Feature Article

Assessment Rubric and Methodology
for Quality Classroom Participation

David Stepanczuk
Kansai University
The purpose of this paper is to compare a quality-based classroom participation rubric andmethodology participation assessment (OEQP) against standards found in the critical
literature on the topic. Critical literature on classroom participation was analyzed for
definition of topic, and problems of systematization and assessment, among other relevant
items. The studies were separated for relevance to classroom participation in the English as
a foreign language classroom. A taxonomy of classroom participation was created from therelevant literature. The rubric and methodology were weighed against the taxonomy. It was
found that the OEQP rubric and methodology, and their presentation, validated against
the taxonomy across dimensions of quality output, systemization of use, inclusiveness,
opportunity, motivation, and bias avoidance. The OEQP rubric and methodology gives
an example of how to create a quality-based participation rubric, include its previsions tostudents, and recognize and assess participation in the language lab.
本稿の目的は、関連論文にみられる授業参加評価基準の問題と「実質的授業参加規程・方法論」（OEQP）の比較である。授業参加に関する先行研究をトピックの定義、他の関連要素のなかでも体系化と評価の問題について分析した。先行研究
を外国語としての英語授業に関連したものに絞った。関連文献から授業参加項目の分類表を作成し、授業参加規程・方法論と考え合わせた。OEQPによる規程・方法論とその授業による実施結果は実質的アウトプット使用の体系化、全員参加、機会均等、モーティベーション、平等性といった問題の項目すべてに有効であることを示した。OEQP規程と方法論により、実質的授業参加項目作成法、学生への事
前予告法、LL教室での参加の把握と評価法の例を示すことができる。

Certain English as a Foreign Language (EFL) full-time professors disagree on
the credibility of classroom participation assessment in conversation classes
at a large public university in western Japan where I teach. This prompted my152Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

review of classroom participation evaluation guidelines and methodology andimplementing agreed-upon strategies. The participation grade in my classes forfirst- and second-year compulsory EFL speaking and listening classes is 30% of
the final grade. With the stakes that high, standards for classroom participation
grading need to be scrutinized and chosen carefully. In 2009, a classroom
participation rubric and methodology was created for these types of classes, withitems matched to quality points in order to assess students’ observable effort
towards quality performance (OEQP).
This paper will compare the current OEQP rationale that was developed
over several years versus methodology found in existing literature on classroom
participation. The comparison will begin by defining classroom participation. It
will then examine how participation has been systematized and assessed in thepast. After that, the need for participation grading will be argued, including
prevising—informing the students ahead of time that their participation will beassessed—and student feelings on the matter. Then the research discussion will
move to the importance of accurate participation assessment. From that pointa participation-based assessment will be taxonomized from the literature. The
evolution of the OEQP participation rubric will then be described over three
periods of time and briefly discussed individually. Finally, the mature iteration of
the OEQP rubric and methodology will be discussed and summarized.
What Is Classroom Participation?
Before defining classroom participation it is useful to look at the nature of thenon-major EFL Japanese university classrooms that were the breeding grounds of
OEQP—the subject participation rubric in this paper. Before the developmentof the OEQP rubric, the mandate to assess participation came from a Japanese
university administration in the late 1990s. Students in those early oral
communication classes I taught began receiving points for raising their hands andanswering questions with any answer; that is, short or long, grammatically correct
or not, using grammar and vocabulary from the day’s lesson or not. Students told
one another “just raise your hand and get a point.” Truculent point-fishing began,with those same extroverted students distracting the class—often in Japanese—153

