I am a self-proclaimed yapper. Give me any topic, and I could probably ramble on about it for hours — at least in front of my friends and family. As for the professor and teaching assistant (TA) who facilitated the lecture I took last semester? They saw a different side of me.
When I found out the TAs were keeping track of who spoke during the lecture and using the tallies to calculate our “participation grade,” I felt a wave of stress overcome me. I love talking, but not enough to do it in front of 150 people.
Participation grades are not uncommon, and this was just one of my many classes where verbal engagement had an impact on my final grade. Since this is a typical component of grade composition across classes, concerns arose in the back of my mind and led me to question the true validity and reliability of class participation as a measure of academic success.
One factor that undermines the validity of participation grades is their inherent subjectivity. Like anyone else, teachers can carry unconscious biases that may affect their evaluations of students. For instance, affinity bias might lead them to favor students with similar backgrounds, interests and experiences, resulting in an unfair assessment of students’ contributions.
Additionally, when participation is factored into grades, students are pitted against their classmates regarding how much they speak and what they say. This can create competition for “airtime,” which fosters a toxic classroom environment, ultimately undermining the goal of participation grades: to promote collaborative learning through discussion.
Furthermore, personality plays into students’ comfort level with public speaking. It’s unfair to make students talk when they’re reluctant. Some people like to talk, others don’t. That doesn’t mean they’re not learning.
Some have advocated for eliminating participation grades altogether. While I see the merits in doing so, this is not the path that should be taken. As a student, I understand the frustration when a teacher tries to engage the classroom and no one responds — a situation that participation grades might help alleviate.
Studies have also shown that students who participate in class achieve better academic results than their peers who do not. However, valid reasons exist for why some hesitate to participate.
Students come from diverse backgrounds with different expectations for classroom behavior. In classes at Chinese public schools, for example, students are traditionally taught to listen and take notes rather than engage in open discussion; they are expected to follow the teacher’s instructions without rebuttal.
Just because you participate doesn’t mean you’re a good student, and just because you don’t doesn’t mean you’re a bad student. Perhaps you simply grew up in an environment that emphasized a different set of values.
To address the issues with participation grades, I suggest making them more inclusive by adopting a self-evaluation approach. For example, professors can distribute forms that allow students to evaluate their own performance in class and explain the reasons behind their assessments. This method would give students a space to share their thoughts and challenges with instructors, providing professors with valuable insights about students’ diverse backgrounds, personalities and learning preferences.
Especially in large lecture classes, where understanding each student’s circumstances can be difficult, open communication through this self-evaluation approach can lead to fairer, more accurate participation grading.
This way, when the yappers (and non-yappers) aren’t yapping, professors and TAs alike will understand why.
Aria Zhu is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences.
