Evaluating Negotiation Behavior and Results: Can We Identify What We Say We Know?

Arnold I. Siegel
Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Mary-Lynne Fisher
Loyola Law School Los Angeles

September 22, 2011

Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 36, p. 395, 1987
Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2011-35

Abstract:

For professors in skills or clinical courses, grading student work is a troubling and time consuming process. For example, when a professor grades students in negotiation courses on criteria other than the result of the negotiation exercises, she must design comprehensible grading standards, observe the student in a real or simulated exercise, critique the student’s performance, and grade the student based on those standards. Some professors, however, do grade solely on the results the students obtain in the negotiation problems. Each student is compared to other students who negotiate the same side of the problem in what is called a «duplicate bridge» format. Other teachers use a subjective standard. Rather than grade on the result, these teachers evaluate the way each student handles the problem. A third method is pass/fail grading. Finally, some professors use a combination of these methods. None of these methods is entirely satisfactory.

Evaluating Negotiation Behavior and Results- Can We Identify What We Say We Know?

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Tu dirección de correo no será publicada.


*


Google Analytics