Abstract
Introduction:
Class participation is a common component of many college classes and is typically defined as involving students’ active, oral engagement in class.
Statement of the Problem:
Class participation is often an under-utilized pedagogical tool for skill-building and development.
Literature Review:
We present an evidence-based framework that encourages instructors and students to rethink class participation as collaboration. Drawing on a review of over 40 years of research, we argue that this framework for defining class participation will lead to better classroom discussions, academic and social-emotional benefits for students, and prepare students with essential workforce readiness skills.
Teaching Implications:
We describe how instructors can adopt our framework with evidence-based suggestions for: (1) redefining participation as collaboration with explicit criteria (2) structuring course experience to develop students as active collaborators (3) working to build productive classroom teams, and (4) evaluating participation through a collaborative lens.
Conclusions:
We offer a novel framework for redefining participation through a collaborative lens, along with a suite of evidence-based suggestions for shifting the thought processes and behaviors of students toward collaboration.
In the college classroom, student participation has become increasingly emphasized as a pedagogical tool over the past 40 years, as part of a growing focus on active over passive teaching methods to improve learning outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014; White, 2011). Participation can take many forms, but many instructors consider participation to involve student’s active, oral engagement in class, such as asking questions, responding to questions posed by the instructor, and discussing ideas with peers (Fritschner, 2000). Participation is associated with many benefits, including increased motivation (Junn, 1994), connection to the course (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005), and deeper engagement with and understanding of the material (Weaver & Qi, 2005). Participation is also associated with development of critical thinking skills (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005; Crone, 1997; Garside, 1996; Smith, 1977), self-reported gains in character (Kuh & Umbach, 2004) and higher grades (Handelsman et al., 2005). Because participation is so beneficial, instructors often incentivize it by incorporating it into the grading structure of their courses (i.e., participation grades) and strive to create more opportunities for students to participate, including adding “discussion sections” to large lecture courses (Buckley et al., 2004; Kleiner, 1997; Pollock et al., 2011), and “flipping” the course structure to allow more class time for discussion and activity (see Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018, for a review).
Despite its clear value, participation can be one of the more amorphous and confusing aspects of college teaching. In our experiences, as a college instructor and student, respectively, instructors and students differ widely in their definitions of participation, an observation that is consistent with the literature (see Rocca, 2010, for a review). We have noticed that some instructors evaluate participation based on whether a student attends class and stays awake; others count how many times each student raises their hand to speak, and yet others evaluate a wide range of classroom behaviors that include listening and offering remarks that advance group dialogue.
In this article, we propose a novel framework for defining participation to provide clarity for instructors and their students. This framework focuses on developing students to become collaborative thinkers, armed with vital skills for future academic pursuits and workforce readiness. In the sections that follow, we lay out the logic and evidence for this framework along with evidence-based strategies for teaching collaboration through student participation. We end by considering specific ways to evaluate participation through a collaborative lens. Although participation can take many forms, our focus is primarily on participation that unfolds in synchronous teaching contexts, where instructors and students are working together at the same time, in-person or virtually, specifically during class discussions.
The Value of Collaboration
We define collaborative thinking, or more simply collaboration, as the process of two or more people coordinating their thoughts to negotiate shared understanding, solve problems, and accomplish shared goals. This definition is based on Baker’s (2015) proposal that collaboration is an inherently cognitive form of cooperation that “works on the plane of ideas, understanding, representations” (p. 5). The capacity to collaborate is a remarkable feature of human cognition. By coordinating and pooling cognitive resources, humans accomplish feats that exceed the capabilities of any one individual (Tomasello, 1999). According to some theorists, the motivation and capacity to collaborate evolved uniquely in humans (compared to other primates) and explains all fundamental human accomplishments including language, mathematics, art, science, and technology (Tomasello, 1999, 2019). Education itself is a powerful example of human collaboration: instructors and students coordinate their thoughts for a shared purpose of developing students’ knowledge and skills.
Collaboration is then, unsurprisingly, a highly valued skill in nearly any career our students will pursue. A task force of the American Psychological Association analyzed thousands of job ads to identify the most desired “workforce readiness” skills for psychology majors. Collaboration was one of the key skills they identified, along with skills that are indirectly related to collaboration, such as oral and written communication, critical and analytical thinking, self-regulation, and inclusivity (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Naufel et al., 2018; Naufel et al., 2019; see also Appleby et al., 2019). Employers are wise to desire these skills: Collaboration in the workplace can be the most powerful driver of a business’ performance (Frost & Sullivan, 2006).