Stepanczuk

when not point fishing. Shyer students suffered. This began the quest to create asystem to account for quality output; to safeguard opportunities for introverts;
and account for the holistic nature of participation; as reflected in the student’s
activity, and the student’s self-governance, as more than volunteering an answer
or keeping quiet, when another student is talking.
One of the problems with classroom participation results from theconfusion over its multiple definitions. In the literature, participation in theforeign language classroom has been defined using such various behaviors as
good attendance, staying awake, doing extra work, and playing the role of teacher(Rogers, 2011). Tsou (2005) defines participation as speaking, listening, reading,writing, body language, and physical movement. Spratt (cited in Cheng, 1999)
studied students in Hong Kong and included taking part in language games
and listening to other students as part of her 12 points related to classroom
participation. Many of the definitions in this brief overview of classroom
participation are unfinished, insufficient, lacking in accuracy, or contradictory.
The Need For Classroom Participation Assessment
For the purposes of understanding classroom participation through the lens ofquality performance, previous research on this topic must be sorted for relevance.
As mentioned above, classroom participation generally has been broadly defined.
However, there is support for the role of participation in student assessment.
In their study on learning, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) argued thatassessment must go beyond mere testing, to make student thinking transparent
and foster feedback. Mello (2010) studied the pros and cons of the nature andvarious types of classroom participation in different countries, including Japan,
and cited previous studies saying there was “no significant relationship between
levels of participation and test scores” (p. 77). Recurring formative assessment—the teacher appraising student performance while doing a task—helps makestudents’ thinking observable to their teacher, which is important as students
come into a class with course materials and methods preconceptions unknown to
the teacher (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999).
If assessing classroom participation is necessary students’ understanding154

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

and feelings about classroom participation, its meaning, and its assessment
should also be taken into account. There is evidence that informing studentsof what participation is, when and how often it is gauged, and how it affects
their grades, prepares them for active involvement in class (Tsou, 2005; Bean &Peterson, 1998; Zinn et al., 2011; Cabrera et al., 2001). In addition, Zinn et al.
(2011) looked at the differences between student and faculty survey responses
on performance and effort in final grades and showed students wanted those
two factors to be graded with more weight. Ely (1986, cited in Tsou, 2005)
reported on language class discomfort, risk taking, and sociability where output
proficiency was assessed; he supports this by stating that “oral correctness
was influenced by classroom participation” (p. 46). Cognitive evaluation
theory advises rewarding students, pointing out that intrinsic motivation isstrengthened by perceived ability or individual spirit (cited in Eisenberger and
Cameron, 1996). These works support the idea that quality output is a property
of classroom participation that affects students and thus should be assessed.
Assessment Fairness and Accuracy
If participation is to be assessed, it should be fair and accurate. Given the time
constraints of orally testing classes of 30-40 students, individually, in pairs, or ingroups, the full breadth of student knowledge and the skills needed to discuss a
topic in depth cannot be determined. However, in speaking and listening classes, itis the students’ oral performance that is mainly being assessed. Outside of regularoral tests throughout a semester, it is difficult for a teacher to know where a student’s
interlanguage skill level lies between those tests (Mello, 2010; Parker et al, 2011).
Key findings in related literature include participation prevising and how
it will be assessed. Prevising communicates how the teacher will implement
the assessment rubric. It includes fairness of point rewards, when points are
rewarded, task weight of difficulty and the act of the point reward.
Delving into the details of the extensive literature search is beyond the scopeof this paper. Suffice it to say that evidence from numerous researchers was taken
into account as the OEQP rubric was eventually constructed and refined. The
major points that should and should not be included are taxonomized, outlined,
155

Stepanczukand referenced in Table 1. What follows is the experiential observation in theclassroom of how and at what points the development of the OEQP map to thetaxonomized elements from the literature.
Table 1
Classroom Participation Assessment Taxonomy
Assessment Should

Assessment Should Not

include a rubric (Rogers, 2011; Lyons, avoid bias and unconscious favoritism be subjective when assessing1989).
(Black, 1995).
participation and giving
feedback (Shindler, 2003;
include a taxonomy of difficulty
avoid ascribing identities on students
Morita, 2004; Black, 1995;
of questions posed relative student(Morita, 2004).
Bean & Peterson, 2002;
utterances (Bean and Peterson, 2002).
be included in class guidelines or
Burrell, 2009; Lyons, 1989;
be based on communication skills
syllabus (Bean & Peterson, 2002;
Mello, 2010; cited in(Dancer and Kamvounias, 2005;
Weimer, 2012; Tsou, 2005; Zinn etChristensen, et al., 1995).
Black, 1995).
al., 2011; Cabrera et al., 2001; Black,
penalize students or take
1995; Burrell, 2009; Carbone, 1999;
provide a governor against strongpoints away (Bransford,
Lyons, 1989; Jones, 2008).
willed students from dominating
1999.
(Bean and Peterson, 2002; Shindler, employ continuous assessment
lessen teacher ability to
2003; Dancer and Kamvounias,(Dancer and Kamvounias, 2005).
teach and interact with2005).
be consistent in grading (Beanstudents (Shindler, 2003).
monitor progress (Bransford, Brown, & Peterson, 2002; Burrell, 2009;penalize students’and Cocking, 1999).
Shindler, 2003).
personalities, learning styles,
be clear and detailed enough toinclude diverse participationor cultures (Shindler, 2003.
account for the entire nature of thestructures (Patchen, 2005; Lyons,classroom environment, and the1989).
importance of quality performance,account for quality, completeness,but succinct enough to quickly
and timelines of task, as well as
remind the students (Tsou, 2005;
attendance ( Jones, 2008).
Burrell, 2009; Shindler, 2003).
include cold-calling to foster
be obvious when quality-based
opportunities for shy students toparticipation points are being assigned
answer ( Jones, 2008; Morita, 2004;(Boniecki and Moore, 2003).
Naraian, 2011).
carefully keep records (Burrell, 2009;
have a point ceiling to dissuade pointCarbone, 1999; Shindler, 2003.
fishing (Boniecki and Moore, 2003).
assign points in a dispassionate
manner (Bean & Peterson, 2002;
Burrell, 2009).

