Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T06:15:38.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inclusive Assessment of Class Participation: Students’ Takeaways as a One-Minute Paper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2021

Luba Levin-BanchikOpen the ORCID record for Luba Levin-Banchik[Opens in a new window]
Luba Levin-Banchik*
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Building on the concept of a one-minute paper, I suggest students’ takeaways as a simple technique for inclusive assessment of participation in a classroom. Acknowledging cultural and language barriers, the takeaways technique allows an instructor to grade participation not by observing the frequency of spoken comments but instead by the quality of written comments in students’ one-point takeaway memos completed at the end of each class. In this way, all students have an equal chance to be appraised for their participation, indicated by being attentive in class. This article surveys the scholarship on one-minute papers and participation grading in political science, outlines takeaway procedures, and discusses how to adjust this technique for face-to-face and online learning environments. I suggest that takeaways ensure transparency in grading participation, enable equal opportunities to participate, encourage students’ attentiveness, and create a communication channel for the exchange of immediate feedback between a professor and students.

Information

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022, pp. 171 - 175
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Grading classroom participation can be a challenging task. Bean and Peterson (Reference Bean and Peterson1998) noticed that professors often assess participation subjectively, based on personal impressions of students’ performance. Yet, some students might be shy, feel uncomfortable speaking in public, take a longer time to formulate their thoughts, or be concerned about saying something wrong. Taking an active part in classroom discussions might be even more difficult for international students, first-generation students, students with disabilities, and non-native English speakers (Rocca Reference Rocca2010; White Reference White2011; Yaylacı and Beauvais Reference Yaylacı and Beauvais2017). Seemingly passive students risk receiving a lower participation grade, even if they come prepared, listen attentively, and carefully follow discussions and comments by their peers.

How can we account for students’ attentiveness to make grading participation more inclusive? I suggest a relatively simple solution: “the main takeaway” memo submitted by students at the end of each class session. Building on the concept of a one-minute paper, the main takeaway is a brief, few-sentence summary of a class meeting by students in their own words, describing the most important thing they learned. Such a brief reflective note allows students to show their attentive—even if possibly quiet—participation, and the instructor both receives and provides instant and continuous feedback after each class.

Building on the concept of a one-minute paper, the main takeaway is a brief, few sentence summary of a class meeting by students in their own words, describing the most important thing they learned.

This article describes the takeaway technique, linking it to the literature on one-minute papers and participation grading. I discuss four advantages of using takeaways for inclusive assessment of participation: transparency in grading, equal opportunities to participate, encouraging students’ attentiveness, and creating a channel of communication for the exchange of immediate feedback. The disadvantage is the time that might be required to provide feedback to the brief memos, which can be shortened by online collection tools and a random selection of items for feedback. I also discuss the benefits and costs of takeaways, as well as adjustments for their use in face-to-face and online environments.

GRADING PARTICIPATION

Although classroom participation is a typical requirement in political science courses, few published works in political science address participation grading as a distinct topic. In a face-to-face setting, Oros (Reference Oros2007, 308), for example, suggested using debates for both grading and encouraging participation. The author acknowledged, however, that students disapprove of giving too much weight to a participation grade measured by their oral communication. In a virtual setting, Hamann, Pollock, and Wilson (Reference Hamann, Pollock and Wilson2012) measured participation by the quantity and quality of student postings in an online course, but this might be less applicable in a face-to-face classroom. My study adds to this scholarship by suggesting takeaways as an assessment tool easily applicable to both in-person and online environments.

