Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.83.6.360-368

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

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:16

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016

Classroom฀Contribution:฀What฀Do฀Students฀
Perceive฀as฀Fair฀Assessment?
MOLLY฀B.฀PEPPER
GONZAGA฀UNIVERSITY
SPOKANE,฀WASHINGTON

SEEMANTINI฀PATHAK
UNIVERSITY฀OF฀HOUSTON
HOUSTON,฀TEXAS

ABSTRACT. Assigning฀a฀grade฀to฀stu-

S

dents’฀class฀contribution฀may฀be฀1฀of฀the฀
most฀controversial฀and฀difficult฀challenges฀
that฀instructors฀face.฀The฀authors฀examine฀
the฀perceived฀fairness฀of฀class฀contribution฀
grading฀methods฀from฀the฀perspective฀of฀
the฀performance฀appraisal฀literature.฀In฀2฀
scenario฀studies฀based฀on฀actual฀grading฀
techniques,฀the฀authors฀examined฀perceptions฀of฀fair฀assessment.฀Participants฀were฀
undergraduate฀students฀from฀2฀universities.฀
A฀theoretical฀model฀of฀procedural฀justice฀
provided฀the฀background.฀Results฀indicate฀
that฀3฀objective฀aspects฀of฀grading—explicitness฀of฀grading฀criteria,฀frequency฀of฀
feedback,฀and฀proactiveness฀of฀instructor฀
techniques—affect฀perceived฀fairness.฀
Keywords:฀classroom฀contribution,฀perceived฀fairness,฀performance฀appraisal
฀Copyright฀©฀2008฀Heldref฀Publications

360฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

queezed฀ by฀ increased฀ competition฀
among฀ business฀ schools฀ and฀ the฀
demands฀of฀students฀and฀recruiters,฀management฀faculty฀members฀are฀under฀pressure฀to฀excel฀in฀the฀classroom฀(Gerdes,฀2006;฀
Lavelle,฀Gerdes,฀Jespersen,฀Gloeckler,฀&฀฀
Symonds,฀2006;฀O’Brien฀&฀Hart,฀1999).฀
To฀meet฀the฀challenge,฀management฀faculty฀ members฀ are฀ shifting฀ away฀ from฀ a฀
paradigm฀ of฀ passive฀ learning฀ (Auster฀ &฀
Wylie,฀ 2006)฀ to฀ one฀ of฀ active฀ learning฀
(Bonwell฀ &฀ Eison,฀ 1991;฀ Wingfield฀ &฀
Black,฀2005).฀The฀old฀paradigm฀involved฀
the฀instructor฀as฀the฀expert฀who฀imparted฀
knowledge฀ to฀ students฀ through฀ lectures฀
(Barr฀ &฀ Tagg,฀ 1995,฀ p.฀ 24).฀ The฀ new฀
paradigm฀ replaces฀ the฀ instructor฀ as฀ an฀
actor฀ on฀ the฀ stage฀ imparting฀ knowledge฀
with฀an฀“inter-actor”฀who฀facilitates฀student฀learning฀(Barr฀&฀Tagg,฀p.฀24).฀Active฀

learning—anything฀ that฀ “involves฀ students฀in฀doing฀things฀and฀thinking฀about฀
what฀ they฀ are฀ doing”—has฀ a฀ powerful฀
impact฀ on฀ student฀ learning฀ (Bonwell฀ &฀
Eison,฀p.฀2).฀The฀new฀paradigm฀suggests฀
that฀ students฀ need฀ to฀ be฀ involved฀ in฀ the฀
learning฀ process฀ to฀ internalize฀ the฀ information.฀ Of฀ the฀ recommended฀ strategies฀
for฀ active฀ learning—for฀ example,฀ using฀
name฀ cards,฀ arranging฀ seats฀ in฀ a฀ circle,฀
and฀ using฀ breakout฀ groups—class฀ discussions฀ are฀ perhaps฀ the฀ most฀ frequently฀ used฀ (Bonwell฀ &฀ Eison;฀ Dallimore,฀
Hertenstein,฀&฀Platt,฀2006).฀
In฀the฀present฀research,฀we฀examined฀the฀
perceived฀ fairness฀ of฀ different฀ methods฀฀

of฀ grading฀ this฀ form฀ of฀ active฀ learning.฀ 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฀ perceived฀ fairness฀ of฀ contribution฀ grading฀
from฀the฀perspective฀of฀the฀performance฀
appraisal฀ literature,฀ which฀ has฀ already฀