156

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

The Conception and Evolution of the OEQP
Participation Rubric

This paper will now look at the steps from conception to maturation of the OEQP
participation rubric and methodology, the extent to which the OEQP maps tothose points from the literature, and a discussion of outcomes. The OEQP later
matured into a four-point rubric. The points include, speaking loud and clear
enough so the teacher can understand you; using only English; speaking in full
sentences, and; successfully attempting to accurately use new words and phrases
the teacher has modeled. The OEQP from its nascent stages until maturity has
been used in university first- and second-year compulsory EFL speaking andlistening classes. Classes have included 24-40 students of varying majors. The
rubric has been used to assess students’ interlocution with classmates in pair andgroup work, and with the teacher in cold-calling and volunteering answers.
What follows is a description of the action research from 1998 to present.
Blocks of time will contain descriptions of the changes that were implemented,
followed by observations on their effectiveness and points from the steps of the
OEQP evolution that map to the taxonomy.
1998-1999: First Exposure to Participation Assessment
The year 1998 marked the beginning of the participation assessment methodologythat later became OEQP. Classroom participation was authorized to be partof the students’ final grade for oral English classes. At this point I decided tomake the class syllabus bilingual: English and Japanese. The syllabus contained
fundamentals of what is expected of the students during class participation(Table 2). These included showing the instructor that the students werelistening whenever the instructor spoke, using only English in class, and actively
participating in all class activities.
From this date onward, individual students read the Japanese portions of
the syllabus aloud in front of the class to begin each semester. The grading ofparticipation was achieved by weekly observing and grading individual actions,
without an objective rubric. Also, from this date students were allowed to
calculate their own mid-term grades, with a copy of the teacher’s grade sheet.
157

Stepanczuk
Table 2
1998 Syllabus-borne Participation Rubric
Good participation is...
••••Showing the instructor you are listening whenever he speaks. (stop talking, make eye contact, listen)
Using only English in class (don’t cheat yourself by using Japanese in class. In class is English time, so
use only English)
Actively participating in all class activities (when the instructor says to begin an exercise, begin quickly,
when you are finished with one partner, find another partner quickly)
If you have a question, ask the teacher in English, don’t ask another student in Japanese, and neverpretend you understand if you really don’t—ask the instructor)

When the calculations were completed some students whose grades were
adversely affected by a low participation score were noticeably surprised by theeffect participation had on their grades.
Initial observations• The students heard and understood the contents about participation in
their own language.
• The participation rubric was succinct and easily referable (Table 2), but
direct referencing to it was largely ignored by teacher and students.
• Students were at the mercy of the teacher’s moods and whims.
• Continuous grading (Dancer and Kamvounias, 2005) and record-keeping(Burrell, 2009; Carbone, 1999; Shindler, 2003) of the participation
methodology combined with mid-term grade calculations made anemotional impact on the students.
• Syllabus prevising and referring caused students to review the syllabus(Bean & Peterson, 2002; Weimer, 2012; Tsou, 2005; Zinn et al., 2011;
Cabrera et al., 2001; Black, 1995; Burrell, 2009; Carbone, 1999; Lyons,
1989; Jones, 2008).
• Nascent participation fundamentals were included in the syllabus (Bean& Peterson, 2002; Weimer, 2012; Tsou, 2005; Zinn et al., 2011; Cabrera
et al., 2001; Black, 1995; Burrell, 2009; Carbone, 1999; Lyons, 1989;
Jones, 2008).