How should we teach this crucial skill of collaboration in the college classroom? We propose that one of the most straightforward ways to teach collaboration is to reenvision student participation. When students engage each other to clarify, discuss, and apply concepts, they are engaging in collaborative thinking. Instructors can thus maximize the value of participation for learning and skill-building by defining, teaching, and evaluating it through a collaborative lens. 1
Redefining Participation as Collaboration
For lack of a better definition, many instructors define participation as the quantity of an individual’s verbal remarks (Hollander, 2002). This individualist definition teaches students to focus on how much they say and how often they speak, favors the most talkative students, and encourages competition over cooperation, leading to repetitive discussions between individual students and the instructor—rather than a “polylogue” with classmates (Hollander, 2002). A critical first step in helping students develop as collaborators is thus to redefine participation as collaboration and perhaps eliminate the word participation altogether. Although participation implies actively taking part, the word’s association with participation certificates and trophies may imply a reward for simply “showing up.”
We suggest that instructors emphasize collaboration, in place of participation, as a major course goal. Consider the following language as it might be described in a syllabus or on the first day of class: An important goal of this course is to develop the ability to collaborate, a key skill for academic and professional success. Collaboration means exchanging ideas cooperatively with others to find a shared understanding, solve problems, and accomplish goals. Students will learn to be better collaborators by actively engaging with the class community through listening, speaking, and writing, with the goal of helping all students gain a deeper understanding of course concepts and how to apply them to understand and solve problems.
Next, we propose that instructors clearly communicate to students how to collaborate effectively. We have developed a candidate list of criteria in Table 1, organized into what we argue are essential “prerequisites” for effective collaboration (e.g., punctual attendance), mindsets (e.g., taking risks), and specific ways of contributing (e.g., building on others’ contributions). This broad set of criteria, in contrast to merely “speaking up in class,” emphasizes shared responsibility for learning.
How to be an Effective Collaborator in This Course.
Teaching Collaboration
Now that we have redefined class participation in collaborative terms, let us consider how to structure the course experience to maximize students’ opportunities to develop collaborative thinking skills. In the workplace, organizational leaders cultivate collaboration by shaping the collective attitudes and behaviors of the group (Goman, 2015). As leaders of the classroom, instructors need to cultivate a collaborative culture in their workspace, support group members with tools, resources, and team building exercises, and design tasks that emphasize collaboration (Patel et al., 2012). In addition, they should be conscious of the impact that roles and diversity (or lack thereof) play within their group and strive to nurture trusting relationships among group members (Patel et al., 2012). In the sections that follow, we offer strategies for developing students as active collaborators and building productive classroom teams. These same strategies conveniently address many common challenges in getting students to participate in class.
Developing Active Collaborators
A classroom can be seen as a negotiated social setting in which students and instructors actively work out their relative roles (Auster & MacRone, 1994). The way students think about their role can encourage or stifle collaboration from the beginning. In passive learning environments—which dominate the current education system—students are taught to view themselves as passive recipients of the truth from experts (Karp & Yoels, 1976). This passive role poses a major obstacle to collaboration: students who perceive their professor as an authority of knowledge feel they have less to contribute to class, are less willing to critique ideas, more sensitive to criticism, and more concerned with having the correct answer (Karp & Yoels, 1976, Weaver & Qi, 2005).
To effectively teach collaboration, instructors must help students see themselves not as passive recipients, but as co-creators of knowledge. Role distancing is an overarching strategy to change the power dynamic that involves distancing the instructor from the traditional role of “powerful and all-knowing scholar” (Auster & MacRone, 1994, p. 290). Role distancing strategies include knowing and using students’ names, showing interest in students’ contributions with eye contact and enthusiasm, offering praise, and encouraging elaboration (e.g., “Tell us more about that idea.”) (Auster & MacRone, 1994). Instructors can also role distance by asking questions in a conversational tone (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; e.g., “Lemme just ask you”), embracing their own vulnerability—acknowledging that they struggle with the material at times (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005)—and by sharing personal information, stories, and experiences (Goldstein & Benassi, 1994).
Instructors can also structure class discussions to give students a more active role. Asking analytical, open-ended, or hypothetical—as opposed to factual—questions not only facilitates productive discussions (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005; Dallimore et al., 2004), but leads to role distancing by pushing students to think beyond the traditional “one right answer” model. Instructors might also consider using student-generated questions to underscore the value of student contributions (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005). For example, students can submit “thought-provoking” questions before class that extend weekly reading material. These can be used to guide small group and larger-group discussions during class (Detweiler-Bedell & Hazlett, 2016).