examined฀ perceived฀ fairness฀ of฀ evaluation฀in฀organizations.
Christoph฀and฀Nystrand฀(2001)฀defined฀
classroom฀ discussion฀ as฀ free฀ exchange฀
among฀ students฀ or฀ among฀ at฀ least฀ three฀
students฀and฀the฀instructor.฀These฀discussion฀ formats฀ help฀ students฀ to฀ develop฀
appreciation฀ for฀ different฀ perspectives฀
(Brookfield฀ &฀ ฀ Preskill,฀ 1999),฀ criticalthinking฀skills฀(Delaney,฀1991),฀problemsolving฀skills฀(Gilmore฀&฀Schall,฀1996),฀
interpersonal฀ skills฀ (Smith,฀ 1994),฀ and฀
self-awareness฀ (Brookfield฀ &฀ Preskill).฀
Well-done฀ class฀ discussions฀ increase฀
student฀ achievement฀ (Nystrand฀ &฀
Gamoran,฀1991)฀and฀student฀motivation฀฀
(Wade,฀1994).
Reid฀ and฀ Johnson฀ (1999)฀ found฀ that฀
both฀students฀and฀instructors฀considered฀
class฀ interaction฀ an฀ important฀ part฀ of฀
good฀teaching,฀although฀instructors฀rated฀
it฀more฀highly฀than฀did฀students.฀Instructors฀want฀students฀to฀participate฀so฀that฀
the฀students฀can฀learn฀from฀one฀another฀
(Maznevski,฀ 1996).฀ Auster฀ and฀ Wylie฀

(2006)฀recommended฀using฀class฀discussions฀ to฀ leverage฀ students’฀ experiences฀฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016

and฀inputs฀to฀expand฀sources฀of฀learning฀
in฀ the฀ classroom฀ and฀ increase฀ the฀ relevance฀of฀course฀materials.฀The฀importance฀ of฀ verbal฀ communication฀ skills฀
during฀job฀interviews฀also฀suggests฀that฀
learning฀ to฀ speak฀ extemporaneously฀
about฀ a฀ topic฀ is฀ an฀ important฀ goal฀ for฀
college฀ students฀ (Sautter,฀ Gagnon,฀ &฀
Mohr,฀2007).
Widespread฀use฀of฀class฀discussion฀has฀
led฀to฀increased฀attention฀to฀evaluating฀student฀contributions฀to฀learning฀(Dallimore฀฀
et฀ al.,฀ 2006).฀ Class฀ contribution฀ grades฀
have฀become฀an฀expected฀part฀of฀college฀
syllabi฀ (e.g.,฀ Bean฀ &฀ Peterson,฀ 1998;฀
Gilson,฀ 1994).฀ These฀ grades฀ are฀ often฀
referred฀to฀as฀class฀฀participation฀grades.฀
However,฀in฀the฀present฀study,฀we฀refer฀to฀
the฀grades฀as฀class฀฀contribution฀grades.฀

In฀ defining฀ class฀ contribution,฀ Gioia฀
(1987)฀ distinguished฀ between฀ participation฀and฀contribution.฀Participation฀“connotes฀ involvement,฀ sharing฀ and฀ simply฀
taking฀part”฀(Gioia,฀p.฀16).฀Contribution,฀
on฀the฀other฀hand,฀“connotes฀social,฀but฀
also฀intellectual฀involvement฀and฀sharing฀
of฀ knowledge฀ and฀ knowledge฀ construction”฀(Gioia,฀p.฀16).฀
Assigning฀ a฀ grade฀ to฀ class฀ contribution฀ may฀ be฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ most฀ controversial฀ and฀ difficult฀ challenges฀ that฀
instructors฀face.฀Tiberius฀(1990)฀argued฀
that฀ grading฀ contribution฀ makes฀ students฀feel฀coerced฀into฀speaking฀instead฀
of฀ speaking฀ because฀ they฀ have฀ something฀to฀say.฀This฀leads฀to฀confusion฀for฀
the฀ students฀ who฀ come฀ to฀ expect฀ good฀
grades฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ quantity฀ of฀ comments฀ made;฀ often฀ they฀ are฀ surprised฀
when฀ graded฀ instead฀ on฀ the฀ quality฀ (or฀
lack฀thereof)฀of฀their฀comments฀(Desiraju฀&฀Gopinath,฀2001).฀
Gilson฀(1994)฀suggested฀that฀grading฀
class฀ contribution฀ increases฀ racial฀ and฀
gender฀ discrimination,฀ ignores฀ cultural฀
diversity,฀and฀demotivates฀students฀from฀
learning.฀ Further,฀ class฀ contribution฀
scores฀ are฀ considered฀ among฀ the฀ most฀

subjective฀of฀classroom฀grades฀(Melvin,฀
2000).฀Bean฀and฀Peterson฀(1998)฀found฀
that฀ most฀ instructors฀ determine฀ contribution฀grades฀impressionistically,฀using฀
class฀ contribution฀ largely฀ as฀ a฀ “fudge฀
factor”฀ when฀ figuring฀ final฀ grades฀ (p.฀
33).฀Lowman฀(1995)฀contended฀that฀it฀is฀
“almost฀impossible”฀for฀an฀instructor฀to฀
assign฀a฀grade฀to฀class฀contribution฀in฀a฀
fair฀and฀objective฀manner฀(p.฀177).฀Davis฀
฀

