Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2010

Broadening the focus of evaluation: An experiment

Subrata Chakraborty

Jaipuria Institute of Management

Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow - 226010, India

Tel: +91 522 2394296,

Email: sc@jiml.ac.in

Shailja Agarwal

Jaipuria Institute of Management,

Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow - 226010, India

Tel: +91 522 2394296

Email: shailja@jiml.ac.in

Abstract

Evaluation of student performance in any course, especially those delivered in a management

programme, poses a serious challenge; more so, in a course like „Business Communication‟, where oral

communication ought to form an integral part of evaluation. This paper presents various details of an

experiment, conducted with a view to introduce this much needed component in the evaluation process.

Essential purpose of the exercise was to try and broaden the focus of evaluation, simultaneously

enlarging its scope. The need to maintain certain amount of objectivity and transparency was taken as

critical. Group Discussion was used as a tool. A process was developed with the objective of getting

every student evaluated on both written as well as non-written skills. A two-sided evaluation

mechanism was put in place to achieve the dual purpose of leaning and evaluation. Statistical analysis

of the results suggests that the experiment was a useful one. The student feedback, too, was favourable.

Keywords: business communication, non-written skills, written skills, group discussion, evaluation

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1 INTRODUCTION

Education in business management has gained considerable popularity over the last couple of

decades. Several business schools have sprung up in different parts of the world to cater to this

seemingly growing demand. Despite this significant quantitative growth in numbers of schools, quality

of education provided in business schools often comes under a question mark. Even while there is a

recognition that management is more experiential than experimental, and more a state of the art than

being formulaic, classroom activities largely remain confined to mere theoretical discourses.

Among the various courses taught in a management program, those dealing with promotion of

communication skills assume particular importance. This is so because, in the discharge of one‟s day-

to-day functions, effective communication – oral as well as written – plays a critically important role.

How to build the needed skills remains a key challenge before many business schools. This is so

because not only are there issues relating to language of communication, there are also other aspects

like mannerism, body language, etc. Schools frequently, struggle to address this challenge effectively.

Sometimes a bigger challenge is faced in coming up with fair and objective evaluation of students

while the course is in progress, including at the stage of its completion. Problems arise because of

certain stated and implied needs. These are: reliability, validity, objectivity and verifiability. A proper

solution often remains elusive.

This paper constitutes a step towards addressing the above four needs. An experimental approach

was undertaken. Outcome of the experiment, developed and used recently, on a batch of first trimester

students pursuing a one credit compulsory course on Business Communication, in a-two-year graduate

management program is shared in this context. Group Discussion is the tool used for the purpose. The

focus was on the assessment

of Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing skills, technically coined as

LSRW skills. Two questions are addressed: (i) how can oral as well as written skills be simultaneously

incorporated in an assessment tool? and (ii) how effective can peer assessment be?. The paper reports

the details of what was done to reconfigure assessment processes dovetailing traditional paper-and-

pencil assessment by the instructor with those of the peers. Analysis of the results seems to suggest that

not only can oral and written skills be assessed simultaneously; the technique used can also prove to be

useful in catering to the four needs (reliability, validity, objectivity and verifiability) outlined above.

2 LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 Evaluation Challenges in Business Schools

In most educational programs, a substantial proportion of teacher and student time is devoted to

activities which involve (or lead directly to) evaluation by the teacher (Crooks, 1988). The same is true

of a program in business management. Though the idea of evaluation „generally evokes groans‟

(Feinberg, 1979) from the instructors as well as the students, it has powerful impacts- direct and

indirect, positive or negative, deserving considerations towards a very careful planning and

implementation.

Evaluation also serves as a communicative device between the world of education and that of the

wider society. Since the results of any particular assessment device must be accorded „trust‟ by the

stake holders if the consequences are to be acceptable, different parts of the world continue to be

grappling with assessment challenges (Broadfoot and Black, 2004). New tools of evaluation like use of

reflection in evaluation (Thorpe, 2007), in-basket writing exercise (Feinberg, 1979), business games

(McKenney, 1962) etc. are constantly being experimented upon and developed. Such experimentation

helps in enriching our understanding of the complexity of the many links that may exist between

assessment and learning and their various interplays. Further these provide certain advances to assess

the link between teachers‟ practices in formative and in summative assessment, and to construct some

alternatives towards strengthening the quality and status of teachers‟ summative assessments.