158

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

2000-2006: The Move Towards OEQPAt this point the participation methodology was rewritten: The beginnings ofmeaning negotiation were introduced to the bilingual syllabus. For example, thefollowing item was added, “If you have a question, ask the teacher in English, don’t
ask another student in Japanese, and never pretend you understand if you really
don’t “ask the instructor”. From this date, weekly efforts were made to remind
students of the importance not only of participation but task-consequential
meaning negotiation. That is, in pair work activities simply filling in the blanks
was not the essence of the activity. Students were prompted to use classroom
English patterns in their textbooks to negotiate meaning directly with the teacher,when the teacher was monitoring. Three participation aspects were added:• Volunteering first when the instructor asks a question or asks forvolunteers• Answering questions (Cold-calling was employed to accommodate shyer
students.)• Helping the class in English (Looking up a word in the dictionary.
Finding a better answer to a problem, etc.)
These items were added as gradable events, provided that they were in
English and their information was correct.
Two negative participation items were also included to the rubric and syllabus
under a new heading—Bad Participation: “Speaking out of turn” and “Making
noise/causing a disturbance in class, preventing a pristine study environment.”
Punitive action is not positive, but it was effective, especially in light of the midterm self-grade calculation where students could see how participation affected
their grade.
Observations From the Initial Stage of the OEQP
Progress monitoring, though still in its early stages of development, was constantly
assessed against the participation matrices on the bilingual syllabus (Table 3). For
example, were students volunteering answers, answering cold-call questions, andusing opportunities to get participation points by helping others by looking up
words in the dictionary? I began to step in when strong-willed students started to159

Stepanczuk
Table 3
2000- 2006 Syllabus-borne Participation Rubric
Good participation is...
•••Volunteering.
Answering questions.
Helping the class in English (Looking up a word in the dictionary. Finding a better answer to a
problem, etc.)

dominate a situation, by warning them and referencing the participation rubric.
Moreover, whether positive or negative, point allocation became more obvious.
Preventing participation assessment from hobbling teacher ability to teach andwork with students (Shindler, 2003) as a metric was turned on its head. In fact,
the outcome was the converse of this metric: with punitive measures now built into the methodology, participation assessment enabled the teacher to work withstudents and keep safe comity.
• Student progress was constantly assessed against the participation rubric(Table 3) (Rogers, 2011; Lyons, 1989).
• By closely adhering to the participation rubric impartial point assignment
became possible (Bean & Peterson, 2002; Burrell, 2009).
• Moreover closely adhering to the participation rubric safeguarded
students from being discriminate against for their personalities, learning
styles, or cultures (Shindler, 2003).
• Students’ progress was monitor (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999).
• Subjectivity of participation grading began to disappear (Shindler, 2003;
Morita, 2004; Black, 1995; Bean & Peterson, 2002; Burrell, 2009; Lyons,
1989; Mello, 2010; cited in Christensen, et al., 1995).
• I began making point allocation obvious by announcing “That’s a point,
Taro,” or “Sorry, Tomoko, one point down” (Boniecki and Moore, 2003).
• Participation was based on communication skills (Dancer andKamvounias, 2005; Black, 1995).
• Cold-calling provided a governor against strong-willed students fromdominating (Bean and Peterson, 2002; Shindler, 2003; Dancer andKamvounias, 2005).
160