(1993)฀ recommended฀ basing฀ grades฀
strictly฀ on฀ academic฀ performance฀ and฀
eliminating฀other฀considerations฀such฀as฀
effort,฀ attendance,฀ punctuality,฀ attitude,฀
personality฀ traits,฀ or฀ student฀ interest฀ in฀
the฀course฀material.฀
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฀ suggested฀ that฀ grading฀ class฀ contribution฀
can฀ send฀ positive฀ signals฀ to฀ students฀
about฀what฀an฀instructor฀values,฀such฀as฀
critical฀thinking,฀active฀learning,฀listening฀ and฀ speaking฀ skills,฀ and฀ the฀ ability฀ to฀ join฀ a฀ discipline’s฀ conversation.฀
When฀ students฀ know฀ their฀ contribution฀
is฀being฀graded,฀they฀adjust฀their฀study฀
habits฀ to฀ be฀ better฀ prepared฀ for฀ discussion฀(Bean฀&฀Peterson).฀
Justice฀and฀Performance฀
Appraisal
Regardless฀ of฀ how฀ important฀ graded฀
class฀contribution฀might฀appear฀to฀student฀
learning,฀the฀fairness฀of฀the฀grading฀procedure฀is฀paramount฀for฀its฀effectiveness.฀
Price฀and฀Mueller฀(1986)฀initially฀defined฀
fairness฀ in฀ appraisal฀ as฀ “the฀ degree฀ to฀
which฀rewards฀and฀punishments฀are฀related฀to฀performance฀inputs”฀(p.฀122).฀This฀
definition฀ seems฀ to฀ refer฀ to฀ distributive฀
justice,฀ the฀ fairness฀ of฀ the฀ decision฀ outcomes฀ (Deutsch,฀ 1985).฀ Early฀ research฀
on฀ the฀ outcomes฀ of฀ distributive฀ justice฀

perceptions฀was฀inconsistent฀(e.g.,฀Landy,฀
Barnes,฀&฀Murphy,฀1978;฀Landy,฀BarnesFarrell฀&฀Cleveland,฀1980).฀More฀recent฀
research฀ has฀ showed฀ that฀ employees฀
were฀ more฀ concerned฀ with฀ procedural฀
justice—the฀perceived฀accuracy฀and฀fairness฀ of฀ the฀ procedures฀ used฀ to฀ generate฀
outcomes—than฀ with฀ distributive฀ justice฀
(Dipboye฀&฀de฀Pontbriand,฀1981;฀Greenberg,฀1987;฀Lind฀&฀Tyler,฀1988).฀
What฀do฀findings฀on฀distributive฀and฀
procedural฀ justice฀ indicate฀ for฀ grading฀
class฀contribution?฀The฀findings฀suggest฀
that฀a฀student฀is฀more฀likely฀to฀perceive฀
a฀ grade฀ as฀ fair฀ if฀ the฀ student฀ believes฀
that฀fair฀procedures฀were฀used฀to฀reach฀
that฀grade฀regardless฀of฀the฀value฀of฀that฀
grade.฀Landy฀et฀al.฀(1978)฀found฀process฀
variables฀ to฀ be฀ important฀ in฀ employee฀
perceptions฀of฀the฀fairness฀and฀accuracy฀

of฀ performance฀ appraisal.฀ Specifically,฀
they฀ found฀ that฀ frequency฀ of฀ feedback,฀

