In Susan Cain’s Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, she critiques a learning environment that pressures students rather than promoting true learning, emphasizing that “the purpose of school should be to prepare kids for the rest of their lives, but too often what kids need to be prepared for is surviving the school day itself.”
This critique particularly resonates with a significant flaw in how engagement is currently assessed in many classroom settings, notable through the use of participation points. Touted as a way to foster engagement, participation points may seem beneficial, but they often do the inverse—encouraging performative behaviors, diverting focus from class material, and disfavoring quieter students.
Despite being created to spark thoughtful discussions, maintain student focus, and encourage quieter voices to join the conversation, participation points often lead to problematic results. Often, basing grades on how frequently students raise their hand fosters a learning environment that values quantity over quality. Students will often make surface-level comments that do not contribute meaningfully to the conversation in pursuit of a higher grade. The system frequently finds itself reducing class discussions into performative participation, especially when a grade is on the line. One student may zone out after participating once, while a more quiet student may remain attentive the whole class period—yet only one is rewarded. This not only dilutes the conversation with insubstantial contributions but also fails to further the goal of participation points to promote engagement and concentration.
What is worse, however, is the addition of yet another stressor during class periods, further diverting the focus of students away from learning. Counterintuitive to the goal of participation points, many students might spend their time planning their next comment or counting how many times they’ve participated this month rather than engaging with the content. Instead of being able to take a step back and truly absorb the material, students are forced to track what’s been said, anticipate what hasn’t, and calculate exactly when to raise their hands.
Additionally, a study by Fritschner (2000) revealed that only an average of 28% of students in undergraduate classes with graded participation verbally participated, and a mere 18% dominated close to 80% of the conversation. It is clear that the system of participation points falls short in prompting diverse voices in the classroom and actively privileges a minority of students who monopolize the discussion, extinguishing opportunities for meaningful engagement. Moreover, such a system favors the students that dominate the conversation based on the number of their contributions rather than their substance. Meanwhile, other students are pushed to the sidelines, unfairly penalized for absorbing material in a way that does not align with a system that rewards verbal participation.
And perhaps even more significantly, beneath these problems of graded participation is a longstanding issue that remains largely overlooked: the systemic bias against introverted students. In a community that constantly promotes the embracing of individuality, it’s ironic that a system which overwhelmingly favors more talkative students is so prevalent in the classroom. While extroverted students are rewarded for their naturally outgoing dispositions, those who excel more in nonverbal skills such as critical thinking, writing, and observing are penalized, even though they might have a deeper understanding of the material and put genuine effort into their work. In reality, introversion does not equate to the lack of intellect that participation points seem to suggest, and graded participation often fails to assess both the efforts and the insights of these students.
On a larger scale, not only does this penalize introverted students merely for their natural tendencies, but it also enforces the belief that being reserved is something to fix or to outgrow. Even introverts in graduate schools express feeling as if “they’re being forced to be someone that they’re not”. Many students have felt pressured to ask questions they already know the answer to simply to secure their weekly points. But for introverts, these challenges can become even more daunting, creating a classroom environment that fosters stress or fear rather than one for focused learning. They are punished for their inherent character, something they have little control over. By elevating one type of student, the message becomes clear: success is only reserved for those who fit this mold.
Student engagement is critical in creating a vibrant, enriching classroom environment. But simply tallying the number of times a student raises their hand is far from an effective solution. It is clear that alternative systems that reward contributions—both verbal and nonverbal—must be implemented. For instance, accepting written reflections on class discussions with insightful commentary can be used in place of verbal participation. This approach was utilized by a professor at Piedmont College, who accepted email contributions from quiet students, allowing them to have their thoughts heard without the pressure of speaking aloud. Teachers may also organize smaller group discussions to allow quieter students to voice their thoughts in a less intimidating setting while still promoting engagement. These approaches both encourage more meaningful contributions and ensure that every student is able to express their thoughts in a way that works for them.
Above all, fostering a more equitable classroom should be emphasized—not only to benefit individual students, but to enhance the learning environment as a whole.