Given the shortage of research on assessing classroom participation in political science, studies on grading other tasks can serve as a guide to issues that might arise. One major issue is that the political beliefs of faculty or students might affect grading outcomes. Experimental evidence on partisan bias provides mixed results, encouraging instructors to be more thoughtful and transparent in grading (Musgrave and Rom Reference Musgrave and Rom2015). Accuracy and reliability also often are addressed (Blackstone and Oldmixon Reference Blackstone and Oldmixon2019). To enhance systematic, accurate, and transparent grading, scholars suggest methods that include use of grading sheets (Roever and Manna Reference Roever and Manna2005), paired assignments (Rom and Musgrave Reference Rom and Musgrave2014), pop quizzes (Levin-Banchik Reference Levin-Banchik2018), specification grading (Blackstone and Oldmixon Reference Blackstone and Oldmixon2019), and one-minute papers, as I suggest in this study.

ONE-MINUTE PAPER

The main takeaway memo suggested in this study is an adaptation of the one-minute paper. Angelo and Cross (Reference Angelo and Cross1993, 148) defined the one-minute paper as “a quick and extremely simple way to collect written feedback on student learning [in which] an instructor stops class two or three minutes early and asks students to respond briefly to some variation on the following two questions: ‘What was the most important thing you learned during this class?’ and ‘What important question remains unanswered?’” This type of assessment is known also as an “exit ticket” (Fowler, Windschitl, and Richards Reference Fowler, Windschitl and Richards2019), “exit slip” (Leigh Reference Leigh2012), and “the muddiest point” (Angelo and Cross Reference Angelo and Cross1993, 154–58). Regardless of the name, the one-minute paper is distinct from other types of reaction papers (Pernecky Reference Pernecky1993) and short papers (McMillan Reference McMillan2014, 112). It takes only a few minutes, can be administered ad hoc, and is limited to a few sentences. It also does not require students to conduct research and thus resembles an answer to an open-ended question in a poll rather than a research paper.

Stead (Reference Stead2005) provided an extensive literature review on one-minute papers. He found that both educators and students view them as a valuable tool that has a positive impact on learning. This conclusion is shared by multiple studies across disciplines, including literature (Orr Reference Orr2005), history (Korniienko Reference Korniienko2020), statistics (Chiou, Wang, and Lee Reference Chiou, Wang and Lee2014), and economics (Chizmar and Ostrosky Reference Chizmar and Ostrosky1998). Scholars find that one-minute papers encourage active learning, engagement, and active listening during class; provide a chance to reflect on learning; provide instant, detailed, and regular feedback to teachers and students; and can result in improved knowledge skills and better test performance (Angelo and Cross Reference Angelo and Cross1993, 152–53; Chizmar and Ostrosky Reference Chizmar and Ostrosky1998, 4; Stead Reference Stead2005, 119–22, 129). A one-minute paper requires little time and effort, making these benefits even more significant.

Given the consensus on the efficacy of one-minute papers and their popularity across disciplines, it is time for political science scholarship to pay greater attention to this learning tool. A survey of major political science and international relations journals shows that the one-minute paper is almost absent in the published works in our field. The exceptions are Kille, Krain, and Lantis (Reference Kille, Krain and Lantis2008, 414), who suggested the one-minute paper as one active-learning assessment technique, and Lusk (Reference Lusk2016, 143–44), who proposed an ungraded one-minute paper at the beginning of a class as one of several metacognitive-based teaching strategies. Matto and Chmielewski (Reference Matto and Chmielewski2020) recently reported using exit tickets to assess civic knowledge in a freshman seminar.

Other political science publications briefly mention the one-minute paper as a written debriefing tool for crisis-management simulation (Belloni Reference Belloni2008, 229–30), for feedback on students’ task of creating examinations (Bousfield Reference Bousfield2011, 303), for commenting on students’ efforts (Mulcare and Shwedel Reference Mulcare and Shwedel2017, 123–24), and an example of an active-learning teaching method (Collins and Nyenhuis Reference Collins and Nyenhuis2020, 2). These studies demonstrate that the one-minute paper is a familiar but under-researched practice in political science scholarship. This study calls for greater scholarly attention to this learning tool by introducing the main takeaway—a variation of the one-minute paper—for inclusive assessment of classroom participation.

