Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Classroom Contribution: What Do Students
Perceive as Fair Assessment?
Molly B. Pepper & Seemantini Pathak
To cite this article: Molly B. Pepper & Seemantini Pathak (2008) Classroom Contribution: What Do Students Perceive as Fair Assessment?, Journal of Education for Business, 83:6, 360-368, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.6.360-368
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.360-368
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 74
View related articles
queezed by increased competition among business schools and the demandsofstudentsandrecruiters,man- agementfacultymembersareunderpres-suretoexcelintheclassroom(Gerdes,2006; Lavelle,Gerdes,Jespersen,Gloeckler,& Symonds,2006;O’Brien&Hart,1999). Tomeetthechallenge,managementfac-ulty members are shifting away from a paradigm of passive learning (Auster & Wylie, 2006) to one of active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Wingfield & Black,2005).Theoldparadigminvolved theinstructorastheexpertwhoimparted knowledge to students through lectures (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 24). The new paradigm replaces the instructor as an actor on the stage imparting knowledge withan“inter-actor”whofacilitatesstu-dentlearning(Barr&Tagg,p.24).Active learning—anything that “involves stu-dentsindoingthingsandthinkingabout what they are doing”—has a powerful impact on student learning (Bonwell & Eison,p.2).Thenewparadigmsuggests that students need to be involved in the learningprocesstointernalizetheinfor-mation. Of the recommended strategies for active learning—for example, using name cards, arranging seats in a circle, and using breakout groups—class dis-cussions are perhaps the most frequent-ly used (Bonwell & Eison; Dallimore, Hertenstein,&Platt,2006).
Inthepresentresearch,weexaminedthe perceivedfairnessofdifferentmethods
of grading this form of active learn-ing. We try to answer the question of how an instructor can quantify student involvement through class contribution in a way that is perceived as fair by the students. We examined this per-ceived fairness of contribution grading fromtheperspectiveoftheperformance appraisal literature, which has already examined perceived fairness of evalua-tioninorganizations.
ChristophandNystrand(2001)defined classroom discussionas free exchange among students or among at least three studentsandtheinstructor.Thesediscus-sion formats help students to develop appreciation for different perspectives (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999), critical- thinkingskills(Delaney,1991),problem-solvingskills(Gilmore&Schall,1996), interpersonal skills (Smith, 1994), and self-awareness (Brookfield & Preskill). Well-done class discussions increase student achievement (Nystrand & Gamoran,1991)andstudentmotivation (Wade,1994).
Reid and Johnson (1999) found that bothstudentsandinstructorsconsidered class interaction an important part of goodteaching,althoughinstructorsrated itmorehighlythandidstudents.Instruc-torswantstudentstoparticipatesothat thestudentscanlearnfromoneanother (Maznevski, 1996). Auster and Wylie (2006)recommendedusingclassdiscus-sions to leverage students’ experiences
ClassroomContribution:WhatDoStudents
PerceiveasFairAssessment?
MOLLYB.PEPPER GONZAGAUNIVERSITY SPOKANE,WASHINGTON
S
ABSTRACT. Assigningagradetostu-dents’classcontributionmaybe1ofthe mostcontroversialanddifficultchallenges thatinstructorsface.Theauthorsexamine theperceivedfairnessofclasscontribution gradingmethodsfromtheperspectiveof theperformanceappraisalliterature.In2 scenariostudiesbasedonactualgrading techniques,theauthorsexaminedpercep-tionsoffairassessment.Participantswere undergraduatestudentsfrom2universities. Atheoreticalmodelofproceduraljustice providedthebackground.Resultsindicate that3objectiveaspectsofgrading—explic-itnessofgradingcriteria,frequencyof feedback,andproactivenessofinstructor techniques—affectperceivedfairness.
Keywords:classroomcontribution,per-ceivedfairness,performanceappraisal
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
SEEMANTINIPATHAK UNIVERSITYOFHOUSTON HOUSTON,TEXAS
andinputstoexpandsourcesoflearning in the classroom and increase the rel- evanceofcoursematerials.Theimpor-tance of verbal communication skills duringjobinterviewsalsosuggeststhat learning to speak extemporaneously about a topic is an important goal for college students (Sautter, Gagnon, & Mohr,2007).
Widespreaduseofclassdiscussionhas ledtoincreasedattentiontoevaluatingstu-dentcontributionstolearning(Dallimore et al., 2006). Class contribution grades havebecomeanexpectedpartofcollege syllabi (e.g., Bean & Peterson, 1998; Gilson, 1994). These grades are often referredtoasclassparticipationgrades. However,inthepresentstudy,wereferto thegradesasclasscontributiongrades. In defining class contribution, Gioia (1987) distinguished between participa- tionandcontribution.Participation“con-notes involvement, sharing and simply takingpart”(Gioia,p.16).Contribution, ontheotherhand,“connotessocial,but alsointellectualinvolvementandsharing of knowledge and knowledge construc-tion”(Gioia,p.16).
Assigning a grade to class contri-bution may be one of the most con-troversial and difficult challenges that instructorsface.Tiberius(1990)argued that grading contribution makes stu-dentsfeelcoercedintospeakinginstead of speaking because they have some-thingtosay.Thisleadstoconfusionfor the students who come to expect good grades based on the quantity of com-ments made; often they are surprised whengradedinsteadonthequality(or lackthereof)oftheircomments(Desir-aju&Gopinath,2001).