knowledge฀ of฀ performance,฀ agreement฀
on฀job฀duties,฀and฀proactiveness฀in฀helping฀the฀employee฀overcome฀weaknesses฀
were฀related฀to฀the฀employee’s฀perceived฀
fairness฀and฀accuracy฀of฀appraisals.
Gilliland฀(1993)฀developed฀a฀theoretical฀ model฀ of฀ procedural฀ justice฀ based฀
on฀ organizational฀ justice฀ research.฀ His฀
model฀ included฀ 10฀ procedural฀ rules฀ of฀
which฀ satisfaction฀ or฀ violation—the฀
model฀posited—affected฀overall฀evaluation฀of฀procedural฀justice.฀Although฀the฀
model฀ was฀ designed฀ to฀ measure฀ fairness฀ in฀ selection฀ procedures,฀ the฀ present฀research฀extended฀it฀to฀performance฀
appraisal฀ (i.e.,฀ class฀ contribution฀ grading).฀ Performance฀ appraisal฀ and฀ selection฀ involve฀ many฀ of฀ the฀ same฀ procedures,฀ primarily฀ in฀ rating฀ individuals.฀฀
Previous฀ researchers฀ (e.g.,฀ Forgas฀ &฀
George,฀2001;฀Latham,฀Wexley,฀&฀Pursell,฀1975)฀have฀examined฀performance฀
appraisal฀and฀selection฀together.
Gilliland฀(1993)฀grouped฀the฀10฀rules฀
in฀his฀model฀into฀three฀broad฀categories:฀
formal฀characteristics,฀explanation,฀and฀
interpersonal฀treatment.฀Formal฀characteristics฀include฀job฀relatedness,฀chance฀
to฀perform,฀reconsideration฀opportunity,฀
and฀ consistency.฀ Explanation฀ includes฀
feedback,฀ justification฀ for฀ a฀ decision,฀
and฀ openness.฀ Interpersonal฀ treatment฀
includes฀treatment,฀two-way฀communication,฀and฀propriety฀of฀questions.฀Bauer฀
et฀al.฀(2001)฀developed฀a฀comprehensive฀
measure฀of฀Gilliland’s฀procedural฀justice฀
rules,฀ the฀ Selection฀ Procedural฀ Justice฀
Scale฀(SPJS).฀Their฀results฀suggest฀that฀
there฀ are฀ 11฀ procedural฀ justice฀ factors฀
with฀ a฀ two-factor,฀ higher-order฀ factor฀
model฀consisting฀of฀structure฀and฀social฀
factors.฀ The฀ structure฀ factor฀ reflects฀
Gilliland’s฀ formal฀ characteristics,฀ and฀
the฀social฀factor฀reflects฀explanation฀and฀
interpersonal฀ characteristics.฀ Although฀
all฀the฀rules฀in฀the฀structure฀factor฀relate฀
to฀class฀contribution฀grading,฀this฀article฀
focuses฀ on฀ 5฀ because฀ researchers฀ are฀
likely฀to฀find฀them฀in฀course฀syllabi฀and฀
can฀measure฀them฀more฀objectively฀than฀
they฀can฀those฀not฀in฀course฀syllabi.
Information฀Known฀
The฀ first฀ relevant฀ rule฀ of฀ Gilliland’s฀
(1993)฀model฀refers฀to฀information฀and฀
July/August฀2008฀

361

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016

explanation฀ about฀ the฀ process฀ that฀ the฀
leader฀ gives฀ to฀ the฀ participant฀ before฀
testing.฀ English฀ (1991)฀ listed฀ “agreement฀among฀all฀critical฀parties฀on฀what฀
is฀to฀be฀performed”฀(p.฀58)฀as฀a฀critical฀
component฀ of฀ a฀ performance฀ appraisal฀
system.฀In฀the฀context฀of฀employee฀evaluation,฀the฀formal฀evaluation฀should฀not฀
contain฀any฀surprises฀for฀the฀employee,฀
because฀ it฀ is฀ just฀ a฀ specific฀ point฀ in฀
an฀ ongoing฀ process.฀ In฀ the฀ context฀ of฀
class฀contribution฀grading,฀information฀
known฀ refers฀ to฀ how฀ well฀ the฀ syllabus฀
spells฀out฀the฀criteria฀for฀class฀contribution฀grading.
Job฀Relatedness฀
The฀ second฀ relevant฀ rule฀ refers฀ to฀
the฀ extent฀ to฀ which฀ a฀ test฀ appears฀ to฀
measure฀ content฀ relevant฀ to฀ the฀ situation.฀ Gilliland฀ (1993)฀ based฀ this฀ rule฀
on฀ the฀ findings฀ of฀ several฀ studies฀ that฀
indicate฀ that฀ perceptions฀ of฀ fairness฀ in฀
evaluation฀processes฀depend฀on฀whether฀they฀are฀based฀on฀relevant฀and฀accurate฀information฀(e.g.,฀Leventhal,฀1980;฀
Sheppard฀ &฀ Lewicki,฀ 1987).฀ Court฀
cases฀ on฀ performance฀ appraisal฀ have฀
demonstrated฀ that฀ managers฀ cannot฀
base฀appraisals฀on฀gut฀feelings฀(Eldred฀
v.฀ Consolidated฀ Freightways,฀ 1995)฀
but฀can฀use฀subjective฀criteria,฀such฀as฀
interpersonal฀skills฀and฀team฀leadership฀
(Amirmokri฀ v.฀ Baltimore฀ Gas฀ &฀ Electric฀Co.,฀1995).฀In฀the฀context฀of฀class฀
contribution฀ grading,฀ job฀ relatedness฀
refers฀ to฀ how฀ much฀ class฀ contribution฀
grades฀appear฀to฀reflect฀student฀contributions฀to฀learning.฀
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฀ Cropanzano฀ (1992)฀ suggested฀ that฀ providing฀
feedback฀ on฀ a฀ regularly฀ recurring฀ and฀
timely฀ basis฀ is฀ vital฀ to฀ performance฀
appraisal฀ fairness.฀ For฀ students,฀ feedback฀ is฀ a฀ primary฀ motivator.฀ Without฀
feedback,฀students฀do฀not฀know฀how฀far฀
they฀ have฀ traveled฀ toward฀ their฀ goals฀
and฀ may฀ withdraw฀ their฀ energy฀ from฀
learning฀(Tiberius,฀1990).
362฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