MAIN TAKEAWAY PROCEDURE

The takeaway procedure involves two simple steps. First, a few minutes before the end of each class, I ask students to reflect on and briefly answer the following question: “What is your main takeaway from our class today?”Footnote 1 Students submit their written responses on an index card (i.e., in a face-to-face classroom) or electronically (i.e., Google Form, Qualtrics, Blackboard, Canvas, or other software in an online classroom). A learning-management system (e.g., Blackboard) allows setting the takeaway as a test question that is easily accessible to students who participate synchronously or asynchronously.Footnote 2 For educators, this makes the collection, grading, feedback, and retention of takeaways easy, transparent, and consistent.

In the second step, I read the takeaways and provide feedback. For me, this step might take up to 30 minutes in a class with approximately 30 students.Footnote 3 The time depends on the takeaway format (i.e., index cards or online submission) and the feedback format (i.e., to each student or selectively presented to the entire class).

In a face-to-face setting, the size of the index card and the time constraints limit the length of response. Students submit takeaways before exiting the classroom, which allows the collection of all takeaways at once. Reading the responses then takes a few minutes, which I usually complete immediately after the class. I choose a few of the takeaways—both excellent ones and those that could be improved—omit students’ names, and present them for a brief discussion at the beginning of the next class. Selective feedback is most cost-efficient for handwritten takeaways because it provides deeper feedback to everyone at once, which is more difficult to do by writing individual feedback on the limited space remaining on an index card.

In an online setting, with some students attending class asynchronously, I ask students to submit takeaways within 24 hours after the end of class. Whereas selective feedback could be used for online takeaways, a course-management system—in my case, Blackboard—makes it simple to provide instant, unlimited, and individualized feedback to each student.

In summary, a one-minute paper in the form of the main takeaway can be implemented easily in both face-to-face and virtual settings. It can be adjusted to specific instructional needs and pedagogical goals. In addition to simplicity, the takeaway can have an important pedagogical value.

A one-minute paper in the form of the main takeaway can be implemented easily in both face-to-face and virtual settings. It can be adjusted to specific instructional needs and pedagogical goals. In addition to simplicity, the takeaway can have an important pedagogical value.

WHY TAKEAWAYS? FOUR BENEFITS

Joining the extensive multidisciplinary scholarship on the one-minute paper and the evolving scholarship on assessing participation in political science classrooms, I identify four potential benefits of using the main takeaway for an inclusive assessment of students’ participation.

Transparency in Participation Grading

Some students are more active in class than others. Whereas assigning the highest participation grade for the most active students should be an easy task, what are the grading criteria for less-active students? Should students receive a lower grade simply because they were not visible enough during the class? Because participation grades often lack objective criteria, how would an educator differentiate between levels of participation among less-active students? Bean and Peterson (Reference Bean and Peterson1998, 33) summarized this by noticing that too often “professors determine participation grades impressionistically, using class participation largely as a fudge factor in computing final course grades.”

The main takeaway allows a systematic, consistent, and transparent assessment of participation. Students receive points and regular feedback throughout the semester and therefore can follow easily and, if needed, improve their participation grade as the semester unfolds.

A takeaway can receive full, partial, or no points, as described in online appendix 2. No points for written participation are given to students who did not submit their takeaway or submitted a response that is irrelevant to the discussed topic. Takeaways that receive no points indicate that a student was not attentive during class or chose not to take part in the task.

Partial points are given to general or simplistic takeaways (e.g., “today we studied about realism and liberalism”). A partial grade indicates a student’s presence in class and some limited attention but no or limited evidence of engaging with the learning material. Partial points signal to students that they need to devote more attention and effort to demonstrate their active involvement with the discussed material.