Instructors should structure their physical or virtual space to afford students taking an active, collaborative role. For classes taught in-person, circular seating arrangements—circles, semi-circles, U-shaped—allow students to see and hear one another more effectively, and thus lead to more participation than the traditional row and column seating (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005; Fassinger, 1996; Fritschner, 2000; Rocca, 2010). For online classes, instructors should request that students turn their cameras on when possible, while recognizing that students may be unable or unwilling to do so (Moses, 2020). Instructors should also limit screensharing (i.e., presenting slides) during class periods when collaboration is desired. In our experience, presenting slides in online classes places attentional focus on the instructor and reduces students’ visible access to one another.
How active students feel also depends on class size, with students more likely to participate in smaller classes (Auster & MacRone, 1994; Howard et al., 1996; Hyde & Ruth, 2002; Rocca, 2010), especially in those under 40 students (Karp & Yoels, 1976). Collaboration tends to be more optimal in groups of about five or fewer participants (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005). When students work together on challenging tasks in a small group setting, they gain a sense of interdependence and are motivated to make sure the whole group succeeds (Slavin, 1996). Thus, for larger classes, instructors need to create opportunities for students to work in smaller groups. Gonzalez (2015) provides a wide range of strategies for restructuring the class for small group work. For example, in a “snowball” discussion, students are organized into pairs to tackle a specific question. After a few minutes, these pairs join with other pairs to form groups of four, then eight, etc. until the class is discussing the question as one large group. This discussion strategy works easily online by manually assigning and reassigning students to different “breakout rooms.”
Building Productive Teams
Humans engage in more effective problem solving when they collaborate with others who approach situations and problems differently than they do (Hong & Page, 2004; J. R. Larson, 2007). For example, workplaces with greater diversity of people in terms of demographic, geographic, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds, tend to be more productive and innovative (Brixy et al., 2020; Cooke & Kemeny, 2017). However, benefits of diversity depend on an environment that is supportive of diversity (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013; Prieto et al., 2009). Thus, developing students to be collaborative thinkers should include training them to work inclusively by welcoming people of diverse identities and perspectives.
A first step in creating a more inclusive environment is for the instructor to model inclusive behaviors and encourage diverse involvement. One barrier to diverse involvement, however, is that many college students are uncertain about whether others notice and value them (Walton & Brady, 2020) and are especially sensitive to cues from instructors and peers about whether they belong (e.g., Murphy et al., 2007; Murphy & Taylor, 2012). When students feel unwelcome in class, they may hesitate to participate (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005). Among the most widely cited reasons for a student’s silence is a lack of confidence (Armstrong & Boud, 1983; Fassinger, 1995; Hyde & Ruth, 2002; Wade, 1994; Weaver & Qi, 2005), which may stem from fears of peer disapproval and instructor criticism (Armstrong & Boud, 1983; Brookfield & Preskill, 2005; Fassinger, 1995; Fritschner, 2000; Howard et al., 1996; Karp & Yoels, 1976; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Students of minoritized racial groups, particularly at predominantly white institutions (PWIs), may be especially reluctant to participate due to pressures to adjust their conversational style to match the dominant cultural group (aka “code switching”), fears of being judged negatively, and discomfort with being one of the few minorities in a class (White, 2007, 2011).
Instructors can encourage diverse involvement by working to establish rapport: a mutual prosocial relationship (Frisby & Martin, 2010). Students are more likely to participate when they perceive their instructors as caring, patient, and respectful (Wade, 1994), and appreciative of them (Mottet et al., 2004). Instructors can exhibit these traits using confirmation behaviors: verbal and non-verbal responses that recognize the speaker’s existence, acknowledge their relationship, express awareness of their worth, and accept their ideas (Goodboy & Myers, 2008). Instructors can also encourage diverse involvement by establishing student trust, which describes students’ willingness to risk vulnerability and challenge because they believe the teacher is committed to student success (Chew, 2020; Chew et al., 2018). Instructors can build trust by creating class policies that are rooted in fairness, integrity, and the best interests of students, and by making sure that such policies are explained and enforced equitably (see Chew, 2020, for more suggestions).
Students’ relationship with the instructor is important, but so is their relationship with classmates. Cultivating a sense of classroom connectedness and supporting student-student rapport can directly increase the level of participation in a classroom (Frisby & Martin, 2010). Instructors can achieve this by encouraging students to get to know one another and by offering challenging and meaningful problems for students to solve in teams. For example, students might develop a social psychological intervention to reduce energy use in dorms (e.g., Smith, 2017) or play an “escape room” game that requires solving a series of course-related puzzles (Ragan, 2019).