Gilson(1994)suggestedthatgrading class contribution increases racial and gender discrimination, ignores cultural diversity,anddemotivatesstudentsfrom learning. Further, class contribution scores are considered among the most subjectiveofclassroomgrades(Melvin, 2000).BeanandPeterson(1998)found that most instructors determine contri-butiongradesimpressionistically,using class contribution largely as a “fudge factor” when figuring final grades (p. 33).Lowman(1995)contendedthatitis “almostimpossible”foraninstructorto assignagradetoclasscontributionina fairandobjectivemanner(p.177).Davis
(1993) recommended basing grades strictly on academic performance and eliminatingotherconsiderationssuchas effort, attendance, punctuality, attitude, personality traits, or student interest in thecoursematerial.
Other researchers have argued that participation plays an important role in learning and deserves evaluation (Bean & Peterson, 1998; Dallimore et al., 2006; Gioia, 1987; Melvin, 2000; Smith, 1994). Bean and Peterson sug-gested that grading class contribution can send positive signals to students aboutwhataninstructorvalues,suchas criticalthinking,activelearning,listen-ing and speakcriticalthinking,activelearning,listen-ing skills, and the abil-ity to join a discipline’s conversation. Whenstudentsknowtheircontribution
Regardless of how important graded classcontributionmightappeartostudent learning,thefairnessofthegradingpro-cedureisparamountforitseffectiveness. PriceandMueller(1986)initiallydefined fairness in appraisalas “the degree to whichrewardsandpunishmentsarerelat-edtoperformanceinputs”(p.122).This definition seems to refer todistributive justice, the fairness of the decision out-comes (Deutsch, 1985). Early research on the outcomes of distributive justice perceptionswasinconsistent(e.g.,Landy, Barnes,&Murphy,1978;Landy,Barnes-Farrell&Cleveland,1980).Morerecent research has showed that employees were more concerned withprocedural justice—theperceivedaccuracyandfair-ness of the procedures used to generate outcomes—thanwith distributivejustice (Dipboye&dePontbriand,1981;Green-berg,1987;Lind&Tyler,1988).
Whatdofindingsondistributiveand procedural justice indicate for grading classcontribution?Thefindingssuggest thatastudentismorelikelytoperceive a grade as fair if the student believes thatfairprocedureswereusedtoreach thatgraderegardlessofthevalueofthat grade.Landyetal.(1978)foundprocess variables to be important in employee perceptionsofthefairnessandaccuracy
of performance appraisal. Specifically, theyfoundthatfrequencyoffeedback, knowledge of performance, agreement onjobduties,andproactivenessinhelp-ingtheemployeeovercomeweaknesses wererelatedtotheemployee’sperceived fairnessandaccuracyofappraisals.
Gilliland(1993)developedatheoreti-cal model of procedural justice based on organizational justice research. His model included 10 procedural rules of which satisfaction or violation—the modelposited—affectedoverallevalua-tionofproceduraljustice.Althoughthe model was designed to measure fair-ness in selection procedures, the pres-entresearchextendedittoperformance appraisal (i.e., class contribution grad-ing). Performance appraisal and selec-tion involve many of the same proce-dures, primarily in rating individuals. Previous researchers (e.g., Forgas & George,2001;Latham,Wexley,&Pur-and consistency. Explanation includes feedback, justification for a decision, and openness. Interpersonal treatment includestreatment,two-waycommuni-cation,andproprietyofquestions.Bauer etal.(2001)developedacomprehensive measureofGilliland’sproceduraljustice rules, the Selection Procedural Justice Scale(SPJS).Theirresultssuggestthat there are 11 procedural justice factors with a two-factor, higher-order factor modelconsistingofstructureandsocial factors. The structure factor reflects Gilliland’s formal characteristics, and thesocialfactorreflectsexplanationand interpersonal characteristics. Although
alltherulesinthestructurefactorrelate toclasscontributiongrading,thisarticle focuses on 5 because researchers are likelytofindthemincoursesyllabiand canmeasurethemmoreobjectivelythan theycanthosenotincoursesyllabi.
InformationKnown
The first relevant rule of Gilliland’s (1993)modelreferstoinformationand
explanation about the process that the leader gives to the participantbefore testing. English (1991) listed “agree-mentamongallcriticalpartiesonwhat istobeperformed”(p.58)asacritical component of a performance appraisal system.Inthecontextofemployeeeval-uation,theformalevaluationshouldnot containanysurprisesfortheemployee, because it is just a specific point in an ongoing process. In the context of classcontributiongrading,information knownrefers to how well the syllabus spellsoutthecriteriaforclasscontribu-tiongrading.
JobRelatedness
The second relevant rule refers to the extent to which a test appears to measure content relevant to the situa-tion. Gilliland (1993) based this rule on the findings of several studies that indicate that perceptions of fairness in evaluationprocessesdependonwheth- ertheyarebasedonrelevantandaccu-rateinformation(e.g.,Leventhal,1980; Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987). Court cases on performance appraisal have demonstrated that managers cannot baseappraisalsongutfeelings(Eldred v. Consolidated Freightways, 1995) butcanusesubjectivecriteria,suchas interpersonalskillsandteamleadership (Amirmokri v. Baltimore Gas & Elec-tricCo.,1995).Inthecontextofclass contribution grading,job relatedness refers to how much class contribution gradesappeartoreflectstudentcontri-butionstolearning.