In a business education program, development of a student‟s ability to apply skills and knowledge

in a variety of contexts is a critical need (Broadfoot and Black, 2004). Therefore, assessment of student

progress in acquiring this ability becomes imperative. However business education in India, and also in

many parts of the world, seems to depend primarily, if not exclusively, upon the traditional

examination system for achieving this. One apparent reason for doing so is that the method is

transparent and verifiable. Another reason could be that many Business Schools, inadvertently or

otherwise, tend to focus more upon content knowledge and hence end up using examinations to test

such content knowledge in students (Ogunleye, 2006). Students are assessed during two years of their

study using an array of examinations. However, to be fair to these schools, it must be said that the tools

available to make assessments are also limited. The need, therefore, is to design a systematic

Subrata Chakraborty and Shailja Agarwal

evaluation design mechanism which, on one hand, should be transparent and objective and, on the other

hand, should achieve the intended purpose. As is the case in many other courses, evaluation remains a

sensitive as well as a contentious aspect of the business communication course too. Needless to say, it

elicits the same groans from students and instructors. Before proceeding further, it may be beneficial to

remind ourselves of the primary objective of a business communication course, which is to improve

communication skills of students. These skills are to be improved and assessed as a whole rather than

limiting only to some components, predominantly the written skills alone.

2.2 Dissatisfaction with Evaluation in Business Communication

Dissatisfaction with tests currently used to assess communication ability is neither new nor

uncommon. Homer L Cox, in his study, as far as 1970, observed: “Overall, educators agreed that they

were most dissatisfied with, and students were weakest in, ability to communicate in writing; however,

dissatisfaction with tests and weakness observed varied in other areas of communication. It is probably

safe to assume that other areas of communication ability are not being tested as frequently as ability to

write, and weakness in these other areas may not be accurately assessed. The fact that other areas are

undoubtedly less frequently measured may indicate that weakness in these areas is less easily assessed.

Most effort seems to be made in improving writing ability, but writing ability remains the greatest

weakness. Of course, we do not know how much worse the situation might be if efforts to improve this

area were not made; but, on the other hand, we do not know how effective present efforts are. Writing

may lend itself to testing; whether it should get the greatest amount of attention has not been clearly

established.”

Arguably, while the “English further education sector can be described as a hotbed of

qualifications” (see Cantor, Roberts and Pratley 1995); it is only the written communication skills that

are generally evaluated. It must be remembered that good communication skills comprise the four

major aspects of communication- LSRW. Of course, ability to distinguish between fact and assumption

is also a vital part of communication skills as are a number of other abilities, but a test feasible in a

limited span of time can include only the items which are basic to all others, namely: LSRW.

Ironically, even all these skills do not get evaluated in the traditional system of examination that is

followed in communication skills evaluation in Indian Business Schools and across. Generally it is an

assessment of writing skills through writing while research has established the importance of oral skills

as well with the corporate (Mainkar and Avinash, 2008; Maes, Weldy and Icenogle, 1997; Cox, 1970).

As mentioned earlier, research (Cox, 1970) establishes that assessment in areas other than written skills

is less frequently measured whereby indicating that weakness in these areas is less easily assessed;

hence there appears to be an acute need to develop such tools as may be helpful to assess these other

areas, i.e. non-written skills.

2.3 Peer Assessment and Group Tasks

Studies in the past have shown firm evidence that innovation in fine-tuning the evaluation process

yields substantial learning gains (e.g. Crooks, 1988; McKenney, 1962). Peer learning has been

identified as a valuable strategy for teaching and learning (Broadfoot and Black, 2004). But, peer

assessment, which could be an equally important strategy, has not been sufficiently explored.

