Class Participation Assessment and Measurement
Over the years, I have received requests about this time of the term for information on research-informed positions guiding the conversation on the percentage assigned to participation in grading. This week, I would like to summarize relevant research in the area of assessment and measurement of participation for your consideration.
Denker (2013) has compiled research indicating that class participation, when aligned with outcomes and engagement, measured with valid/reliable instruments can facilitate student learning. Classes with higher participation are often characterized by instructors who disclose more, call on students by name, and display decreased power distance, more approachability, support, interest, and approval (Cayanus, 2009).
Overall, the research suggests that we minimize participation points. “Assessment and measurement scholars almost universally advise against grading class participation. According to Jacobs and Chase (1992), weighing student behaviors into a course grade contaminate[s] the grade as a measure of achievement of the course outcomes. If we do offer points, the amount should be aligned with learning outcomes (LO) and is a true indicator of engagement. For instance, if your participation assessment is 20%, then approximately 20% of your LOs should focus on "participation" activities such as students applying/analyzing, verbalizing, negotiating, debating, paraphrasing, etc. Attendance can be easy to count, but most likely is not a good measure of engagement (Czekanski & Wolf, 2013). Engagement [behavioral (time on task), emotional (interest and value), and cognitive (self-regulation and learning strategies)] has been found to substantially increase when instructors are able to offer learning opportunities, which allow students to access well-designed instructional interactive material (Collaço, 2017).
Attempting to document when students participate (raising hands, speaking aloud, group work) can be effective active learning methods, although they are challenging to document consistently. If participation is used as part of an assessment to monitor and afford student success, then we should be certain that our instruments to collect this data are reliable and valid (Czekanski & Wolf, 2013).
In Fredricks & McColskey (2012) paper, “The Measure of Student Engagement: Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments,” they cite several ways to assess student in-class participation.
Student Self reporting [Docan-Morgan’s (2015) Participation Log; SF State Class Participation Form]
Experience Sampling
Teacher Ratings of Students
Interviews (using well-written, valid prompts and random sampling)
Observation (using a reliable, valid rubric)
Ensuring that we are actually assessing and measuring participation (as opposed to a confounding variable), and representing authentic engagement is challenging in the context of the limited class time. Identifying products of participation that align with course learning outcomes and conceptual understanding, then measuring these products between class sessions could be the most accurate and feasible method of determining student participation in a sustainable, consistent manner.
Bean and Peterson’s (1998) “Grading classroom participation” describes strategies to help faculty define, capture and provide formative assessment feedback to students:
Create Activities in Which Participants Report on Homework Already Prepared
Include an Email Component for Class Participation
Increase Wait Time
Use a “Card System” for Shy Students
Develop Techniques for Quieting Discussion Dominators
Coach Problematic Students and Reward Progress
Note: Newmann (1992) reminds us that attending a class and completing work are not effective indicators of cognitive engagement. Rather, engagement is a construct that is used to describe internal behaviors such as effort and quality of application. To make valid inferences regarding students’ level of cognitive engagement across tasks, we must have a measure of cognitive engagement that produces reliable scores and demonstrates evidence for the validity of the inferences made from those scores.
References
Bean, J. & Peterson, D. (1998). Grading classroom participation, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74, Jossey-Bass.
Czekanski, K. E. & Wolf, Z. R. (2013). Encouraging and evaluating class participation, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1).
Denker, K. (2013). Student response systems and facilitating the large lecture: Assessing engagement and learning. Communication Teacher, 27(1), 50-69.
Fredricks, J., & McColskey, W. (2012). The Measure of Student Engagement: Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments, Handbook of Research on Student Engagement © Springer Science+Business Media.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G. & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. NY: Teachers College Press.