Feedback
The third relevant rule refers to the provision of timely and informative feedback. DeNisi and Kluger (2000) suggested that repeated feedback gives employees needed information on how their performance is improving over time. Folger, Konovsky, and Cropan-zano (1992) suggested that providing feedback on a regularly recurring and timely basis is vital to performance appraisal fairness. For students, feed-back is a primary motivator. Without feedback,studentsdonotknowhowfar they have traveled toward their goals and may withdraw their energy from learning(Tiberius,1990).
ReconsiderationOpportunity
The fourth relevant rule refers to whether the applicant has the opportu-nity to challenge the decision-making process and review the outcome. Fol-ger et al. (1992) suggested that allow-ing employees to hear the appraiser’s description of their performance and then respond with their own commen-tary is an essential part of receiving a fair hearing. In the context of class contribution grading,reconsideration opportunity refers to whether the stu-dent is given the opportunity to chal-lengeacontributiongrade.
ChancetoPerform
The fifth relevant rule refers to whethertheparticipantgetstheoppor-tunitytoexpressknowledge,skills,and abilities prior to a decision. Gilliland (1993)basedthisruleonseveralstudies (e.g., Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Greenberg, 1986; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) that showed that procedures are perceivedasmorefairiftherecipients of the decision get the opportunity to expressthemselvesbeforethedecisions are made. In the context of class con-tribution grading,chance to perform refers to the opportunities for students to contribute to class discussion, pro-videdbytheinstructor.
Hypotheses
We developed hypotheses regarding therelationshipbetweentheaforemen-tioned procedural justice rules and the objectivecharacteristicsofclasscontri- butiongrading.Todeterminetheobjec-tivecharacteristicsofclasscontribution grading, we compiled syllabi from all management classes at a Southwestern university and examined and content coded the class contribution portions. Fromthecontentcodingemergedthree independent variables: (a) explicitness of class contribution grading criteria, (b)frequencyoffeedbackoncontribu-tion grades, and (c) proactiveness of instructorinencouragingcontribution.
Perceptions of information known and job relatedness should be related to the explicitness of the criteria for gradingclasscontribution.Explicitcri-teria are clearly stated and leave
noth-ing implied. Spellnoth-ing out requirements ahead of time should reduce students’ uncertainty and beliefs that they did poorlybecausetheydidnotknowwhat
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Explicitness of class
contributiongradingcriteriawillbeposi-tivelyrelatedtoperceivedfairness.
Perceptions of feedback and recon-siderationopportunityshouldberelated tohowoftentheinstructorinformsstu-dentsoftheirclasscontributiongrades. Feedback is defined as a process in which the factors that produce a result are themselves modified, corrected, or strengthened by that result (Neufeldt, 1997). More frequent feedback should keep students from being surprised at theendofthesemesterbyapoorgrade. More frequent feedback should also givestudentstheopportunitytoredress their performance either by changing theirbehaviororaskingtheinstructorto reconsidertheirgrade.
Hypothesis2(H2):Frequencyoffeedback
onclasscontributiongradeswillbeposi-tivelyrelatedtoperceivedfairness.
Perceptions of chance to perform should be related to the proactiveness of the instructor in encouraging class contribution. The tactics used by the instructor to encourage class contribu-tion define proactiveness. More proac-tiveinstructorsprovideopportunitiesfor proactive methods include using class exercises and breaking into small dis-cussiongroups(Bean&Peterson).
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Proactive instruction
techniques will be positively related to perceivedfairness.
METHOD
StudyDesign
We conducted two studies to exam-ine how students perceive the fairness of various types of class contribution
grading. To test the hypotheses, a sce- narioandsurveydesignwasused.Inde-pendent variables were manipulated in scenarios,anddependentvariableswere measuredinasurvey.Thefirststudyhad abetween-subjectsdesigninwhichstu- dentsreadonegradingscenarioreflect-ing a fairness condition and rated its proceduraljustice.Thesecondstudyhad a within-subject design in which stu-dents read grading scenarios reflecting all fairness conditions and rated each oneseparatelyonproceduraljustice.
StimulusMaterialDevelopment
To create scenarios to represent the rangeofactualclasscontributiongrad-ing methods, we content coded class contribution portions of syllabi from allmanagementclassesataSouthwest-ernuniversityandwrotedescriptionsof classroom contribution grading proce-
duresthatcapturedhighandlowcondi- tionsofeachindependentvariable.Sev-eralsubjectmatterexpertsthenreadthe conditions to ensure face validity. The finalconditionsarelistedinTable1.
Wethencombinedthesixconditions (explicitness: high and low; frequency of feedback: high and low; and proac-tivenessofinstructor:highandlow)in a2×2×2fullycrossedexperimental design.Eachofthescenarioswasintro-ducedbythesentence“Pleasereadthe below synopsis of a class contribution gradingtechniquefromaclasssyllabus andanswerthesubsequentquestionsas if you were taking a class with such a gradingtechnique.”
Tomeasureproceduraljusticeofeach scenario, we adopted items from the SPJS (Bauer et al., 2001). The SPJS found two higher order factors—struc-ture and social factors—among Gilli-land’s (1993) procedural justice rules. Becausewepredictedthatthemanipu-lations in this study would influence
perceptions through the structure of class contribution grading techniques, onlystructuralfactoritemswereused.