The benefits of peer learning were established long before the 1970s, when education research

began to focus on such approaches (for an overview, see Jacobs and Hannah, 2004). But, little work

has been done on the benefits of peer assessment and on making students play a vital role in awarding

marks to their fellow compatriots. It is widely accepted that „alternative methods of assessing student

knowledge‟ (Desrochers, Pusateri and Fink, 2007) are useful since assessment, largely, is a pointer

towards the received curriculum. Research (Krashen, 1981) has focused on the importance of a rich and

varied input as a prerequisite for learning to take place. In this light, the output, and evaluation of this

output, becomes equally significant. As was mentioned earlier, typically the method used for evaluation

is written examination, ending up assessing how well the inputs provided in the class have been

received in a theoretical sense as opposed to a task oriented assessment. This method, if used with

some thought, can probably end up assessing all the four LSRW skills of a student. In case there are

time constraints, and one wants to use the latter method, a group task can be considered to attain the

objectives, but group work per se does not create opportunities for learning. Important conditions in

group tasks are that group members must be encouraged to (i) share; (ii) jointly analyze and evaluate

the ideas; (iii) come to a joint solution of the problem; and (iv) share the ownership of a product

(Mercer, 1995; Storch, 2002). Group assessment tasks are now being designed by large-scale

assessment programs (Fall and Webb, 2000), however, whether or not these tasks serve as a tool of

evaluation of the LSRW skills, is yet to be known.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

An important objective of evaluation is to be able to provide students with an immediate and

constructive feedback. Psychologists have observed that feedback on the effectiveness of a person‟s

performance enhances learning and influences future performance (Feinberg, 1979). While “talk” as an

aid to learning is an accepted way to provide classroom input, it is not extremely clear whether such

“talks” are indeed useful in bringing a range of effects in specific interactions. So much so, it needs to

be studied whether “talks” can be used for evaluation purposes. It comes to be seen that participants in

group discussions naturally tend to limit effective participation of certain other participants (Miragua,

1964). Equal participation among group members is uncommon, as almost about 40 percent of total

talk time in discussion in groups with sizes as small as three and as large as eight is taken by the most

active participant (Bales, 1970). According to Koschmann, Kelson, Feltovich, and Barrows (1996),

meaningful group discussions can lead to effective learning by way of students engaging in deep

reflections on their ideas. By self-reflection and by adding others‟ perspectives to their own reflections,

learners learn to integrate new ideas into their existing knowledge. Also, the processes involved in

asking questions, responding to questions, and elaborating upon these responses, all contribute to

learning (Cohen, 1994; Slavin, 1996). Research also supports the hypothesis that group discussions can

contribute to increased self-efficacy.

Mainkar and Avinash (2008) in their study observe that although practiced widely, grading of

student participation in class discussions has been often criticized by researchers. They further observe

that, in such discussions, the instructor simultaneously adopts two incompatible tasks- of facilitating

class discussion and of evaluating student participation. Students‟ focus, in such situations is on earning

points instead of on drawing learning. Instructor-based grading schemes do not motivate all students

equally. In summary, evaluation poses both a challenge as well as an opportunity. It is a challenge

because the process has to be fair and objective and yet deliver achievement of the intended purpose. It

is an opportunity because evaluation can be innovatively designed to cope with these challenges and

also use it to impart learning. The present study constitutes a humble attempt in this direction.

2.4 Research Proposition

Evaluation of student performance in any course, especially those delivered in a management

programme, poses a serious challenge, more so, in a course like „Business Communication‟ where oral

communication ought to form an integral part of evaluation. It also needs to be remembered that

effective evaluation, based on all the components of any course, lends appropriate seriousness to the

course and its modules. Research establishes that classroom evaluation has powerful impacts- direct

and indirect; positive or negative, and thus deserves very careful planning and implementation.

(Crooks, 1988)

The present study, keeping these concerns in mind, proposes to explore the following

propositions:

1. Whether the method adopted does any better?

2. Is the method effective?

3. Is the method setting independent?

4. How replicable is the method?

3 THE STUDY

3.1 The Problem

This paper presents various details of an experiment, conducted with a view to introduce this

much needed component in the evaluation process. Essential purpose of the exercise was to try and

broaden the focus of evaluation and simultaneously enlarging its scope. The need to maintain certain

amount of objectivity and transparency was taken of getting every student evaluated on both written as

well as non-written skills, and keeping as critical. Group Discussion was used as a tool. A process was

developed with the objective of getting every student engaged as an active participant in the process. A

two-sided evaluation mechanism was put in place to achieve the dual purpose of learning and

evaluation. This was done not only to ensure objectivity and participation but also to provide the entire

class a feel of how individuals behave when involved discussions take place. Statistical analysis of the

results suggests that the experiment was a useful one. The student feedback was favourable too.