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171• Cold-calling also helped check bias and favoritism (Black, 1995).
• Moreover cold-calling fostered opportunities for quiet students ( Jones,
2008; Morita, 2004; Naraian, 2011).
• The rubric was clear and detailed about quality performance, but succinct(Tsou, 2005; Burrell, 2009; Shindler, 2003).
• Incorporated
variousparticipation
structures—cold-calling,
volunteering, and participation assessment of pair and group work
(Patchen, 2005; Lyons, 1989).
2006-2009: Further Development of OEQP
This period of rubric development was marked by awarding points for all efforts.
Also, the pre-OEQP methodology began to account for participation as a classlong assessment. Student tardiness, readiness to engage the activity, and willingness
to remain seated until the teacher ended the class became participation criteria.
At this point the synthesis of the literature and the participation methodology
was the continuous assessment of the students and their involvement with theteacher as an interdependent, organic whole. Referencing and reiteration of theparticipation rubric, including the implementation of a syllabus test exhibitingthat participation is being scored, all reflected the primacy of positive, mindfulclassroom participation.
Observations from Further Development of the Model
The outcomes were different from earlier times when unruly students who weretold to be quiet, could disregard the warning without fear of penalty. Unexcusedtardiness was given a negative point as a start to assessing class-long complianceto participation standards. Moreover, the model proved to the students thatparticipation in all of its guises was important and consistently being rewarded.
• Students began to more frequently come on time.
• Students began to settle down quicker at the beginning of class.
• Consistent use of the cue “Strike two!” caused unruly students fromrepeating offending behavior, with the knowledge that a repeat offense
would incur a negative point.
• Participation grading from the beginning of class to the teacher cue that161

Stepanczukclass is finished.
• All of the above proved to the students that all components ofparticipation were consistently being rewarded (Bean & Peterson, 2002;
Burrell, 2009; Shindler, 2003).
• Other than negative point awards for disciplinary reasons, students were
not penalized during participation point assignment (Bransford, 1999).
2009-2010: Breakthrough Years
The years 2009 and 2010 were a watershed period. That period included theintroduction of name cards with bilingual classroom English on the back. At
the top was a note in Japanese in bold face: “You can get participation points byusing classroom English. When was the last time you used it?” Students’ namecards were shuffled before class and distributed, filling the seats at the front of theclass. Students were seated with a new speaking partner each week. Added to theparticipation methodology, and explicitly added to the syllabus at this time, werepoint awards for meaning negotiation. To remind students of the importance of
all of the syllabus-borne participation items, and as a further prevising of them,the students took a syllabus quiz on the third class of each semester.
Besides it being written in the syllabus and included in the syllabus
quiz, this became the fourth way the students were reminded of this type ofcommunication skill as participation. Consistency in grading was reinforced byranked point scales depending on class size (Table 4).
Observations from This Stage of Development
The change having the largest effect was the introduction of random seat
assignments. Students partnered with an unfamiliar person interacted moreformally. Using the syllabus quiz had a reciprocal effect with the dynamic ofJapanese in-groupness, as students were less apt to transgress the bad behavior
matrices. They were more responsible to their pair partner, group members, andthe class as a whole. Moreover, with the new point scales, a student in a class of
38 had as much a chance of getting a one hundred percentile in participation as
a student in a class of 28.

162

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171
Table 4
Participation Point Chart> 36

32 - 35

29 - 31

25 - 28< 24

12+ = 30

14+ = 30

16+ = 30

18+ = 30

20+ = 30

11 = 29

13 = 29

15 = 29

17 = 29

19 = 29

10 = 29

12 = 29

14 = 29

16 = 29

18 = 29

9 = 28

11 = 28

13 = 28

15 = 28

17 = 28

8 = 28

10 = 28

12 = 28

14 = 28

16 = 27

7 = 27

9 = 27

11 = 27

13 = 27

15 = 27

6 = 26

8 = 26

10 = 26

12 = 26

14 = 26

5 = 25

7 = 25

9 = 25

11 = 25

13 = 26

4 = 24

6 = 24

8 = 24

10 = 24

12 = 25

3 = 23

5 = 23

7 = 23

9 = 23

11 = 24

2 = 23

4 = 23

6 = 23

8 = 23

10 = 23

1 = 22

3 = 22

5 = 22

7 = 22

9 = 230 = 202 = 21

4 = 21

6 = 218 =22-1 = 12

1 = 203 = 205 = 207 = 21-2 = 90 = 17

2 = 194 = 196 = 20-3 = 6-1 = 12

1 = 183 = 185 = 19-4 = 3-2 = 90 = 16

2 = 17

4 = 19-5+ = 0-3 = 6-1 = 12

1 = 16

3 = 18-4 = 3-2 = 90 = 142 = 17-5+ = 0-3 = 6-1 = 12

1 = 16-4 = 3-2 = 90 = 14-5+ = 0-3 = 6-1 = 12-4 = 3-2 = 9-5+ = 0-3 = 6-4 = 3-5+ = 0The header row shows number of students in the class. The columns contain two numbers. The
numbers on the left of the equal sign are participation points. The numbers to the right are theparticipation grade out of a maximum of 30 points (i.e., participation is 30% of the class final
grade).