Reconsideration฀Opportunity฀
The฀ fourth฀ relevant฀ rule฀ refers฀ to฀
whether฀ the฀ applicant฀ has฀ the฀ opportunity฀ to฀ challenge฀ the฀ decision-making฀
process฀ and฀ review฀ the฀ outcome.฀ Folger฀ et฀ al.฀ (1992)฀ suggested฀ that฀ allowing฀ employees฀ to฀ hear฀ the฀ appraiser’s฀
description฀ of฀ their฀ performance฀ and฀
then฀ respond฀ with฀ their฀ own฀ commentary฀ is฀ an฀ essential฀ part฀ of฀ receiving฀
a฀ fair฀ hearing.฀ In฀ the฀ context฀ of฀ class฀
contribution฀ grading,฀ reconsideration฀
opportunity฀ refers฀ to฀ whether฀ the฀ student฀ is฀ given฀ the฀ opportunity฀ to฀ challenge฀a฀contribution฀grade.
Chance฀to฀Perform฀
The฀ fifth฀ relevant฀ rule฀ refers฀ to฀
whether฀ the฀ participant฀ gets฀ the฀ opportunity฀to฀express฀knowledge,฀skills,฀and฀
abilities฀ prior฀ to฀ a฀ decision.฀ Gilliland฀
(1993)฀based฀this฀rule฀on฀several฀studies฀
(e.g.,฀ Dipboye฀ &฀ de฀ Pontbriand,฀ 1981;฀
Greenberg,฀ 1986;฀ Thibaut฀ &฀ Walker,฀
1975)฀ that฀ showed฀ that฀ procedures฀ are฀
perceived฀ as฀ more฀ fair฀ if฀ the฀ recipients฀
of฀ the฀ decision฀ get฀ the฀ opportunity฀ to฀
express฀themselves฀before฀the฀decisions฀
are฀ made.฀ In฀ the฀ context฀ of฀ class฀ contribution฀ grading,฀ chance฀ to฀ perform฀
refers฀ to฀ the฀ opportunities฀ for฀ students฀
to฀ contribute฀ to฀ class฀ discussion,฀ provided฀by฀the฀instructor.
Hypotheses฀
We฀ developed฀ hypotheses฀ regarding฀
the฀relationship฀between฀the฀aforementioned฀ procedural฀ justice฀ rules฀ and฀ the฀
objective฀characteristics฀of฀class฀contribution฀grading.฀To฀determine฀the฀objective฀characteristics฀of฀class฀contribution฀
grading,฀ we฀ compiled฀ syllabi฀ from฀ all฀
management฀ classes฀ at฀ a฀ Southwestern฀
university฀ and฀ examined฀ and฀ content฀
coded฀ the฀ class฀ contribution฀ portions.฀
From฀the฀content฀coding฀emerged฀three฀
independent฀ variables:฀ (a)฀ explicitness฀
of฀ class฀ contribution฀ grading฀ criteria,฀
(b)฀ frequency฀ of฀ feedback฀ on฀ contribution฀ grades,฀ and฀ (c)฀ proactiveness฀ of฀
instructor฀in฀encouraging฀contribution.฀
Perceptions฀ of฀ information฀ known฀
and฀ job฀ relatedness฀ should฀ be฀ related฀
to฀ the฀ explicitness฀ of฀ the฀ criteria฀ for฀
grading฀class฀contribution.฀Explicit฀criteria฀ are฀ clearly฀ stated฀ and฀ leave฀ noth-

ing฀ implied.฀ Spelling฀ out฀ requirements฀
ahead฀ of฀ time฀ should฀ reduce฀ students’฀
uncertainty฀ and฀ beliefs฀ that฀ they฀ did฀
poorly฀because฀they฀did฀not฀know฀what฀
to฀expect.฀When฀instructors฀make฀it฀clear฀
what฀actions฀will฀constitute฀a฀contribution฀to฀classroom฀learning,฀students฀will฀
be฀able฀to฀make฀the฀link฀between฀them฀
and฀the฀objectives฀of฀the฀class.
Hypothesis฀ 1฀ (H1):฀ Explicitness฀ of฀ class฀
contribution฀grading฀criteria฀will฀be฀positively฀related฀to฀perceived฀fairness.