Thefiveproceduraljusticerulesthat fall under the structure factor are job-relatedness,informationknown,chance toperform,reconsiderationopportunity, andfeedback.Theitemswererewritten toreflecttheproceduraljusticeofclass contribution grading instead of selec-tion procedures. Bauer et al. (2001) wrotetheitemstemssothattheirscale could be translated into other research areas. The revised items are listed in Table 2. We used a pilot study to test the new wording of the SPJS on scale reliability.Anexploratoryfactoranaly-sis (EFA) of the results of the pilot study revealed minor problems with the new wording of questions in the SPJS.We examined questions that did notloadwellontheirfactorsandmade slightmodifications.Inthemainstudy, the revised SPJS and its subscales all
TABLE1.DescriptionofHighandLowConditionsforEachIndependentVariable
Variable Description
Explicitness
Low Thisclassisdesignedtobehighlyparticipatory.Therefore,youwillbegradedonyouroverallparticipationand attendance.
High Thisclassisdesignedtobehighlyparticipatory.Therefore,youwillbegradedonyourclassparticipation.While thisisasubjectivemeasure,yourinstructorwilltrytostandardizeitasmuchaspossiblebytrackingyouratten-danceandproductiveparticipationinclassdiscussionsandactivities.Severalofthein-classactivitieswillinvolve smallgroupdiscussions.Thisparticipationgradewillconsistofthefollowingcomponents:qualityofproductive commentsmadeinclass(qualitynotquantity);comingtoclassontimeandnotleavingearly;workingproduc-tivelyduringin-classexercises.
Feedback
Low Attheendofthesemester,youwillreceiveyoursemestergradeforclassparticipation.Participationgradesfor thesemesterwillbepostedduringthefinalweekofclasses.
High Youwillreceivefeedbackonyourparticipationgradeeachweekthroughthefollowingmethod.Attheendof eachclassperiod,theinstructorwillaskyoutopassyournamecardsback.Butbeforeyoupassthemin,turn themoverandgradeyourowncontributiontotheclassonthefollowingscale:0(didn’tshowuporcameto classanddidnotpayattention[readnewspaper,tookanap,etc.]);1(cametoclass,actedinterested);2(cameto class,madesomecontributions);3(cametoclass,madeseveralcontributionsandatleastoneinsightfulone);4 (madeanumberofinsightfulcomments).Theinstructorwilllooktheseoveraftereachclassandiftheinstruc-tor’sassessmentofyourcontributionisdifferentthanyours,yournamecardwillbereturnedtoyounextclass periodwithashortnoteregardingwhy.Ifyourassessmentandtheinstructor’sarethesame,youwillreceive yournamecardbackatthenextclassperiodwithoutanycommentsonit.
Proactiveness
Low Youareencouragedtospeakupduringclassdiscussionsandparticipateinclassexercises.
High Youareencouragedtospeakupduringclassdiscussionsandparticipateinclassexercises.Theinstructorwill trytoincreaseyourparticipationinclassby:1.holdingopen,freeclassdiscussion;2.suggestinginadvance, topicsfordiscussion;3.callingonpeoplewhodonothavetheirhandsup;4.usingclassexercisesthatyoucan beinvolvedin;5.workinginateamtocompleteaclassproject;6.holdingtwo-persondiscussionexercises;7. encouragingcontributionsthataresuccinctandhaveahighimpactontheclassdiscussion.
reachedacceptablelevelsofCronbach’s alpha(.70orgreater).
RESULTS Study1
WedesignedStudy1asa2×2×2 fully crossed between-subjects experi- ment.Theparticipantswere385under-graduatestudents(207men,158women, 20 individuals of unspecified gender) at a Southwestern university. Students were randomly given one of the eight possible scenarios and answered the SPJSquestionsduringclassinbusiness classeswhoseinstructorshadagreedto cooperate with the study.A researcher presentedthesurvey,stressingthatstu-dentsshouldconsiderthestudyseparate from how contribution was graded in thatparticularclass.Also,theresearch-er encouraged students to answthatparticularclass.Also,theresearch-er the surveyfollowingthescenariosforaltru-istic reasons, suggesting that complet-ing it would help improve education at the university. This approach was purposeful to avoid appealing only to students who were disgruntled about theirgrades.
Wetestedhypothesesbyusinganal-ysis of variance (ANOVA). Table 3
shows correlations, means, and stan-darddeviationsamongtheindependent and dependent variables. The hypoth-eses were submitted to a 2 (frequency of feedback: high, low) × 2 (proac-tiveness: high, low) × 2 (explicitness: high,low)independentgroupsfactorial ANOVA. All three independent vari-ablesproducedsignificantmaineffects. Forexplicitness,F(1,377)=24.62,p< .001,participantsratedsyllabiinwhich thecriteriaforgradingclasscontribution were more explicit as more fair (M = 4.36,SD = 0.92) than they rated less explicitsyllabi(M=3.89,SD=1.01). Forfrequencyoffeedback,F(1,377)= 31.42,p < .001, participants rated the morefrequentreportsoftheirclasscon-tributiongradesasmorefair(M=4.39, SD=0.88)thantheyratedlessfrequent reports(M=3.86,SD=1.04).Forpro-activeness,F(1,377)=14.15,p<.001, participantsratedmoreproactivecontri-butionstrategiesasmorefair(M=4.31, SD=0.92)thantheyratedlessproactive strategies(M=3.95,SD=1.03).