163

Stepanczuk• Initiation of random seat assignments prevented friendship distraction
and helped students attended to the learning task at hand.
• Students adhered to the participation plan, reminded to them orally by
the instructor.
• The syllabus primacy was reminded to the students by the syllabus quiz.
• Students were more responsible to their pair partner and the class as awhole.
• There was a small increase in students using classroom English on the backof the name card; it was increasingly common to see students checking
random name cards for it and to self-correct oral usage.
• New participation point scales calibrated to class size made recordkeeping more accurate between large and smaller classes.
• The difficulty of task was included in the participation assessment (Beanand Peterson, 2002).
• The teacher consistently following the complete list of classroom
participation helped prevent imputing identities to students (Morita, 2004).
• The methodology incorporated a point ceiling so assessment was notliable to point-fishing (Boniecki and Moore, 2003).
Transformation into OEQP
The finalization of the participation methodology and its transformation into the
OEQP occurred in 2013. In that year, an itemized section comprised of a complete
explanation of what participation was and included 30 specific point awards. The
participation block of the syllabus then contained three types of items:• Common participation.
• Participation as self-discipline and self-direction.
• Participation as observable effort towards quality performance (subtitled:
Participation as learning performance).
The third item became the mature form of the OEQP. It is a scale of eleven
specific point awards (Table 5). From that came the four-point overview distilled
for easy reference for both teacher and students, and accounted for a timely fullsentence, quality utterance ( Jones, 2008):
164

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171
Table 5OEQP Participation Rubric
ITEM

POINTS

1.

Asking, answering questions in English, in a full sentence, using target
patterns or grammar.

+½

2.

Using classroom English (meaning negotiation) on the back of student
name card.

+½

3.

Successfully using English for other examples of meaning negotiation.

+½

4.

In pair or group work one clear, loud utterance/response, in English, in afull sentence, using target patterns or grammar.

+½

5.

In pair or group work one clear, loud repair recast utterance/response, inEnglish, in a full sentence, using target patterns or grammar.

+½

6.

Finishing written work, in English, in a full sentence, using target
patterns or grammar. for the first 3 evidences within stipulated time
period+½

7.

Answering cold call questions, in English, in a full sentence, using target
patterns or grammar.

+½

8.

Correct repair recast answering of cold call questions, in English, in a full
sentence, using target patterns or grammar.

+½

9.

Volunteered answer to class-wide questions, in English, in a full sentence,correctly using target patterns or grammar.

+½

10. Correct repair recast of volunteered answer to class-wide questions, inEnglish, in a full sentence, using target patterns or grammar.

+½

11. Meaning negotiation cut off (i.e. Failure to repair recast; silence; turning
to partner(s) for Japanese meaning or answer; speaking in Japanese).

No points; loss of potential+½• Speaking loud and clear enough so the teacher can understand you• Using only English• Speaking in full sentences• Successfully attempting to accurately use new words and phrases theteacher has modeled
These rewards were consistently reminded to the students by attaching the165

Stepanczuk

syllabus to the board and referring to it before every oral task. Cold-calling,
asking for volunteers, and circuiting the classroom reduced the impact of
the student being paired with an incompatible partner or being paired with a
distracting friend. Other than cold-call and answer-volunteer sessions, theteacher circuited the classroom each class period, monitoring each pair or group
and awarded points.
During pair or group work monitoring, the teacher being nearby caused anincrease in students actively using classroom English. This caused an increase inmeaning negotiations and students being duly rewarded. Occasionally, when thesession ended, a student would raise his hand and say, “You didn’t check me!”,or students from across the room started to raise their hands to use classroom
English, highlighting the motivational impact of the OEQP checking andrewarding technique. Most students were able to get points even directly after
the introduction of new material, not to mention during expansion, follow-up,
and review events. If the student’s performance met all four of these provisos, thestudent would receive a positive point reward.
Students were only allowed to receive one point in any one activity. To
get more points their efforts had to be consistent at various tasks throughout
the 90-minute period. The methodology included considering the problem’sdifficulty. That is, tasks that required multiple quality utterances, such as giving
directions, were awarded multiple points. The complete, detailed, and itemized
nature of the points and the marking of those points against the rubric becamea cold, matter-of-fact process. The act of student monitoring became clear andsystematized and strengthened grading consistency. Grading itself became moreconsistent, granular, and reliable.
On the last day of each semester an awards ceremony takes place. Top
participation point-getters are called to the front of the class and receive a special
stamp on their name cards, and their names are listed on the board under theheading, “Top Participation Points.” This is the last reminder to the studentsof the primacy of positive, quality classroom participation. The effect on thestudents was obvious, with the recipients’ smiles and other students’ applause or
positive vocalizations for them.
166