One might ask: Why seek experimental evidence of the impact of one assessment tool when few

other standard evaluation methods have been accepted and established? One reason is to add to and

gain acceptance within the accepted evaluation tools that have been experimented upon and developed

gradually and that have proved themselves by their quality. Perhaps of greater importance is to develop

a design enabling business communication instructors to evaluate students on something more than

Subrata Chakraborty and Shailja Agarwal

written skills. Time and again various stakeholders have emphasized on the possession of both verbal

and non-verbal communication skills with the business management students (Gray, Ottesen, Chapman

and Whiten, 2007) and while business communication syllabus across Indian business schools is a

balanced mix of both written and non-written skills, the evaluation pattern, across the globe, is such

that there is little provision of assessment on non-written skills. Hence, though the non-written modules

of the business communication course do get taken up, there is little evaluation upon them, thus leaving

a sense of incompleteness not only in terms of instructor and the course delivery but also in terms of

students having a feeling of acquiring the said skills. The reasons behind this dichotomy could be:

1. Evaluation of non-writing skills could be too time consuming with an average batch of

sixty students.

2. Lot of subjectivity might creep in or could be suspected leading to loss of „trust‟ in the

evaluation process, which, according to research is crucial to the acceptance of the

evaluation result. (Broadfoot and Black, 2004)

3. Evaluation of non-writing skills might not be accorded proper seriousness amongst

students.

Despite the limitations observed above, the community of business communication faculty has

very often felt the need of evaluating the non-written skills of students as well but only after

overcoming these constraints. (Badenhausen; Eileen; Lesley and Robert, 2000)

3.2 The Objective

Keeping in focus the above constraints and the stakeholders‟ concern, an experiment was designed

and implemented with the following objectives:

1. To evaluate students both on written and non-written skills simultaneously.

2. To create learning opportunities for students.

3. To enable students to receive an immediate instructor and peer feedback.

4. To conduct the evaluation in a manner that there would be little scope of any element of

subjectivity in the process.

5. To present a challenge to the students so that there is no lack of seriousness amongst

them.

3.3 Demography

The study was conducted at an AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) accredited

institution offering a two-year graduate management program. The experiment, as a part of end-term

evaluation, was developed and used on a batch of fifty-seven students, pursuing a one credit

compulsory course on business communication as a part of the program. All the participants were non-

native speakers of English, 8 students were females and 49 were males. Female participants were

comparatively few in number as the batch itself had very few female students which did not seem to

have rippled any effect on the experiment given its objective nature. 31 participants had taken their

schooling from English medium instruction, 23 from Hindi medium instruction and 3 from Vernacular

medium. All participants were between the age group of 20 to 30 years with an average age of 23 and

with 10 students having prior work experience.

3.4 Tool Development

Group Discussion was taken as the tool of assessment as research indicates that group discussion

is suitable for assessment process. (Glauco Devita, 2000; Joan Swann, 2007) The process was designed

in a manner that a student would be tested on both written and non-written skills simultaneously

through participating in the entire process. A two-way evaluation criterion was designed to ensure

objectivity. That is both –peer and faculty would conduct the evaluation by awarding marks to the

students participating in the group discussion. Thus, while each student was himself/ herself getting

evaluated, he/ she was also evaluating a set of pre-allotted students of the batch. This was done in order

to meet all the objectives explained earlier. Another objective behind involving students in the

evaluation process was to educate them on handling responsibility with accountability, one of the key

skills expected of a manager.

The class was divided into groups of eight members each, thus forming seven groups. This led to a

total of fifty-six students. As the batch was of fifty-seven students, one group had nine members so as

to accommodate the extra student.