Students whose takeaways demonstrate such attentiveness receive full points—for example: “Today we studied about the difference between realist and liberalist perspectives on the role of international organizations. My main takeaway is that realism presents a more pragmatic and pessimistic worldview compared to liberalism. For example, in explaining the lack of global cooperation on COVID-19, realism would emphasize the inefficiency of the WHO while liberalism would emphasize the need to strengthen institutions like WHO.” This type of takeaway demonstrates that students were not merely present but also took an active part in acquiring and presenting their knowledge on the discussed topic.

Using this scheme for participation grades is simple and transparent, allowing both the educator and the students to see their progress—or the lack thereof—as the semester proceeds. Yet, sole reliance on one-minute papers has the potential to alter the incentives for students. Written participation enhances the transparency of participation grading, but it should not be assumed to be more valuable for students’ gains than verbal participation. Research shows that verbal participation contributes to the development of critical-thinking and communication skills (Rocca Reference Rocca2010). Thus, as described in online appendix 3, I continue to include verbal participation—conceptualized as active class contribution—as one component, although no longer the only or the primary component of expected participation.

Moreover, whereas takeaways acknowledge cultural and language barriers in oral participation, handwritten takeaways inevitably might include spelling mistakes. Instructors should focus on grading content knowledge rather than writing errors (Johnson, Wilson, and Roscoe Reference Johnson, Wilson and Roscoe2017). The goal of the takeaways is to assist the instructor in evaluating students’ attentive participation while providing them with a safe way to participate. Thus, writing errors should be noted but, if possible, excluded from takeaway grading. Traditional research papers and other written assignments are more suitable for assessing students’ writing skills.

The goal of the takeaways is to assist the instructor in evaluating students’ attentive participation while providing students with a safe way to participate.

Equality of Opportunities to Participate

With takeaways, all students have an equal opportunity to express their thoughts and provide comments on the topics discussed during class. For students who feel uncomfortable speaking in front of their peers, takeaways can provide a safe place for classroom participation. All students answer the same question but everyone takes away something different from a class.

Even if, hypothetically, everyone in the class feels comfortable and is willing to speak, the time required for such universal participation might not allow time for other tasks, including the professor’s lecture. Some teaching methods, including jigsaw classrooms, simulations, debates, and group work, can be useful for engaging all students. Yet, unlike takeaways, these methods still might favor students with greater speaking skills and—from an instructional-design perspective—might be difficult to implement in every class.

Encouraging Students’ Attentiveness

Active students who speak in class contribute greatly to the discussion and the success of all students. Takeaways are not intended to substitute for or reduce students’ oral participation but instead to provide an alternative, more inclusive participation assessment. Takeaways allow for evaluating everyone’s participation in a consistent manner. They emphasize that participation is measured by being attentive: not only by speaking but also by listening; not necessarily by speaking but necessarily by trying to connect and engage with the learning material. Students are aware of these criteria for participation grading from the beginning of the semester.Footnote 4 The takeaways thus can encourage them to be attentive during each class, whether they choose to contribute verbally or prefer listening to their peers.

Creating a Channel of Communication for Immediate Feedback

Takeaways provide feedback to professors as well as students. Scholarship on one-minute papers considers instant feedback from students to be a key benefit of this tool (Angelo and Cross Reference Angelo and Cross1993, 152–53; Stead Reference Stead2005, 129). The feedback that the instructor receives can determine whether the lesson plans have communicated crucial information to students and whether some points require clarification, either individually or for the entire class.

In a face-to-face setting, submitting a takeaway encourages students to approach the professor before exiting class. This creates an opportunity for a student (or professor) to initiate a conversation. If, for example, a student has a question on a topic, it might be easier to ask it when submitting the takeaway rather than by attending office hours. In an online setting, takeaways provide an easy way to exchange messages, such as to clarify concepts or praise a student’s contribution to the class discussion. The takeaway allows receiving and providing feedback in a continued conversation after the class, making teaching and learning engaging and persistent for students and educators.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the main takeaway, as a variation on the one-minute paper, is a simple yet valuable tool for inclusive assessment of students’ participation in political science and international relations classrooms. Providing students with an opportunity to demonstrate their active participation through written comments, submitted regularly at the end of each class session, can create a safe place for all students to engage with the learning material.