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

Discussion

Being armed with the detailed participation itemization in the bilingual syllabus
enabled the teacher to employ the OEQP rubric when monitoring students.
Students, now reminded at the beginning of each pair-work, group-work, or
cold-call session, clearly understood the meaning of quality utterances for which
they could earn points.
The teacher assumed roles of monitor, facilitator, and manager, gavetransactional feedback, and granted students recast chances, which guaranteed
the possibilities of point rewards. Crediting students for taking a chance,
making an error, and correctly recasting in front of the teacher, to get positive
participation points, motivated the students. That is, when the teacher
approached student pairs they often became animated, quickly attending to
the task at hand. Occasionally after finishing a short AB exchange they would
quickly switch roles before the teacher moved on, to ensure that both students
earned a point. The OEQP rubric and methodology does not dock a student forinability to muster a satisfactory utterance. An unsatisfactory utterance, or noneat all is not graded as a fail, but as a non-event—neither positive nor negative.
The methodology gives students ample opportunity to demonstrate quality
output throughout the class period. By rotating through the class each lesson,
the teacher has less chance of being on the other side of the classroom, missing a
student participating within the framework of the OEQP. Moreover, there havebeen many cases of “point jumping”, where the teacher and student are engaged
in a transactional feedback negotiation and that student’s partner delivers thevalid and complete utterance, earning him a participation point instead forhelping.
While I was waiting for a student to speak, or when I moved between
pairs, I cursorily monitored the entire class. If a student was speaking in L1 or
was not engaged with his partner, I tried to make eye contact from across theroom. Maintaining it for a few seconds communicated that the student was
not appropriately participating. If that had no effect, the student was verbally
reproached with, “That’s too much Japanese, Saburo. Strike two,” or “Don’t stop,
Tomoko. Keep going or find another partner.” Later, during the circuit if there167

Stepanczuk

were repeated transgressions, they were met with, “You’re still speaking Japanese,
Saburo. Strike three!” or “You’re still not doing anything, Tomoko. Sorry, that’s
a minus participation point.” These moves, done in front of the class, had anoticeable positive and productive effect on the whole class, causing all students
focusing more on the task at hand.
The OEQP methodology may not be for every teacher. In the case of thisaction research, the classes involved were from 16 to 18 groups of students persemester, with the average number of students being about 32 students perclass. There is a real possibility of teacher fatigue. Certain teachers may feel
uncomfortable monitoring students while carrying a pencil and paper, feelingthat the scoring interferes with monitoring. The way I get around this is tohold the pencil and paper behind my back until the monitoring of the student
is finished. When that is finished I mark the grade sheet. If teacher fatigue
becomes an issue, cold-call techniques and students volunteering answers canbe substituted. The positive side of active circuiting is that it deepens teacher
involvement in individual student activity. It allows the teacher to become
actively engaged with all students. Circuiting the classroom also exposes theteacher to recurring mistakes that can later be put on the board where they canbe dealt with all-class.

Conclusion

This research helps crystallize what quality participation is in an EFL classroom: thestudent’s quality of involvement in oral lesson materials. Involvement encompasses
quality linguistic output. The OEQP rubric/methodology demonstrates themeaning of quality with a four-point success matrix (see Results), which can bequickly and succinctly reminded to the students. Their attitudes toward the classand tasks improve when clearly informed how to take part once the class begins. The
OEQP technique generates positive changes in students’ classroom participation
behavior, and gives students strategies for quality output and the point-rewards
that go along with quality participation. Quality participation also covers language
negotiation and helping fellow students push their learning forward. Also, being
effective at a given task enhances the potential for student participation in a168

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

positive reciprocating cycle. The OEQP rubric and methodology is an exacting
and flexible quality-based classroom participation assessment mechanism that can
provide fair, consistent, and dispassionate grade outcomes.

