- ie

 

 

 

 

   

Published by the National Instinate fe for F Staff ar and iaehitere Deveraoment
With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

   

 

 

 

“PRACTICAL THEORY" Takteae AND GRADING METHODS IN BUSINESS LAW CLASSES

A dozen years ago when iy accepted a field position with Commerce Clearing, House, I was issued an
employee manual that used the entire « pening, page to. display these few words, "We pay for results, ‘not
effort." No other words, before or since, have captured the basic differences between academia and the private
sector for me. In many ways those words changed my outlook, attitude, and performance on that and

subsequent jobs. I was challenged to bring more of my perception of those differences into my teaching. I
describe my approach with a stereotypical ‘statement: four-year colleges: teach theory; vocational/technical
schools teach practical skills; and since ‘two-year colleges serve both transfer. and technical students, we should

teach the most "practical theory" possible.

Psychologists refer to the problem of inert knowledge when describing the memorization of large units of
information that students later are unable to apply in practical settings. David Perkins of Harvard says, "The

remedy for inert knowledge is to teach knowledge in the context of active problem-solving, where the
knowledge is put into use as it is being acquired." Morano found: "In _Management courses (such as
marketing, law, and economics), teachers can enhance their effectiveness by using case studies, class dee ciesion,
role playing, and films."

T have attempted to combine my - perception of the world of work, psychological learning principles, and

effective methods in my teaching. A typical business law class for me opens with a fictitious scenario involving.
my students playing the role of local business | managers/owners in the middle of a contract, bailment, or agency |
dilemma. The class. then: discusses the problem and makes recommendations | for action. I conclude by
discussing assigned cases as a ‘method o: of reinforcing the principles involved.

As a continuation of this teaching style, 1 developed dollar grading as a means of communicating more than

points on a test: an expectation for results and a payoff for ability and/or hard work. Specifically, my straight
point method uses dollar amounts as the basis for grade decisions. I give four tests during the term, each worth
$40. The comprehensive final exam is worth $100. In addition, each student completes assigne legal research
and participates in class activities for. another $40. My tests consist of multiple choice questions and are scored
by a scanner. I count each question as one dollar. If a student, for example, gets 33 of 40 answers correct on a_
test, then the scanner marks the incorrect answers and prints the number 33 on the answer sheet. I then add a

dollar sign ($) to the number of correct answers (33) and record that number in my grade book. I tell the

students, on a written syllabus passed « out during the first class meeting, that they need $270 to earn an A

(90%), $240 to earn a B (80%), $210 to earn aC, and
work overtime (earn extra dollars) by | Presenting. an 01
much as $15 extra for a good book review. On the other hand, I dock their pay § (5 for eae class absence
beginning with the fourth cut.

This system has been successful in communicating grades and attitudes to my students. To my surprise, a

80 fora D. I also provide students an. opportunity to

   
   
 

  

side effect has been that students do not plead for more points. While a student might ask a professor to "give

me four more points," no student has yet asked me for four dollars more as a gift.
Conclusions

The dollar grading system is a simple addition to the straight points method of grading. It integrates more
reality into business law classes and has worked well in my effort to provide a more meaningful ‘classroom
Searcy for my students.

Richard Crowe
Hazard Community College

Edited and reprinted by permission of The Journal a degelss Studies Education (Edwin W. "pucker Editorin-Chien,
Volume 4, Number 1, 1986.

For more information, contact the author at Hazard a College, Hazard, KY 41701.

al book review in my office. ' a ‘hus, . students may earn as.

 

 

|

|
;

 

 

 

 

 

a —

} Community College Leadership. Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 787 12,