The three-way interaction between explicitness,frequencyoffeedback,and proactiveness was statistically signifi- cant,F(1,377)=6.38,p<.05.Weinves-tigated this three-way interaction via
simple interaction effects. None of the two-way interactions were statistically significant,butexplicitnesshadmargin-ally significant interactions with fre-quencyoffeedback,F(1,377)=2.70,p <.10,andwithproactiveness,F(1,377) = 2.64,p < .15. Therefore, we exam-inedconditionsunderhighexplicitness and low explicitness. Figures 1 and 2 are graphical representations of over-allperceivedfairnessscoresforsyllabi with high and low scores on explicit-ness,respectively.
When explicitness was high, the interaction between frequency and pro-activeness was statistically significant, F(1, 195) = 7.00,p < .01. Specifically, participants rated a syllabus with high frequencyoffeedbackasmorefairinthe presenceofhighinstructorproactiveness thaninthatoflowinstructorproactive-ness. That difference was not the case forratingsoflowfrequencyoffeedback. Whenfrequencyoffeedbackwashigh, instructorproactivenessraisedperceived fairness, but when frequency of feed-back was low, instructor proactiveness hadnoeffectonperceivedfairness.
When explicitness was low, there was no interaction between frequency offeedbackandproactiveness.Thatis,
TABLE2.RewrittenItemsFromtheSelectionProceduralJusticeScale(S.W.Gilliland,1993)
Proceduraljusticerule Items
Jobrelatedness Agoodgradeontheclassparticipationgradingscaleinthisclassmeansastudentenhancedthelearningof theclass.
Apersonwhoscoredwellonclassparticipationinthisclassisaknowledgeablestudent.
Studentswhogethighparticipationgradesunderthissystemwouldbeknowledgeableandwell-prepared forclass.
Chancetoperform Themethodofgradingclassparticipationinthisclassgiveseveryonetheopportunitytoshowwhattheycan reallydo.
Themethodofgradingclassparticipationinthisclassallowsmetoshowwhatmyskillsare. IamabletoshowwhatIcandothroughthisclass’methodofgradingclassparticipation.
Feedback ThemethodofgradingclassparticipationinthisclassgivesmeaclearideaofwhenIwillgetmy participationgraderesults.
Thismethodofgradingclassparticipationgivesstudentsplentyoffeedbackonhowtheyaredoing. Inthisclass,Iamsatisfiedwiththeamountoftimeittakestogetfeedbackonmyclassparticipationresults. Informationknown Inthisclass,Iunderstandwhatisrequiredtogetagoodgradeinclassparticipation.
Fromthisdescription,Iunderstandtherequirementsofclassparticipation.
Iknowwhattoexpectregardingthecomponentsofclassparticipationgradinginthisclass.
Reconsideration Themethodofgradingclassparticipationinthisclassprovidesstudentswiththeopportunitytocontesttheir participationgradesbeforetheendofthesemester.
Themethodofgradingclassparticipationinthisclassgivesstudentsthechancetodiscussparticipation gradeswithsomeone.
Themethodofgradingclassparticipationinthisclassallowsstudentstohavetheirgradesreviewedif theywant.
instructor proactiveness raised fairness ratingsregardlessofwhetherfrequency offeedbackwashighorlow.However, ratings were always higher when fre-quencyoffeedbackwashigh.
Study2
To reduce unsystematic variance (variance caused by unknown factors) in the design of the experiment, we testedthehypothesesforasecondtime by using the same measures, the same technique,andawithin-subjectdesign. The participants in Study 2 were 38 undergraduate students (15 men, 23 women) at a Northwestern university. Studentsweregivenalleightscenarios and answered the SPJS questions with respecttoeachone.
Weexaminedthehypothesesbyusing paired comparisont tests. Results sup-portedthethreehypotheses.Specifically, H1 (explicitness of class contribution gradingcriteriawillbepositivelyrelated to perceived fairness) was supported by the analysis,t(37) = –10.49,p < .001. Moreexplicitnessingradingofclasscon- tributionresultedinhigherscoresonper-ceivedfairness(M=4.37)thandidless explicitness (M = 3.55).H2 (frequency offeedbackonclasscontributionsgrades willbepositivelyrelatedtoperceivedfair-ness)wassupportedbytheanalysis,t(37) =–11.39,p<.001.Morefrequentreports of class contribution grades resulted in higher scores on perceived fairness (M =4.55)thandidlessfrequentreports(M = 3.37).H3 (that proactive instruction techniques will be positively related to perceivedfairness)wassupportedbythe analysis,t(37) = –8.54,p < .001. More proactive instruction techniques resulted inhigherscoresonperceivedfairness(M =4.31)thandidlessproactivetechniques (M=3.66).Wealsoexaminedthethree hypothesesbythemeansforeachcombi-nation of independent variables. Results areprovidedindescendingorderinTable 4.Thesyllabusthatreceivedthehighest fairnessratingwashighonallthreeinde-pendentvariables:explicitness,frequency offeedback,andproactiveness.Thenext highest syllabus was high on explicit-nessandfrequencyoffeedbackbutlow onproactiveness.Thethreehighestrated scenarios were all high on frequency offeedback.
TABLE3.Means,StandardDeviations,andCorrelationsofStudy1 Variables(N=385)
Variable M SD 1 2 3
1.Overallperceivedfairness 4.13 0.99 —
2.Explicitness 0.52 0.50 .23* —
3.Frequencyoffeedback 0.51 0.50 .25* .03 —
4.Proactiveness 0.46 0.50 .15* –.05 –.07
*p<.01.
FIGURE1.Overallperceivedfairnessscoresforparticipantswithlow explicitnessscores.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Lowfrequency Highfrequency
Lowproactiveness Highproactiveness
Percei
ved
Fairness
FIGURE2.Overallperceivedfairnessscoresforparticipantswithhigh explicitnessscores.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Lowfrequency Highfrequency
Lowproactiveness Highproactiveness
Percei
ved
Fairness
DISCUSSION
The subjective nature of class con-tribution grades can lead to issues of proceduralfairness.Inthepresentstud-ies,weexaminedstructuralattributesof classcontributiongradingandfoundthat explicitnessofgradingcriteria,frequen-cy of feedback, and proactive instruc-tion techniques increase the perceived fairness of contribution grading tech-niques. Results suggest that increasing eachoftheseindependentvariableswill increase the perceived fairness of class contributiongrading.However,thestud-ies suggest that frequency of feedback andexplicitnessarethemostimportant elementsinperceivedfairness.
In Study 1, frequency of feedback hadthehighestmeanforperceivedfair-ness and the largest main effect size of thethreeindependentvariables.Students ratedsyllabiwithhighlevelsoffeedback abouttheirgradesasmorefairthanthey didsyllabiwithhighexplicitnessorhigh proactiveness.AlsoinStudy1,explicit-ness interacted with frequency of feed-back and proactiveness to increase the perceived fairness of class contribution
grading. When explicitness was high, fairnesswashighestinthreeofthepos-siblefourcombinationsofconditions.
Thethree-wayinteractionofthethree variables (explicitness, frequency of feedback, and proactiveness) indicates the importance of high frequency of feedbackandhighexplicitnesstostudent perceptionsofgradingfairness.Figure1 showsthatwithouthighexplicitnessand highfrequencyoffeedback,fairnessrat-ingsareattheirlowestpoint.
Study 2 further supports the impor-tance of frequency of feedback and explicitness. In Study 2, all three independent variables had significant effectsonperceivedfairness.However, when ranked against one another, the two highest rated syllabi were high on explicitnessandfrequencyoffeedback. The three highest rated syllabi were highonfrequencyoffeedback.
These results have implications for instructors struggling with the subjec-tivenatureofclasscontributiongrading. Instructors can improve the perceived fairness of their class contribution grad-ingtechniquesbyincreasingexplicitness, frequency of feedback, and
proactive- ness.However,themostimportantvari-ablesappeartobefrequencyoffeedback andexplicitness.Bothstudiesshowedthe high condition of all three independent variables to be perceived as more fair thanwasthelowcondition,butfrequency of feedback and explicitness dominated the outcomes. Perhaps the most impor-tantchangesthatinstructorscanmaketo improve the perceived fairness of their contributiongradesaretobemoreexplic-itwithstudentsabouthowthegradesare determined and to report those determi-nations frequently. Although Studies 1 and2werelimitedtotheexplanationsof frequency of feedback and explicitness in the syllabus, an instructor has even moreopportunitiestogivefeedbackand beexplicitaboutgradingcriteriathrough in-class reminders, e-mail explanations, andotherinformalopportunitiestocom-municatewithstudents.
These results are important because classcontributiongradingiscontrover-sial,yetproponentsseeitsvalue.These results give instructors a road map for avoidingcontroversyintheuseofclass contributiongradingbyincreasingper- ceivedfairness.Byavoidingcontrover-sy,instructorscanfocustheirenergyon teaching instead of addressing student gradecomplaints.
One important limitation of this researchisthatitusedhypotheticalsylla-biportions.Inanactualclassroom,many factors would affect the perceived fair-nessofclasscontributiongrading.These factors—such as instructor demeanor, subject matter, or perceived fairness of other grades given in the class—could not be considered here. This research isolatedthreeindependentvariablesthat affectperceivedfairnessofclasscontri-bution grades.Although much research has been done on student perceptions ofinstructorsandgrading,therearestill many variables to examine. For exam-ple, in studies of student evaluations of teaching, variables such as attractive-ness of the instructor (Hammermesh & Parker, 2005), grades (Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997; Hamilton, 1980), and class size and faculty status (Hamilton) have been examined but not linked to the perceived fairness of grades. The relationship between perceived fairness ofgradesandthoseandmanyothervari-ablesremainstobeexamined.
TABLE4.MeansandStandardDeviationsofOverallJusticeScores forEachCombinationofSurveys,inDescendingOrder
Independent
Survey variables Level M SD
1 Feedback High 5.31 0.71
Proactiveness High
Explicitness High
2 Feedback High 4.70 0.80
Proactiveness Low
Explicitness High
3 Feedback High 4.62 0.89
Proactiveness High
Explicitness Low
4 Feedback Low 3.97 0.66
Proactiveness High
Explicitness High
5 Feedback High 3.57 0.87
Proactiveness Low
Explicitness Low
6 Feedback Low 3.50 0.72
Proactiveness Low
Explicitness High
7 Feedback Low 3.33 0.83
Proactiveness High
Explicitness Low
8 Feedback Low 2.69 0.65
Proactiveness Low
Explicitness Low
NOTES
Molly B. Pepper is an assistant professor of managementatGonzagaUniversity.