While one group would participate in the group discussion, the members of the other six groups

were required to evaluate one different member per group on pre-set parameters. Thus, each student

would be evaluated by six students (one student per group) and would also evaluate the group

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

discussion performance of six students i.e. one student/ group. This means that at all times, students

would either evaluate a peer or be evaluated themselves by peers. Apart from this, work constituting

the written evaluation of peer evaluators would proceed simultaneously.

The entire procedure was video taped in order to further assess the receptivity and involvement of

the students to the new mode.

The procedure had two parts, each of 10 marks, running concurrently:

 Non-written Evaluation

 Written Evaluation

3.5 Non-Written Evaluation

Major aspects of non-written skills were considered and an Assessment Sheet was designed, to be

used both by the students and the faculty member. (Figure 1, Appendix 1)

A cumulative weight age of 50% was given to student evaluation and 50% to faculty evaluation

Since there were seven groups comprising eight members each, each student had the opportunity

of participating in one group discussion and evaluating one student each from the other groups when

they had the group discussion, thus giving each student a chance to be responsible and accountable for

the evaluation of six students.

Hence, at any point of the procedure, the students were either participating in the group discussion

or evaluating one of their batch mates. Thus, each student, undertaking the group discussion, was

assessed on pre-determined parameters, making a total of 120 marks. These marks were later scaled

down to 5 marks (50% of 10 marks) and added to the 5 marks by the faculty member (scaled down to 5

from 20), who also assessed the students on the same parameters.

N=57

No. of groups= 7

No. of members per group= 8 (except for one group which had nine members)

Each respondent evaluated by= six respondents (one member per group, excluding his own group)

+ one instructor

MM= 20 (per student) + 20 (instructor)

Therefore, 120 marks (scaled down to MM=5) + 20 marks (scaled down to MM=5)

Thus, 5 marks (peer evaluation) + 5marks (instructor evaluation) = 10 marks.

To ensure maximum objectivity amongst the students, groups were formed ensuring that there

was no overlapping, i.e. no two students evaluated each other. Attendance Sheet was used to divide the

students into groups. Hence, there was no selection of students in any manner for group formation. Sets

of eight students, in order of their enrolment numbers were formed, making one group (G-1, G-2 and so

on). Thus eight heterogeneous groups were formulated. This sheet (Appendix 5) was displayed to the

respondents towards the beginning of the evaluation process. The respondents were not aware of the

process prior to the process.

3.6 Written Evaluation

While the students were assessing the group discussion performance of the students allotted to

them, simultaneously, they were to justify in writing, in about seventy-five words per evaluation, why

they thought the student deserved particular marks. Thus, they needed to critically comment on the

performance of six students each. While this ensured their accountability towards the awarding of

marks, it also comprised their own written evaluation of ten marks to be awarded by the faculty

member. This meant that their awarding marks to a particular student contributed to his evaluation but

their written comment on his performance led to their own written evaluation. It is assumed here that

the test was not on classroom instruction but on language proficiency- a component of LSRW, their

listening skills, their receptivity to what was discussed, judgment of its relevance and consequently of

communication skills.

4 METHODOLOGY

Topics were allotted one week prior to the group discussion as evaluation component was

attached. On the day of the experiment, the detailed procedure was explained to the batch. The list of

group division and who would evaluate whom was displayed on a LCD screen. (Appendix 5)

Assessment Sheets (Appendix 1, Figure 1) and writing sheets were circulated. The assessment

parameters were explained thoroughly. The Assessment Sheets carried the names of all the students

Subrata Chakraborty and Shailja Agarwal

with the instruction that they would only evaluate the students according to the list on display. The

entire procedure, which took approximately three hours, was video taped.

To further analyze the objectivity of evaluation and validity of results, statistical tests were

conducted on the marks awarded by peer evaluators and instructor. To test the receptivity of the

technique among students, a questionnaire was administered on the participants after the process was

completed.

5 RESULTS/ DISCUSSION

Since it was the first time such intensive two-way evaluation procedure was experimented upon,

some trepidation regarding the effectiveness was natural. The major concerns were:

1. Its receptivity and acceptance among the students.

2. Would peer assessment be as objective as intended?

3. Would a simultaneous assessment of written and non-written skills be effective?

Students preferred the group discussion assessment condition more and also perceived it as a more

accurate measure of their communication skills. Some research suggests that group discussion (Myers,

2007) did not emerge as a very effective technique in promoting learning but the present study suggests

that if exercised with complete clarity, it could be a useful technique for learning and evaluation.

