Found an interesting little piece in the most recent issue of University Affairs on participation grades. The piece was written by Emma Tranter, a fourth-year journalism student at Carleton. It raises some interesting questions about the practice of allocating grades for participation in the post-secondary classroom. Does this practice discriminate against students who are introverts? What constitutes “participation” – what does it look like, or what could it look like? Why is this practice as prevalent as it is? What outcomes are trying to cultivate through participation grades? Should there be an upper limit to the weighting faculty members attach to such grades? Food for thought. Comments welcome:)
Participation grades are really tricky. Too often we use them as a proxy for attendance. In a first or second year course, I am more likely to use an inclass exercise grade where students complete 12 activities and I take the best 10 of 12 for each student. It rewards those who come regularly, and there is usually enough variety in activities that introverts or those with significant anxiety disorders aren’t penalized. For a senior-level course, though, I really want participation. I want evidence that they are thinking about what other people have said and are able to build upon (and challenge) ideas presented by me and others. I’m still not satisfied there. I begin with a discussion of what participation is and what should count. I also track not just whether people spoke up but the quality of what they contributed (including whether they linked to other conversations in class). But although I offer less verbal options for participation (like a student summarizing the main points of discussion and sending it to me so I could post it anonymously on our Blackboard site), they don’t often take me up on it.