Perceptions฀ of฀ feedback฀ and฀ reconsideration฀opportunity฀should฀be฀related฀
to฀how฀often฀the฀instructor฀informs฀students฀of฀their฀class฀contribution฀grades.฀
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฀
the฀end฀of฀the฀semester฀by฀a฀poor฀grade.
More฀ frequent฀ feedback฀ should฀ also฀
give฀students฀the฀opportunity฀to฀redress฀
their฀ performance฀ either฀ by฀ changing฀
their฀behavior฀or฀asking฀the฀instructor฀to฀
reconsider฀their฀grade.
Hypothesis฀2฀(H2):฀Frequency฀of฀feedback฀
on฀class฀contribution฀grades฀will฀be฀positively฀related฀to฀perceived฀fairness.

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฀ contribution฀ define฀ proactiveness.฀ More฀ proactive฀instructors฀provide฀opportunities฀for฀
discussion฀through฀such฀mechanisms฀as฀
cold฀calling฀to฀draw฀quiet฀students฀into฀
discussion฀or฀suggesting฀topics฀for฀discussion฀in฀advance฀so฀that฀students฀can฀
prepare฀(Bean฀&฀Peterson,฀1998).฀Other฀
proactive฀ methods฀ include฀ using฀ class฀
exercises฀ and฀ breaking฀ into฀ small฀ discussion฀groups฀(Bean฀&฀Peterson).
Hypothesis฀ 3฀ (H3):฀ Proactive฀ instruction฀
techniques฀ will฀ be฀ positively฀ related฀ to฀
perceived฀fairness.

METHOD
Study฀Design
We฀ conducted฀ two฀ studies฀ to฀ examine฀ how฀ students฀ perceive฀ the฀ fairness฀
of฀ various฀ types฀ of฀ class฀ contribution฀

grading.฀ To฀ test฀ the฀ hypotheses,฀ a฀ scenario฀and฀survey฀design฀was฀used.฀Independent฀ variables฀ were฀ manipulated฀ in฀
scenarios,฀and฀dependent฀variables฀were฀
measured฀in฀a฀survey.฀The฀first฀study฀had฀
a฀between-subjects฀design฀in฀which฀students฀read฀one฀grading฀scenario฀reflecting฀ a฀ fairness฀ condition฀ and฀ rated฀ its฀
procedural฀justice.฀The฀second฀study฀had฀
a฀ within-subject฀ design฀ in฀ which฀ students฀ read฀ grading฀ scenarios฀ reflecting฀
all฀ fairness฀ conditions฀ and฀ rated฀ each฀
one฀separately฀on฀procedural฀justice.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016

Stimulus฀Material฀Development
To฀ create฀ scenarios฀ to฀ represent฀ the฀
range฀of฀actual฀class฀contribution฀grading฀ methods,฀ we฀ content฀ coded฀ class฀
contribution฀ portions฀ of฀ syllabi฀ from฀
all฀management฀classes฀at฀a฀Southwestern฀university฀and฀wrote฀descriptions฀of฀
classroom฀ contribution฀ grading฀ procedures฀that฀captured฀high฀and฀low฀condi-

tions฀of฀each฀independent฀variable.฀Several฀subject฀matter฀experts฀then฀read฀the฀
conditions฀ to฀ ensure฀ face฀ validity.฀ The฀
final฀conditions฀are฀listed฀in฀Table฀1.
We฀then฀combined฀the฀six฀conditions฀
(explicitness:฀ high฀ and฀ low;฀ frequency฀
of฀ feedback:฀ high฀ and฀ low;฀ and฀ proactiveness฀of฀instructor:฀high฀and฀low)฀in฀
a฀ 2฀ ×฀ 2฀ ×฀ 2฀ fully฀ crossed฀ experimental฀
design.฀Each฀of฀the฀scenarios฀was฀introduced฀by฀the฀sentence฀“Please฀read฀the฀
below฀ synopsis฀ of฀ a฀ class฀ contribution฀
grading฀technique฀from฀a฀class฀syllabus฀
and฀answer฀the฀subsequent฀questions฀as฀
if฀ you฀ were฀ taking฀ a฀ class฀ with฀ such฀ a฀
grading฀technique.”฀
To฀measure฀procedural฀justice฀of฀each฀
scenario,฀ we฀ adopted฀ items฀ from฀ the฀
SPJS฀ (Bauer฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2001).฀ The฀ SPJS฀
found฀ two฀ higher฀ order฀ factors—structure฀ and฀ social฀ factors—among฀ Gilliland’s฀ (1993)฀ procedural฀ justice฀ rules.฀
Because฀we฀predicted฀that฀the฀manipulations฀ in฀ this฀ study฀ would฀ influence฀