Extensive multidisciplinary research consistently shows that one-minute papers are an effective learning tool perceived positively by students and educators (Angelo and Cross Reference Angelo and Cross1993, 152–53; Chizmar and Ostrosky Reference Chizmar and Ostrosky1998; Orr Reference Orr2005; Stead Reference Stead2005). The flexibility and simplicity of one-minute papers make them a valuable assessment tool with an added pedagogical value that can be applied and extended across disciplines, including political science and international relations.

The survey of scholarship on teaching and learning reveals that assessment of classroom participation requires greater attention in political science research. The concept of a one-minute paper remains largely overlooked. At the same time, participation grading is a common practice and the one-minute paper is a familiar tool. It is time to address these familiar practices in our professional scholarship. I suggested the main takeaway as one possible way for ensuring transparency in grading participation, creating equal opportunities to participate, encouraging students’ attentiveness, and creating a communication channel for the exchange of immediate feedback between a professor and students. There are, of course, other ways to ensure an inclusive assessment of participation. This article invites political science and international relations teacher–scholars to develop, explore, and share these alternative ways.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The earlier version of this article was presented at the 2020 International Studies Association–West (ISA–West) annual conference as part of the Pedagogical Innovations panel. I thank Amy Below, the chair and discussant on the ISA–West panel, panel participants, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions. Special gratitude is extended to John Raymond and Connie Burt for their assistance in copyediting this article.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S104909652100086X.

Footnotes

1. Examples are included in online appendix 1. Other variations of the one-minute paper include questions such as “How does the topic of our class today connect to the previous class discussion?,” “How is today’s topic relevant for explaining current events?,” “What events or topics were missing in today’s discussion?,” and “How do the topics discussed today relate to the assigned readings?” Whereas asking the same question ensures consistency, the one-minute paper also provides flexibility for an instructor to vary questions for a more challenging but still simple and inclusive assessment of attentiveness and engagement with the learning material.

2. In asynchronous courses, a takeaway also can be collected as a “free-response” interaction that students submit at the end of the recorded lecture, uploaded to PlayPosit.

3. This time investment could be reduced considerably (see Stead Reference Stead2005, 121).

4. This is explained in the course syllabus (see online appendix 3) during the first class of the semester and occasionally throughout the semester.