Cox (1970), in his study indicated that a test brief enough should approximately be of 90 minutes.

The current process took approximately 180 minutes, but considering the fact that the test successfully

faced a major challenge of evaluating students on more than written skills alone, the time duration

appears to be suitable.

A very significant finding of the technique was that, in the non-written evaluation, when the marks

awarded by the faculty (M=3.49. Std. = .71) and students (M=3.63. Std. = .55) were scaled down to 5

marks each, in 63.15% cases, the marks awarded were the same. This is validated by the mean values

and standard deviation values of the peer assessment (M= 12.67, Std. = 2.06) and faculty assessment

(M= 12.29, Std. = 2.51) on 20 marks each. It is important to note here that this observation was only a

bi-product of the technique and it served the purpose of substantiating the fact that that an objective

assessment can be made possible, even through peer assessment. (Appendix 2, Table 1)

Appendix 3, Table 2, shows that the mean value of the students‟ evaluation of group discussion

performance of the students was 3.63 with a standard deviation of .56, whereas the mean value of the

faculty evaluation of group discussion performance of the same students was 3.49 with a standard

deviation of .71. It can be said that in general, the peer assessment of the group discussion performance

was slightly higher as compared to that of faculty evaluation which is acceptable as student

benchmarks would any time be a bit lower than the faculty benchmark. The fact that the student peer

assessment was slightly higher than the faculty assessment does not lead us to conclude that there was a

play for marks as has been suggested by Mainkar (2008). The reasons behind this conclusion could be

that variation was not very high and secondly, since no student was evaluating one another, no apparent

benefit seemed to have been achieved by marking somebody on the higher side.

A high variation (Std. = .71) was observed in case of faculty assessment of students‟ performance.

It indicates the objectivity of faculty evaluation of the group discussion indicated by high differences in

faculty assessment scores. Higher coefficient of variation in case of faculty assessment (coefficient of

variation = 21%> 16%) supports higher relative variation in case of faculty assessment. The testing of

hypothesis between the means of peer assessment and faculty assessment (1.63< 1.84 at .01 level of

confidence) also validates the above conclusion.

A correlation analysis of the same further verifies this. Appendix 4, Table 3, shows that students‟

evaluation and faculty evaluation are found to be moderately correlated. (Correlation = .56) at .01 level

of significance. It can be said that in 99% cases there would exist a significant positive correlation

between peer and faculty evaluation barring the 1% chance factors. Therefore, the results suggest that

faculty and peer both follow the same pattern to a moderate extent.

This revelation leads to certain very interesting conclusions. It perhaps is reflection on the clarity

of the assessment parameters to the students. Also, the batch should be given credit for being actually

objective in their approach towards evaluating their peers. It also points out that students are well aware

of the right skills to be used in group discussion but their performance suffers due to certain other

external factors. What these external factors are needs to be further researched.

It was also observed that since evaluation was involved and topics were pre-determined, students‟

performance was better. Significantly, the usual errors that students make in regular group discussions

like grammatical errors, poor structuring of thoughts, improper non-verbal signals etc were far less in

number. It needs to be studied if preparation of the topic helps in reducing behavioural, para-language

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

and body language errors. Further, research needs to assess what factors lead to making same errors

when the students are required to express themselves extempore.

However, grammatical and other language errors in the writing part appeared to be almost similar

as that of in a standard examination, though a standard examination is on a pre-decided curriculum and

practice is possible, while in this case, the fact that written assessment would also be a part of the

technique was revealed to the students when the process started and there was no pre-determined

syllabus. This perhaps leads us to conclude that grammatical correctness comes from correctness of

thought rather than practicing for a short period of time. This leaves a major scope for further research.