SeemantiniPathakisanassistantprofessorof managementattheUniversityofHouston.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoMollyB.Pepper,SchoolofBusi-ness, Gonzaga University, 502 E. Boone Ave., Spokane,WA99258,USA.
E-mail: pepper@jepson.gonzaga.edu
REFERENCES
Amirmokri v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 68 FEPCases809(4th.Cir.1995).
Auster, E., & Wylie, K. (2006). Creating active learning in the classroom: A systematic approach.Journal of Management Education, 30,333–353.
Barr, R. B. &Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.ChangeMagazine,27(6),12–25. Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J.,
Craig,J.,Ferrara,P.,&Campion,M.A.(2001). Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale. Per-sonnelPsychology,54,387–419.
Bean,J.C.,&Peterson,D.(1998).Gradingclass-room participation.New Directions forTeach-ingandLearning,74,33–40.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991).Active learning:Creatingexcitementintheclassroom. (ReportNo.EDO-HE-91-1).Washington,DC: GeorgeWashingtonUniversity,SchoolofEdu- cationandHumanDevelopment.(ERICDocu-mentReproductionServiceNoED340272). Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999).
Dis-cussion as a way of teaching.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christoph,J.N.,&Nystrand,M.(2001).Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher’s transitiontowardadialogicclassroom.Research intheTeachingofEnglish,36,249–286. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M.
(2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grad-ing and cold calling.Journal of Management Education,30,354–377.
Davis,B.G.(1993).Toolsforteaching .SanFran-cisco:Jossey-Bass.
Delaney, E. (1991). Applying geography in the classroomthroughstructureddiscussions. Jour-nalofGeography,90(3),129–133.
DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved?AcademyofManagementExecutive, 14,129–139.
Desiraju, R., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Encourag-ing participation in case discussions: A com-parison of the MICA and the Harvard case methods,Journal of Management Education, 25,394–408.
Deutsch, M. (1985).Distributive justice. New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
Dipboye,R.L.,&dePontbriand,P.(1981).Cor-relates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems.Journal of AppliedPsychology,66,248–251.
Eldred v. Consolidated Freightways, 71 FEP Cases33(D.Mass.1995).
English, G. (1991). Tuning up for performance management.Training and Development, 45, 56–60.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for perfor-mance appraisal. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (pp.129–177).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress. Forgas, J. P., & George J. M. (2001). Affective
influences on judgment, decision making, and behaviorinorganizations:Aninformationpro-cessing perspective.Organizational Behavior andHumanDecisionProcesses,86,3–34. Gerdes,L.(2006,February).B-schoolturfwars.
BusinessWeek,3972,79.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness ofselectionsystems:Anorganizationaljustice perspective.Academy of Management Review, 18,694–734.
Gilmore,T.N.,&Schall,E.(1996).Stayingalive to learning: Integrating enactments with case teaching to develop leaders.Journal of Policy Analysis&Management,15,444–457. Gilson,C.(1994).Ofdinosaursandsacredcows:
Thegradingofclassroomparticipation. Jour-nalofManagementEducation,18,227–236. Gioia, D. A. (1987). Contribution! Not
partici-pation in the OB classroom.Organizational BehaviorTeachingReview,11,22–28. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived
fairnessofperformanceevaluation.Journalof AppliedPsychology,71,340–342.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injusticeinpaymentdistributions:Dotheends justifythemeans? JournalofAppliedPsychol-ogy,72,55–61.
Greenwald, A. G., & Gilmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings.American Psychologist, 52, 1209–1217.
Hamilton, L. C. (1980). Grades, class size, and faculty status predict teaching evaluations. TeachingSociology,8,47–62.
Hammermesh, D. S., & Parker, A. M. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: Professors’ pul-chritude and putative pedagogical produc-tivity.Economics of Education Review, 24, 369–376.
Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracyofperformanceevaluation.Journalof AppliedPsychology,63,751–754.
Landy,F.J.,Barnes-Farrell,J.L.,&Cleveland,J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation:A follow up.Journal ofAppliedPsychology,63,355–356.
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errorsintheobservationofbehavior.Journalof AppliedPsychology,60,550–555.
Lavelle, L., Gerdes, L., Jespersen, F., Gloeckler, G.,&Symonds,W.C.(2006,May).Thebest
undergraduateB-schools.BusinessWeek,3983, 76–93.
Leventhal,G.S.(1980).Whatshouldbedonewith equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Ger-gen,M.Greenberg,&R.Willis(Eds.),Social exchange:Advancesintheoryandresearch(pp. 27–55).NewYork:PlenumPress.
Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T. (1988).The social psy-chology of procedural justice. NewYork: Ple-numPress.
Lowman, J. (1995).Mastering the techniques of teaching(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maznevski, M. L. (1996, Spring). Grading class participation.Newsletter of the ing Resource Center for Faculty and Teach-ing Assistants. Retreived June 1, 2008, from http://trc.virginia.edu/Publications/Teach-ing_Concerns/Spring_1996/TC_Spring_1996_ Maznevski.htm
Melvin,K.B.(2000).Ratingclassparticipation: The prof/peer method. In M. R. Hebl, C. L. Brewer,&L.T.Benjamin,Jr.(Eds.),Handbook forteachingintroductorypsychology:Vol2(pp. 57–59).