Instructors also need to combat unhelpful social norms that suppress inclusion and collaboration. Most instructors have experienced a phenomenon known as the “consolidation of responsibility,” which describes the tendency for a few students to dominate discussions in class (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005; Howard et al., 1996; Karp & Yoels, 1976; Petress, 2006). Other researchers describe a “restriction on verbal output” norm (Karp & Yoels, 1976) and a “talking is not cool” norm (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005). These unwritten social norms also include pressure to not be a “rate buster”—a student who, through the quality and quantity of their own participation, increases the instructor’s expectations for the rest of the class (Karp & Yoels, 1976, p. 431).
Instructors can cultivate more helpful class norms by communicating the importance and benefits of broad participation on the first day of class, perhaps by sharing the value of developing collaborative thinking skills as a learning goal for the course. By emphasizing the value of listening, supporting, and amplifying in addition to speaking (see Table 1), instructors can set the expectation that contributions from only a few students is not effective collaboration: many and diverse voices must be heard.
In addition to setting clear expectations for collaboration, instructors can also structure class activities to avoid rewarding the fastest, most confident students. Instructors may want to allow students time to prepare their thoughts—in writing or in pairs—before asking them to participate (Wilcox, 1994). When assigning students to work or discuss in small groups, instructors can assign and rotate specific roles (e.g., reporter, facilitator, skeptic) to prevent the same students from taking charge (Barkley et al., 2005; Sathy & Hogan, 2019). When calling on students, instructors can insist on a minimum number of hands raised before calling on anyone or, after group work, using a selection rule for assigning a reporter for each group, such as the student who woke up the earliest or is wearing the darkest color shirt.
Evaluating Participation Through a Collaborative Lens
If collaborative thinking is an important goal of a course, then instructors need a means of evaluating it. Practically speaking, this means instructors must assign a grade. The set of criteria described in Table 1 provide a starting point for doing so. The next challenge is for instructors to evaluate these reliably. For classes in which collaboration unfolds primarily during class time (in-person or online) there are several challenges with evaluating participation. First, some behaviors, such as punctual attendance, are easier to observe than the others. Second, monitoring many members of a class all at once can be incredibly demanding. We recommend that instructors assign a simple score of check, check minus, or check plus using the set of expected behaviors described in Table 2. A check indicates that a student has fulfilled all of the expected criteria for that day. At a minimum, this means showing punctual attendance, preparation, and active listening, as well as some evidence of the collaborative mindsets and ways to contribute during smaller group or full-class activities. Instructors and students should recognize that students may not be able to demonstrate all skills in any one class period. Students might become eligible for a check plus by demonstrating nearly all of the mindsets or ways of contributing. While this system indicates that students must engage in collaborative behaviors every single class period, it also communicates that meeting expectations does not require perfection across every criterion. In our experience, these criteria are fairly easy to evaluate in a seminar-sized class (less than 20 students), especially if instructors share the expected behaviors with students in advance. If students understand and are motivated to do what is expected, then most earn a check, and the instructor simply needs to monitor for students who seem unprepared or noticeably disengaged (check minus), or who show exceptional contributions that elevate the experience of the class (check plus).
Daily Collaboration Rubric.
Instructors may also invite students to help develop the grading criteria (Dancer & Kamvounias, 2005), which promotes a shared understanding of collaboration while reinforcing the value of student-generated ideas. Furthermore, as grading collaboration is inevitably subjective, instructors might consider using peer evaluations in addition to their own judgment (Farland et al., 2013; Mainkar, 2008; Melvin, 1988). The benefits of these strategies can be amplified with an emphasis on feedback and self-reflection: Instructors should offer formative feedback at multiple points to help their students understand what they are doing well and how they can improve. Instructors should also give students time to reflect on their ability to collaborate both as a class and individually, perhaps through qualitative self-evaluations (Hollander, 2002) or even by having students self-evaluate using the rubric in Table 2. In tandem, these strategies will help students develop important group skills and grow as effective collaborative thinkers.
Conclusion and Future Directions
While many scholars recognize the importance of participation as a way to motivate and engage students, participation can also be a tool for building collaborative thinking skills that prepare students for future academic and professional work. We have offered a novel framework for redefining participation through a collaborative lens, along with evidence-based suggestions for shifting the thought processes and behaviors of students toward collaboration. Although our framework is rooted in an analysis of existing research on teaching and learning, new research is needed to directly test whether framing and grading participation as collaboration positively affects students’ behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes. We are conducting initial research to examine how students respond to different hypothetical communications from a professor that frame participation either traditionally or in terms of collaboration. The goal of this initial work is to develop and test naturalistic classroom interventions to improve participation. We hope that our framework will inspire additional research efforts to address these questions, as well as practical efforts to reflect on and improve the way that we teach our students.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the Charles Lafitte foundation for funding a summer research fellowship for the second author. We also gratefully acknowledge Thomas Newpher and Michelle Wong for their comments on an earlier draft of this work. We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