perceptions฀ through฀ the฀ structure฀ of฀
class฀ contribution฀ grading฀ techniques,฀
only฀structural฀factor฀items฀were฀used.฀
The฀five฀procedural฀justice฀rules฀that฀
fall฀ under฀ the฀ structure฀ factor฀ are฀ jobrelatedness,฀information฀known,฀chance฀
to฀perform,฀reconsideration฀opportunity,฀
and฀feedback.฀The฀items฀were฀rewritten฀
to฀reflect฀the฀procedural฀justice฀of฀class฀
contribution฀ grading฀ instead฀ of฀ selection฀ procedures.฀ Bauer฀ et฀ al.฀ (2001)฀
wrote฀the฀item฀stems฀so฀that฀their฀scale฀
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.฀An฀exploratory฀factor฀analysis฀ (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฀
not฀load฀well฀on฀their฀factors฀and฀made฀
slight฀modifications.฀In฀the฀main฀study,฀
the฀ revised฀ SPJS฀ and฀ its฀ subscales฀ all฀

TABLE฀1.฀Description฀of฀High฀and฀Low฀Conditions฀for฀Each฀Independent฀Variable
Variable฀

Description

Explicitness
฀฀฀฀Low

This฀class฀is฀designed฀to฀be฀highly฀participatory.฀Therefore,฀you฀will฀be฀graded฀on฀your฀overall฀participation฀and฀
attendance.

฀฀฀฀High

This฀class฀is฀designed฀to฀be฀highly฀participatory.฀Therefore,฀you฀will฀be฀graded฀on฀your฀class฀participation.฀While฀
this฀is฀a฀subjective฀measure,฀your฀instructor฀will฀try฀to฀standardize฀it฀as฀much฀as฀possible฀by฀tracking฀your฀attendance฀and฀productive฀participation฀in฀class฀discussions฀and฀activities.฀Several฀of฀the฀in-class฀activities฀will฀involve฀
small฀group฀discussions.฀This฀participation฀grade฀will฀consist฀of฀the฀following฀components:฀quality฀of฀productive฀
comments฀made฀in฀class฀(quality฀not฀quantity);฀coming฀to฀class฀on฀time฀and฀not฀leaving฀early;฀working฀productively฀during฀in-class฀exercises.

Feedback
฀฀฀฀Low

At฀the฀end฀of฀the฀semester,฀you฀will฀receive฀your฀semester฀grade฀for฀class฀participation.฀Participation฀grades฀for฀
the฀semester฀will฀be฀posted฀during฀the฀final฀week฀of฀classes.฀

฀฀฀฀High

You฀will฀receive฀feedback฀on฀your฀participation฀grade฀each฀week฀through฀the฀following฀method.฀At฀the฀end฀of฀
each฀class฀period,฀the฀instructor฀will฀ask฀you฀to฀pass฀your฀name฀cards฀back.฀But฀before฀you฀pass฀them฀in,฀turn฀
them฀over฀and฀grade฀your฀own฀contribution฀to฀the฀class฀on฀the฀following฀scale:฀฀0฀(didn’t฀show฀up฀or฀came฀to฀
class฀and฀did฀not฀pay฀attention฀[read฀newspaper,฀took฀a฀nap,฀etc.]);฀1฀(came฀to฀class,฀acted฀interested);฀2฀(came฀to฀
class,฀made฀some฀contributions);฀3฀(came฀to฀class,฀made฀several฀contributions฀and฀at฀least฀one฀insightful฀one);฀4฀
(made฀a฀number฀of฀insightful฀comments).฀The฀instructor฀will฀look฀these฀over฀after฀each฀class฀and฀if฀the฀instructor’s฀assessment฀of฀your฀contribution฀is฀different฀than฀yours,฀your฀name฀card฀will฀be฀returned฀to฀you฀next฀class฀
period฀with฀a฀short฀note฀regarding฀why.฀If฀your฀assessment฀and฀the฀instructor’s฀are฀the฀same,฀you฀will฀receive฀
your฀name฀card฀back฀at฀the฀next฀class฀period฀without฀any฀comments฀on฀it.

Proactiveness

฀

฀฀฀฀Low

You฀are฀encouraged฀to฀speak฀up฀during฀class฀discussions฀and฀participate฀in฀class฀exercises.

฀฀฀฀High

You฀are฀encouraged฀to฀speak฀up฀during฀class฀discussions฀and฀participate฀in฀class฀exercises.฀The฀instructor฀will฀
try฀to฀increase฀your฀participation฀in฀class฀by:฀1.฀holding฀open,฀free฀class฀discussion;฀2.฀suggesting฀in฀advance,฀
topics฀for฀discussion;฀3.฀calling฀on฀people฀who฀do฀not฀have฀their฀hands฀up;฀4.฀using฀class฀exercises฀that฀you฀can฀
be฀involved฀in;฀5.฀working฀in฀a฀team฀to฀complete฀a฀class฀project;฀6.฀holding฀two-person฀discussion฀exercises;฀7.฀
encouraging฀contributions฀that฀are฀succinct฀and฀have฀a฀high฀impact฀on฀the฀class฀discussion.