A post questionnaire based feedback of the technique revealed that an overwhelming number of

students appeared be satisfied with the experiment. In particular, 75% students (M=3.98), (on a five-

point Likert scale, where 1= Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree), felt such techniques be made an

integral part of the curriculum as they help in putting to test the real objective of a communication

class- confident expression. Performance was found to be better and stress level far lower than that of

in a standard examination, as indicated by a mean of 3.57, perhaps because this technique appeared less

formidable. That this process also gave students an opportunity to learn and to practice better

structuring and expression of thoughts was substantiated by a mean score of 4.07 and 4.12 respectively.

6 LIMITATIONS

The primary constraint in implementing the test effectively across business schools would be the

batch size. If the same exercise were to be carried out in more than one section, lack of a carefully

planned strategy, in the sense of clever division of groups and students so that there is no overlapping

of student evaluators, may affect the impact of the tool. It is highly important for the instructor to

explain the parameters clearly to the students; else, peer assessment could be effected. It is also felt that

the test would be even more effective if the batch size is of around thirty students but this would also

mean less number of student evaluators. Whether or not this reduced number of peer evaluators lead to

play for marks, has yet to be determined. However, further experimentation and subsequent research is

in the process and the outcome of these observations, when tested, would be reported.

7 IMPLICATIONS

One objective of this experiment was that apart from evaluation, the exercise should also enhance

the learning of students. A post-discussion revealed that the objective was largely achieved by way of

students sharing, discussing and listening to various view points on diversified topics. Therefore, the

authors believe that, the experiment, if replicated, should provide reliable results as it seems to be a

win-win situation for both- the evaluator and the participants. The experiment, if replicated

successfully, would help instructors achieve, to a large extent, multi-fold objectives of a class on

communication- improvement of written and non-written skills, evaluation of written and non-written

skills, training students on group discussion, and above all, training them on confident expression.

8 CONCLUSION

The experiment, still in its nascent stage, appears to have the potential of being further modified

and developed into a useful tool of assessment. The correlation between faculty and student scores and

the post feedback of the approach validates not only the above stated fact but also that peer assessment,

if implemented properly, can be a useful tool for student evaluation.

Subrata Chakraborty and Shailja Agarwal

REFERENCES

Badenhausen, Kurt; Henderson, Eileen; Kump, Lesley and Stanfl, Robert. (2000) Forbes,Volume.165

Issue 3, pp.100-104.

Bales, R.F. (1970). Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Broadfoot, Patricia and Black, Paul. (March 2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of

assessment in education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, pp. 7 – 26.

Cameron, D. (2000) Good to Talk?: Living and Working in a Communication Culture. London: Sage.

Cantor, L.; Roberts, L. and Pratley, B. (1995) A guide to further education in England and Wales

(London, Cassell Education).

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of

Educational Research, Volume 64, No. 1, pp. 1–35.

Cox, Homer L. (1970). Communication testing practices: A survey of selected universities. Journal of

Business Communication, Volume8, No.1, pp.13-23.

Crooks, Terence J. (1988). Impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of

Educational Research, Volume 58, No. 4, pp. 438-481.

Desrochers Marcie N.; Pusateri Jr, Michael J. and Fink, Herbert C. (October 2007). Game assessment:

Fun as well as effective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 32, Issue 5 , pp.

527 – 539.

Devita, Glauco. (2000). Inclusive approaches to effective communication and active participation in the

multicultural classroom -An international business management context. Active Learning in

Higher Education, Volume 1, No. 2, pp. 168-180.

Fall, Randy and Webb, Noreen M. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment:

effects on students' comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, Volume 37, No. 4,

pp. 911-941.

Feinberg, Susan. (1979). Evaluation of business communication techniques. Journal of Business

Communication, Volume 16, No. 3, pp. 15-30.

Gray, Brendan J., Ottesen, Geir Grundvag; Bell, Jim; Chapman, Cassandra and Whiten, Jemma.

(2007) Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Volume. 25, No. 3, pp. 271-295.

Haigh, Martin. (August 2007). Sustaining learning through assessment: An evaluation of the value of a

weekly class quiz. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp. 457 –

474.

Hancock, Dawson R. (2007). Effects of performance assessment on the achievement and motivation of

graduate students. Active Learning in Higher Education, Volume 8, No. 3, pp. 219-231.

