Grading class participation signals students about the kind of learning and thinking an instructor values. This chapter describes three models of class participation, several models for assessment including a sample rubric, problems with assessing classroom participation, and strategies for overcoming these problems.A recent study of core curriculum syllabi at Seattle University revealed that 93 percent of courses included class participation as a component of course grades. Our informal discussions with professors, however, suggest that most professors determine participation grades impressionistically, using class participation largely as a fudge factor in computing final course grades. This phenomenon helps explain why assessment and measurement scholars almost universally advise against grading class participation (see Davis, 1993, pp. 80, 283). 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 objectives" (p. 195). Jacobs and Chase identify several reasons for not grading class participation: professors generally don't provide instruction on how to improve participation; interpretation of student behavior is difficult and subjective; participation often depends on a student' s personality, thus disadvantaging shy or introverted students; record-keeping is problematic; participation scores for a given individual are hard to justify if challenged.Despite these objections, we believe that grading class participation can send positive signals to students about the kind of learning and thinking an instructor values, such as growth in critical thinking, active learning, development of listening and speaking skills needed for career success, and the ability to join a discipline' s conversation. By explaining these values to students, professors can justify the emphasis they place on class participation. Moreover, research reveals that students with a high grade orientation value only those portions of a course that are visibly graded (Marzano and others, 1988, p. 137;Janzow and Eison, 1990). When students see that their participation is being graded regularly and consistently, they adjust their study habits accordingly to be prepared for active participation.

This paper describes a flaw in the teaching of issues related to market economics and social justice at American institutions of higher learning. The flaw we speak of is really a gap, or an educational disconnect, which exists between those faculty who support market-based economies and those who believe capitalism promotes economic injustice. The thesis of this paper is that the gap is so wide and the ideas that are promoted are so disconnected that students are trapped into choosing one or the other position (or neither) and are left unable to link the two sides of the discussion. Such an educational process is not one that produces free and reasoned discernment. In this paper, we briefly relate how we came to be aware of the disconnect and its harms. We present evidence that a pedagogical gulf exists within the teaching of markets and capitalism at American universities – faculty interviews, course syllabi, portions of the corpus of material generally referred to as Catholic Social Thought, as well as references to traditional, mainstream economic theory. Further, we give evidence of the confusion and frustration among students this gulf causes. We suggest possible reasons for the gulf–primarily through an investigation of the differences in underlying assumptions and misperceptions that exist between two divisions within universities. We conclude by suggesting a set of curricular changes designed to improve teaching. The authors’ aim is not to change people’s minds. It is to change their teaching. The authors believe that these curricular changes will leave students less frustrated and better prepared for a life of significant service – with improved critical thinking skills. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006business school, Catholic Social Thought, critical thinking, humanities, market economics, social justice, welfare theory,

No abstract

Using survey data, this paper examines the different goals and constraints facing corporate and association meeting planners (AMPs). It next shows how these differences produce 11 different concerns and behaviours. For instance, increased pressure for ethical behaviour and financial transparency has forced corporate meeting planners to focus attention on reducing meeting costs and to choose easily accessible and convenient properties for meetings. On the other hand, associations focus on the interests of their members and strive to comport with group norms, and therefore plan enjoyable family-friendly meetings, often at relaxed and upscale locations. This paper outlines seven different ways in which the hospitality industry should approach corporate and AMPs.

No abstract