to the context, and is benchmarked against one's experience or expectations (i.e., not a grading outline). The instructor cannot revisit the discussion as one might re-read an exam book or term paper. Content (what one says) and form of participation (how one says it) can interact in unanticipated ways. The daily change in teaching materials presents a moving target. What the instructor thinks about the case problem (or even feels) can raise or lower the bar from day to day.

The editors of FEN Educator sought a discussion of "best practice" in the area of grading class participation, and solicited the views of six seasoned case discussion leaders. Seeking helpful insights, we posed five general questions. What is your system for grading classroom discussion participation by students? How much grading weight do you give to participation? What do you look for? How do you keep records? How do you extract a grade from those records at the end of the course? The replies offer various insights about grading participation. Here is a sampling:

1. Record keeping. All the replies emphasized the importance of careful daily notes on student participation. This is not an exercise in distant recall at the end of the course. Rather, the instructor should sit down each day and note the positive (and negative) contributions.

2. Not by frequency alone... Steve Foerster, Lin Klein, and Larry Pettit emphasize that quality of contribution should be an important dimension of the evaluation. Simply noting the volume of participation misses the value of what and when the student contributed. Larry Pettit offers a number of comments on the various kinds of participation, and how they might be weighted in grading.

3. Shape student expectations of the participating grading. Andy Boynton, Steve Foerster, and Lin Klein note how important it is to explain to students what the instructor looks for, and where weight is given.

4. Weights given to class participation vary widely. Stu Gilson notes a 50% weight at Harvard, as does Larry Pettit at Virginia; Steve Foerster reports 25% at UWO; Michael Moffett notes 20% at Thunderbird; Lin Klein indicates 10-15% at UConn.

5. Grading of participation is, broadly, relative rather than absolute. Lin Klein normalizes grading; Steve Foerster notes that grades tend to be normally distributed with very small tails.

6. Student diversity: Michael Moffett notes that 62% of his students are from outside of the U.S., and that "additional sensitivity on my part is necessary regarding comfort with the English language in a technical setting and in cultural habits of open discussion." Stu Gilson mentions the "difficult balance" in drawing contributions from students with different levels of comfort with technical material.

These six points are merely an appetizer to the comments offered in the roundtable discussion. To see the entire discussion, please download document below.

Note: Edited by: ROBERT BRUNER, Darden School, University of Virginia

JEL Classification: G00