Holmes, J. (1992) Women‟s voices in public contexts. Discourse and Society. Volume3, No.2, pp. 131-

150.

Jacobs, G. and Hannah, D. (2004) Combining cooperative learning with reading aloud by teachers.

International Journal of English Studies, Volume 4, pp. 7–118.

Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., and Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported

problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning.

In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Theory and practice of an

emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Lee, Yekyung in full collaboration with Ertner, Peggy A. (2006). Examining the effect of small group

discussions and question prompts on vicarious learning outcomes. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, Volume39, No.1, pp.66-80.

Maes, Jeanne D; Weldy, Teresa G. and Icenogle, Marjorie L. (1997). A managerial perspective: oral

communication competency is most important for business students in the workplace. The Journal

of Business Communication, Volume 34.

Mainkar, Avinash V. (Feb2008). A student-empowered system for measuring and weighing

participation in class discussion.Journal of Management Education, Volume 32 Issue 1, pp. 23-37.

Malmqvist, Anita. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language

output. Language Awareness, Volume14, No. 2&3.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

McKenney, James L. (July 1962). An Evaluation of Business Game in an MBA Curriculum. JSTOR:

The Journal of Business, Volume 35, No.3, pp. 278-286.

Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Talk amongst Teachers and Learners.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Miragua, Joseph F. (1964). Communication network research and group discussion. Today‟s Speech,

Volume12, No.4.

Myers, Greg. (2007). Enabling talk: How the facilitator shapes a focus group Text & Talk; Volume 27

Issue 1, pp. 79-105.

Ogunleye, James. (February 2006). A review and analysis of assessment objectives of academic and

vocational qualifications in English further education, with particular reference to creativity.

Journal of Education & Work, Volume19, No.1, pp. 91-204.

Reese, Curt and Wells,Terri. (December 2007). Teaching academic discussion skills with a card game.

Simulation & Gaming, Volume 38, No. 4, pp. 546-555.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need

to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Volume 21, pp.43–69.

Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, Volume 52 No.1,

pp.119–55.

Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden (eds) Input in Second

Language Acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swann, Joan. (2007). Designing „Educationally Effective‟ discussion. Language & Education, Volume

21, No.4.

Thorpe, Mary. (2000). Encouraging students to reflect as part of the assignment process: Student

responses and tutor feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 79-92.

Subrata Chakraborty and Shailja Agarwal

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Figure 1: Assessment Sheet

Name

Student

Participation

(3 marks)

Listenin

(3marks)

Speakin

(3marks)

Body

Language/

Voice

Modulatio

(3 marks)

Content

organization

, Flow

(3 marks)

Emotional

Projection,

Sincerity,

Respect,

Confidenc

e, Timing

(3 marks)

Overall

Impact

marks)

Total

(20

marks)

Name of Peer Assessor: _______________________.

Date: ________________.

Appendix 2

Table 1: Descriptives

Peer Assessment

Faculty Assessment

Valid

Missing

Mean

3.63

3.49

Std. Deviation

.56

.71

Coefficient of variation

16%

21%

Appendix 3

Table 2: Significance of difference between means of Peer and Faculty Assessment

Paired Differences

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Mean

Std.

Deviati

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

Pair 1

Peer

assessment

Faculty

Assessment

.37719

1.74561

.23121

-.08598

.84037

1.631

Appendix 4

Table 3: Correlations

Peer Assessment

Faculty Assessment

Peer Assessment

Pearson Correlation

.56 (**)

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

Faculty Assessment

Pearson Correlation

.56 (**)

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.00 level (2-tailed).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Appendix 5

The seven groups (1

column from the left) were- G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-6 and G-7. While

one group would participate in the group discussion, all the other members of the other six groups were

required to evaluate one member per group on pre-set parameters (as shown in peer evaluation column

below). For e.g. member 1 from G-1 would be evaluated by member 9 from G-2, member 17 from G-3,

member 25 from G-4, member 33 from G-5, member 41 from G-6 and member 49 from G-7.

PEER EVALUATION

Groups

G-1

G-2

G-3

G-4

G-5

G-6

Subrata Chakraborty and Shailja Agarwal

G-7