July/August฀2008฀

363

TABLE฀2.฀Rewritten฀Items฀From฀the฀Selection฀Procedural฀Justice฀Scale฀(S.฀W.฀Gilliland,฀1993)

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016

Procedural฀justice฀rule฀

Items

Job฀relatedness

A฀good฀grade฀on฀the฀class฀participation฀grading฀scale฀in฀this฀class฀means฀a฀student฀enhanced฀the฀learning฀of฀฀
฀฀฀฀the฀class.
A฀person฀who฀scored฀well฀on฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀is฀a฀knowledgeable฀student.
Students฀who฀get฀high฀participation฀grades฀under฀this฀system฀would฀be฀knowledgeable฀and฀well-prepared฀฀
฀฀฀฀for฀class.

Chance฀to฀perform

The฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀gives฀everyone฀the฀opportunity฀to฀show฀what฀they฀can฀฀
฀฀฀฀really฀do.
The฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀allows฀me฀to฀show฀what฀my฀skills฀are.
I฀am฀able฀to฀show฀what฀I฀can฀do฀through฀this฀class’฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation.

Feedback

The฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀gives฀me฀a฀clear฀idea฀of฀when฀I฀will฀get฀my฀฀
฀฀฀฀participation฀grade฀results.
This฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀gives฀students฀plenty฀of฀feedback฀on฀how฀they฀are฀doing.
In฀this฀class,฀I฀am฀satisfied฀with฀the฀amount฀of฀time฀it฀takes฀to฀get฀feedback฀on฀my฀class฀participation฀results.

Information฀known

In฀this฀class,฀I฀understand฀what฀is฀required฀to฀get฀a฀good฀grade฀in฀class฀participation.
From฀this฀description,฀I฀understand฀the฀requirements฀of฀class฀participation.
I฀know฀what฀to฀expect฀regarding฀the฀components฀of฀class฀participation฀grading฀in฀this฀class.

Reconsideration

The฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀provides฀students฀with฀the฀opportunity฀to฀contest฀their฀฀
฀฀฀฀participation฀grades฀before฀the฀end฀of฀the฀semester.
The฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀gives฀students฀the฀chance฀to฀discuss฀participation฀฀
฀฀฀฀grades฀with฀someone.
The฀method฀of฀grading฀class฀participation฀in฀this฀class฀allows฀students฀to฀have฀their฀grades฀reviewed฀if฀฀
฀฀฀฀they฀want.

reached฀acceptable฀levels฀of฀Cronbach’s฀
alpha฀(.70฀or฀greater).
RESULTS
Study฀1
We฀designed฀Study฀1฀as฀a฀2฀×฀2฀×฀2฀
fully฀ crossed฀ between-subjects฀ experiment.฀The฀participants฀were฀385฀undergraduate฀students฀(207฀men,฀158฀women,฀
20฀ individuals฀ of฀ unspecified฀ gender)฀
at฀ a฀ Southwestern฀ university.฀ Students฀
were฀ randomly฀ given฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ eight฀
possible฀ scenarios฀ and฀ answered฀ the฀
SPJS฀questions฀during฀class฀in฀business฀
classes฀whose฀instructors฀had฀agreed฀to฀
cooperate฀ with฀ the฀ study.฀A฀ researcher฀
presented฀the฀survey,฀stressing฀that฀students฀should฀consider฀the฀study฀separate฀
from฀ how฀ contribution฀ was฀ graded฀ in฀
that฀particular฀class.฀Also,฀the฀researcher฀ encouraged฀ students฀ to฀ answer฀ the฀
survey฀following฀the฀scenarios฀for฀altruistic฀ reasons,฀ suggesting฀ that฀ completing฀ it฀ would฀ help฀ improve฀ education฀
at฀ the฀ university.฀ This฀ approach฀ was฀
purposeful฀ to฀ avoid฀ appealing฀ only฀ to฀
students฀ who฀ were฀ disgruntled฀ about฀
their฀grades.฀
We฀ tested฀ hypotheses฀ by฀ using฀ analysis฀ of฀ variance฀ (ANOVA).฀ Table฀ 3฀
364฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

shows฀ correlations,฀ means,฀ and฀ standard฀deviations฀among฀the฀independent฀
and฀ dependent฀ variables.฀ The฀ hypotheses฀ were฀ submitted฀ to฀ a฀ 2฀ (frequency฀
of฀ feedback:฀ high,฀ low)฀ ×฀ 2฀ (proactiveness:฀ high,฀ low)฀ ×฀ 2฀ (explicitness:฀
high,฀low)฀independent฀groups฀factorial฀
ANOVA.฀ All฀ three฀ independent฀ variables฀produced฀significant฀main฀effects.฀
For฀explicitness,฀F(1,฀377)฀=฀24.62,฀p฀