Neufeldt, V., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (1997). Webster’s new world college dictionary (3rd ed.).NewYork:MacMillan.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instruc-tional discourse, student engagement, and lit-eratureachievement.ResearchintheTeaching ofEnglish,25,261–290.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Absentee-ism and turnover among hospital employees. Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Reid, D. J., & Johnson, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Student and teacher perspectives.Educational Studies, 25, 269–281.
Sautter, E. P., Gagnon, G. B., & Mohr, J. J. (2007).Educatorswhohavemadeadifference for their students: Observations and reflec-tionsofthreenationallyrecognizedmarketing professors.Journal of Marketing Education, 29,85–90.
Sheppard,B.H.,&Lewicki,R.J.(1987).Toward generalprinciplesofmanagerialfairness.Social JusticeResearch,1,161–176.
Smith,W.J.(1994).Commenton“Ofdinosaurs andsacredcows:Thegradingofclassparticipa-tion.”Journal of Management Education, 18, 237–240.
Thibaut,J.,&Walker,L.(1975). Proceduraljus-tice.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Tiberius, R. G. (1990).Small group teaching: A trouble-shooting guide. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press.
Wade, R. C. (1994).Teacher education students’ viewsonclassdiscussion:Implicationsforfos-teringcriticalreflection.TeachingandTeacher Education,10,231–243.
Wingfield, S. S., & Black, G. S. (2005).Active versus passive course designs: The impact on student outcomes.Journal of Education for Business,81,119–123.
Education
usiness
B
Journal
of
for
ScopeofJEB
InstructionstoContributors
TheJOURNALOFEDUCATIONFOR
BUSINESSfeaturesoriginalbasicandappliedresearch articlesinaccounting,communications,economics,finance, informationsystems,informationtechnology,management, managementinformationsystems(MIS),marketing,and emergingdisciplines.Articlesareselectedthroughablind peer-reviewprocess.
Thejournalentertainsarticlesthatdealwithsignificant trendsandissuesaffectingeducationforbusiness;curricu-lumdevelopmentandevaluationofeducationalprogramsin traditionalandnontraditionalsettings;theprocessofinstruc-tioninaccountingandfinance,businessfundamentals(math, law,economics,communications,organization),consumer economics,management,marketing,microcomputers,and officesystems(officesupportstafftraining,information processing).Articlesreviewandreportonsuccessfulinnova- tionsandpractice,proposetheoreticalformulations,oradvo-catepositionsonimportantandcontroversialissues.
Contributorsshouldsubmitablinded copyoftheirmanu-scripttohttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/
heldref/jebs
Includethenamesandcontactinformationforall authorsinaseparatecoverletter;thisfileshouldbesub-mittedinthespaceprovidedforcoverlettersorattached asaseparatefiledesignated“notforreview.”
Authorsshouldprovideuptofivekeywordsforindex-ing(exceptforbookreviews)andadheretothePublication Manual,5thed.,AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Wash-ington,DC,2001,forstyleguidelinesinthepreparationof manuscripts.
Oncereceived,manuscriptsarereviewedbyaconsulting editorandoneoftheexecutiveeditors.Thereviewprocess takesapproximately3months.Authorsofacceptedmanu-scriptsreceivecomplimentaryonlineaccesstotheissuein whichtheirarticleorreviewappears.
RegularManuscripts
Regularmanuscriptsshouldnormallynotexceed4,000 words,shouldnotbesimultaneouslysubmittedelsewhere, andshouldnothavebeenpreviouslypublished.Ifdata havebeenusedinapriorstudy,authorsmustindicate thatthenewstudyisafollow-uptothepreviousone. •Submitblindedcopiesofanytablesandfiguresasseparate
files.
•Reproductionsoffigures(graphsandcharts)maybesub- mittedforreviewpurposes,buttheoriginalsmustbesup-pliedifthemanuscriptisacceptedforpublication.Tables andfiguresshouldbepreparedinaccordancewiththe instructionsgivenintheAPA’sPublicationManual(seepp. 120–162).
•Avoidexplanatorynoteswheneverpossiblebyincorporat-ingtheircontentintothetext.Foressentialnotes,identify themwithconsecutivesuperscriptsandlisttheminasec-tionentitledNOTESattheendofthetext.
•Anabstractof75–100wordsshouldbeprovidedonthe firstpage.
RevisionsnotpreviouslysubmittedonManuscriptCentral mustbesubmittedasnewmanuscriptsandwillbegivennew manuscriptnumbers. Forreferencepurposes,pleaseindi-catethepreviousmanuscriptnumberwhereprompted todoso.Thereviseddocumentshouldshowallchanges (e.g.,inTrackChangesoradifferentfontcolor).Please alsoincludeablindedcopyoftheresponsetothereviewers’ comments,whichshouldbesubmittedasa“supplementary fileforreview.”Aswithallsubmissions,thenamesandcon-tactinformationforauthorsshouldappearonlyinthecover letter.
BookReviews
•Bookreviewsmustbebetween1,250and1,500words. Thefocusofbookreviewedmustdirectlyrelatetoissues coveredinthejournal.
•Includethebookauthor,title,ISBNnumber,cost,pub-lisher,edition,anddatepublished.
•Reviewsshouldincludethefollowingelements:scopeof textandtargetmarket;levelofexperiencerequiredforthe reader;typeofinformationprovidedinthetext;maintop-icsincludedinthetext;alistingofthebook’sstrengthsand weaknesses;recommendationforitsuse.