References

Bean, J. C., & Peterson, D. (1998). Grading classroom participation. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning, 74, 33-40. Retrieved from https://fresnostate.edu/academics/documents/participation/grading_class_participation.pdf
Black, M. T. (1995). Who is really participating? An exploration of the nature of
student classroom participation and the factors that teachers can manipulate
to enhance student participation in the classroom (Master’s thesis, School forInternational Training, Brattleboro, Vermont). Eric Documentary Service
No. 385 124.
Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token
economy to reinforce classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology,
30(3), 224-227.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Burrell, J. (2009). Responding to behaviors of resistance in Japanese university
EFL classroom. Interfaces, 3(1), 1-8.
Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing
performance indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices andstudent learning. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327-352. Retrieved
from http://www.education.umd.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bios/facData/
CHSE/cabrera/DevelopingPerformanceIndicators.pdf
Carbone, E. (1999). Students behaving badly in large classes. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 77, 35-43. Retrieved from http://
professionaldevelopment.buffalostate.edu/sites/professionaldevelopment.
buffalostate.edu/files/uploads/Documents/studentsbehavingbadly.pdf
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28(3), 435-446.
169

Stepanczuk

doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00015-400015-4.
Christensen, L. J., Curley, K., Marquez, E., & Menzel, K. (1995). Classroom
situations which lead to student participation. Paper presented at the 81st
Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio,
TX. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED391207.pdf
Croswaithe, R., Bailey, D. R., & Meeker, A. (2015). Assessing in-classparticipation for EFL: Considerations of effectiveness and fairness fordifferent learning styles. Language Testing in Asia, 5(9), 1-19. Retrieved
from http://languagetestingasia.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/
s40468-015-0017-1
Dancer, D., & Kamvounias, P. (2005). Student involvement in assessment: A
project designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 445-454. Retrieved fromhttp://www.teachercertification.niu.edu/assessment/committees/CAN/
PresentationsPapersArticles/Studentinvolvementinassessment.pdf
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or
myth? American Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166. doi:10.1.1.335.1182
Lyons, P. R. (1989). Assessing classroom participation. College Teaching, 37(1),36-38.
Jones, R .C. (2008). The “why” of class participation: A question worth asking.
College Teaching, 56(1), 59-63. doi:10.1.1.467.4705
Mello, J. (2010). The good, the bad and the controversial: The practicalities
and pitfalls of the grading of class participation. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 14(1), 77-97. Retrieved from http://www.
alliedacademies.org/articles/aeljvol14no12010.pdf#page=83
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language
academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603.
Narian, S. (2011). Pedagogic voicing: The struggle for participation in an
inclusive classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(3), 245-262.
doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2011.01130.x.
Parker, T., Hoopes, O., & Eggett, D. (2011). The effect of seat location andmovement or permanence on student-initiated participation. College
170

Assessment Rubric and Methodology, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 152-171

Teaching, 59, 79-84. doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.538766.
Patchen, T. (2005). Prioritizing participation: Five things that every teacher
needs to know to prepare recent immigrant adolescents for classroom
participation. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 43. Retrieved from http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ727799.pdf
Rogers, S. L. (2011). Grading participation in college courses: Instructor attitudes
and practices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Albany,
State University of New York.
Shindler, J. V. (2003, Summer). Creating a more peaceful classroom community
by assessing student participation and process. The Online Journal of
Peace and Conflict Resolution, 5(1), 20-32. Retrieved from https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/791c/62f00620519d2b53feda28669b56dbdab975.pdf
Tsou, W. (2005). Improving speaking skills through instruction in oralclassroom participation. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 46-55.
Zinn, T. E., Magnotti, J. F., Marchuk, K., Schultz, B. S., Luther, A., andVarfolomeeva, V. (2011). Does effort still count? More on what makes thegrade. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 10-15.

Author bio

David Stepanczuk is an EFL instructor at three Japanese universities. His interests
are assessment, classroom management, pedagogy and technique, materials writing,and education technology. He has a master’s degree from USQ (M.Ed EdTech) in
Australia. david@stepanczuk.com
Received: February 25, 2016
Accepted: November 15, 2017171