References

REFERENCES

Angelo, Thomas A., and Cross, K. Patricia. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bean, John C., and Peterson, Dean. 1998. “Grading Classroom Participation.” New Directions for Teaching & Learning 1998 (74): 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belloni, Roberto. 2008. “Role-Playing International Intervention in Conflict Areas: Lessons from Bosnia for Northern Ireland Education.” International Studies Perspectives 9 (2): 220–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, Bethany, and Oldmixon, Elizabeth. 2019. “Specifications Grading in Political Science.” Journal of Political Science Education 15 (2): 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, Dan. 2011. “The ‘False Choice’ of Liberal Democracy: Participatory Assessment in the International Relations Classroom.” International Studies Perspectives 12 (3): 294–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chizmar, John F., and Ostrosky, Anthony L.. 1998. “The One-Minute Paper: Some Empirical Findings.” Journal of Economic Education 29 (1): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, Chei-Chang, Wang, Yu-Min, and Lee, Li-Tze. 2014. “Reducing Statistics Anxiety and Enhancing Statistics Learning Achievement: Effectiveness of a One-Minute Strategy.” Psychological Reports 115 (1): 297–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, Brady, and Nyenhuis, Robert. 2020. “The Effectiveness of Concept Maps for Students’ Learning and Retention.” Journal of Political Science Education June:1–13.Google Scholar
Fowler, Kelsie, Windschitl, Mark, and Richards, Jennifer. 2019. “Exit Tickets: Understanding Students, Adapting Instruction, and Addressing Equity.” Science Teacher 86 (8): 18–26.Google Scholar
Hamann, Kerstin, Pollock, Philip H., and Wilson, Bruce M.. 2012. “Assessing Student Perceptions of the Benefits of Discussions in Small-Group, Large-Class, and Online Learning Contexts.” College Teaching 60 (2): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Adam C., Wilson, Joshua, and Roscoe, Rod D.. 2017. “College Student Perceptions of Writing Errors, Text Quality, and Author Characteristics.” Assessing Writing 34:72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kille, Kent J., Krain, Matthew, and Lantis, Jeffrey S.. 2008. “Active Learning across Borders: Lessons from an Interactive Workshop in Brazil.” International Studies Perspectives 9 (4): 411–29.10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00345.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korniienko, Alina Yu. 2020. “The Use of Debates as an Approach to Deliver the Course Entitled ‘The Impact of US Policy on Integration Processes in Europe in the Post-Bipolar Era.’” International Journal of Higher Education 9 (2): 321–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, S. Rebecca. 2012. “The Classroom Is Alive with the Sound of Thinking: The Power of the Exit Slip.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24 (2): 189–96.Google Scholar
Levin-Banchik, Luba. 2018. “Assessing Knowledge Retention, with and without Simulations.” Journal of Political Science Education 14 (3): 341–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, Adam. 2016. “Metacognitive Strategies in the Introduction to Political Science Classroom.” Journal of Political Science Education 12 (2): 141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matto, Elizabeth C., and Chmielewski, Randi. 2020. “Talking Politics: Creating a Course for Incoming Freshman on Political Discourse.” Journal of Political Science Education September:1–11.Google Scholar
McMillan, Samuel Lucas. 2014. “Bravo for Brevity: Using Short Paper Assignments in International Relations Classes.” International Studies Perspectives 15 (1): 109–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulcare, Daniel M., and Shwedel, Allan. 2017. “Transforming Bloom’s Taxonomy into Classroom Practice: A Practical Yet Comprehensive Approach to Promote Critical Reading and Student Participation.” Journal of Political Science Education 13 (2): 121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Paul, and Rom, Mark. 2015. “Fair and Balanced? Experimental Evidence on Partisan Bias in Grading.” American Politics Research 43 (3): 536–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oros, Andrew L. 2007. “Let’s Debate: Active Learning Encourages Student Participation and Critical Thinking.” Journal of Political Science Education 3 (3): 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, John C. 2005. “Instant Assessment: Using One-Minute Papers in Lower-Level Classes.” Pedagogy 5 (1): 108–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernecky, Mark. 1993. “Reaction Papers Enrich Economics Discussions.” College Teaching 41 (3): 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, Kelly A. 2010. “Student Participation in the College Classroom: An Extended Multidisciplinary Literature Review.” Communication Education 59 (2): 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roever, Sally, and Manna, Paul. 2005. “Could You Explain My Grade? The Pedagogical and Administrative Virtues of Grading Sheets.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (2): 317–20.Google Scholar
Rom, Mark Carl, and Musgrave, Paul. 2014. “Political Outcome Bias in Grading: Identifying Problems and Suggesting Solutions.” Journal of Political Science Education 10 (2): 136–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stead, David R. 2005. “A Review of the One-Minute Paper.” Active Learning in Higher Education 6 (2): 118–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, John Wesley. 2011. “Resistance to Classroom Participation: Minority Students, Academic Discourse, Cultural Conflicts, and Issues of Representation in Whole Class Discussions.” Journal of Language, Identity & Education 10 (4): 250–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaylacı, Şule, and Beauvais, Edana. 2017. “The Role of Social Group Membership on Classroom Participation.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 559–64.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Levin-Banchik et al. supplementary material

Appendices 1-3

Download Levin-Banchik et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 216.3 KB