Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Student perceptions of the fairness of grading procedures: a multilevel investigation of the role of the academic environment

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of assessment method (essays vs. examinations) and instruction method (seminars vs. lectures) on student perceptions of the fairness of the assessment process. Department-specific combinations of these factors give a unique profile to the assessment process and to the way students interact with faculty. It is argued that the conditions thus created place students in some departments in a more advantageous position when it comes to meeting justice-related expectations. The variables of interest are procedural justice (PJ) and informational justice (IJ). For PJ, aspects regarding the amount of control students can exert on the grading process (PJ-C) are distinguished from aspects regarding the perceived validity of grading procedures (PJ-V). The sample consists of 1549 students from 48 departments of a German university. Analysis is done via multilevel mixed effects models. Models also check for cross-level interactions between effects of the academic environment and student socioeconomic status (SES). Results show that PJ-C and PJ-V are significantly affected by the assessment method. Higher proportions of essays relative to examinations in a department lead to higher ratings of PJ-C, while they decrease ratings of PJ-V. Ratings of IJ are higher as well if assessment is more essay-based, although this only affects low-SES students. Regarding the instruction method, a higher proportion of seminars was found to significantly increase PJ-C and IJ. Again, effects on IJ are moderated by parental SES. Policy implications for reducing feelings of injustice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashenafi, M. M. (2015). Peer-assessment in higher education–twenty-first century practices, challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1973). Study behaviour and performance in objective and essay formats. Australian Journal of Education, 17(2), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., & Orr, S. (2011). Mark my words: The role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 655–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloxham, S., Hughes, C., & Adie, L. (2015). What’s the point of moderation? A discussion of the purposes achieved through contemporary moderation practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1039932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., Cantwell, A. M., & Saxena, P. (2012). Disciplinary categories, majors, and undergraduate academic experiences: Rethinking Bok’s “underachieving colleges” thesis. Research in Higher Education, 53(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, R., & Gross, M. (2014). CampusPanelPaper 3 Gerechtigkeit im Studienverlauf. Ergebnisse der ersten Welle des Campus Panel. Tübingen: Institut für Soziologie. http://www.campuspanel.ifsoz.uni-tuebingen.de/files/campuspanelpaper3.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2015.

  • Burger, R., & Gross, M. (2016). Gerechtigkeit und Studienabbruch. Die Rolle der wahrgenommenen Fairness von Benotungsverfahren bei der Entstehung von Abbruchsintentionen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,. doi:10.1007/s11618-016-0672-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. Y., Chang, H., Hsu, W. C., & Sheen, G. J. (2016). Learning, behaviour and reaction framework: A model for training raters to improve assessment quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1180663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P. (2015). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dysthe, O., & Engelsen, K. S. (2011). Portfolio practices in higher education in Norway in an international perspective: Macro-, meso- and micro-level influences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Barros, A., & Pereira, D. (2015). Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1523–1534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (2014). International Stratification and Mobility File: Conversion Tools. Amsterdam: Department of Social Research Methodology. http://www.harryganzeboom.nl/ismf/index.htm. Accessed November 10, 2015.

  • Godor, B. P. (2016). Revisiting differential grading standards anno 2014: An exploration in Dutch higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1173186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(10), 1193–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, V. (2016). An Australian study comparing the use of multiple-choice questionnaires with assignments as interim, summative law school assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1170761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2014). The effects of student–faculty interaction on academic self-concept: Does academic major matter? Research in Higher Education, 55(8), 780–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, V., & Hillmert, S. (Eds.). (2014). CampusPanel User Handbook V1.1: Documentation for the Student Panel of the ScienceCampus Tuebingen, wave “a”. Tübingen: Institut für Soziologie. http://www.campuspanel.ifsoz.uni-tuebingen.de/files/campuspanel_userhandbook_v1_1.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2015.

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maringe, F., & Sing, N. (2014). Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: Pedagogical, quality and equity issues. Higher Education, 67(6), 761–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. J., McNear, J., & Metz, M. J. (2013). A comparison of traditional and engaging lecture methods in a large, professional-level course. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(4), 347–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(2), 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 881–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, L. S. (1990). Essay-writing: What really counts? Higher Education, 20(4), 411–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices. Higher Education, 68(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S. (2007). Assessment moderation: Constructing the marks and constructing the students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2015). Tutors’ assessment practices and students’ situated learning in higher education: Chalk and cheese. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1103366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching–learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., & Niklasson, L. (2015). Assessment revisited: A review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, D., Niklasson, L., & Flores, M. A. (2016). Students’ perceptions of assessment: A comparative analysis between Portugal and Sweden. Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0005-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roopa, S., Bagavad Geetha, M., Rani, A., & Chacko, T. (2013). What type of lectures students want? A reaction evaluation of dental students. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 7(10), 2244–2246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, M. (2012). Social class differences in social integration among students in higher education: A meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35(4), 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severiens, S., Meeuwisse, M., & Born, M. (2015). Student experience and academic success: Comparing a student-centred and a lecture-based course programme. Higher Education, 70(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severiens, S. E., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Academic and social integration and study progress in problem based learning. Higher Education, 58(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, A. (2015). Assessment and its outcomes: The influence of disciplines and institutions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1052369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, H., & Richardson, J. T. (2016). Students’ perceptions of the academic environment and approaches to studying in British postgraduate business education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 384–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, F., Blüthmann, I., & Richter, M. (2010). Ergebnisse der Befragung der Studierenden in den Bachelorstudiengängen an der Freien Universität Berlin.

  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, B. (1991). Relative deprivation and social mobility: Structural constraints on distributive justice judgments. European Sociological Review, 7(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzig, K. (2013). Startkohorte 5: Studierende (SC5) SUF-Version 3.0.0 Data Manual [Supplement]: Codebook (de), National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Bamberg.

  • Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., & Bernerth, J. B. (2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 776–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkesmann, U., & Lauer, S. (2015). What affects the teaching style of German professors? Evidence from two nationwide surveys. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(4), 713–736.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Tübingen, Wilhelmstr. 36, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Roland Burger

Authors
  1. Roland Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Burger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burger, R. Student perceptions of the fairness of grading procedures: a multilevel investigation of the role of the academic environment. High Educ 74, 301–320 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0049-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0049-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation