Horse Chess

Increasing Low-Responding Students' Participation in Class Discussion
Author(s): Lisa N. Foster, Katherine R. Krohn, Daniel F. McCleary, Kathleen B. Aspiranti,

Meagan L. Nalls, Colin C. Quillivan, Cora M. Taylor and Robert L. Williams
Source: Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June, 2009), pp. 173-188
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41824459
Accessed: 16-10-2019 09:08 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41824459?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Behavioral Education
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.230 on Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:08:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
DOI 10.1 007/s 1 0864-009-9083-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Increasing Low-Responding Students' Particip

in Class Discussion
Lisa N. Foster * Katherine R. Krohn •

Daniel F. McCleary • Kathleen B. Aspiranti •
Meagan L. Nails * Colin C. Quillivan •
Cora M. Taylor • Robert L. Williams
Published online: 14 April 2009

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Students in six sections of a large undergraduate class were asked to

record their class comments on notecards in all course units. Additionally, in some
units, they received points toward their course grade based on their reported com-
ments in class discussion. The study was conducted over a two-semester period,
with slight variation in both the recording and crediting procedures across the two
semesters. The primary goal of the study was to determine the effects of two credit
and self-recording arrangements on initially low-responding students' subsequent
participation in class discussion (first semester n = 49, second semester n = 45). A
higher percentage of low-responding students reported participating in class dis-
cussion when credit was given for participation than when no credit was awarded.
Nonetheless, 39% of the initially low-responding students the first semester and
38% of the initially low-responding students the second semester did not participate
in class discussion in any phase of the study.
Keywords Class discussion • College students • Low participation •

Credit contingencies • Self-recording
Introduction
When managing discussion in large classes, one fundamental instructional

challenge is achieving a balance in discussion across students. At the extremes,
some students comment frequently in large classes, whereas others seldom or never
L. N. Foster • K. R. Krohn • D. F. McCleary • K. B. Aspiranti • M. L. Nails • C. C. Quillivan •

C. M. Taylor • R. L. Williams (El)
Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
TN 37996, USA
e-mail: bobwilliams@utk.edu
Ô Springer
174 J Behav Educ (2009) 1 8: 173-1 88
voluntarily comment. For examp

approximately 25% of students part
doing so regularly. The class experi
participants and low responder s . A
responders claim that they learn be
assured that listening and participatin
communication must include effecti
remaining silent weakens the vitali
developed an important professional sk
express their views in group situation
Although one might expect that stud
course performance, minimal research
accurate claim is that certain levels
learning. For example, moderate lev
more than extreme levels. Plus, studen
matter and student responses to teach
than student anecdotes regarding issue
positive effects of allowing students t
performance (Hartón et al. 2002). Ot
students in class discussion can facil
Jones 2008; Smith 1977). This outcome would be most likely when class
discussion involves problem solving in which students provide evidence to support
their views.
General guidelines for promoting class participation begin with the instructor's
management of the course. For example, subject matter relevant to students'
personal and professional interests is one way to enhance student discussion of the
subject matter (Schuelke 1972). When students can see a connection between what
is being discussed and issues in their own lives, they may be more likely to actively
engage in class discussion. After attempting to establish subject-matter relevancy,
instructors should then create a discussion climate that provides extensive
opportunity for students to engage in discussion. One suggestion would be to
initiate discussion early in the class period, which may be critical to having robust
discussion at later points in the class period.
On the student side, several factors can affect the ease of students' class
participation. For example, preparation for class is imperative for informed class
discussion to occur (Fassinger 1995). Students should know what specific issues will
be discussed in a particular class period and should study the assigned content on
those issues prior to class. Even better, instructors should have students answer
questions in writing over the assigned content prior to coming to class. Also, the size
of the class and the location of the student's seat in the room may affect the ease of
participation in class discussion (Karp and Yoels 1976; Morrison and Thomas
1975). Reticent students might benefit from selecting smaller classes when available
and sitting as close to the front and center of the room as possible.
In addition to the instructor's scheduling homework assignments to help
students prepare for class discussion and providing ample opportunity for students
to participate in class, some students may need additional incentives to become
<0 Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188 175
engaged in class discussion. For exa

exchangeable for extra course credit
to answer an instructor question,
instructor question until a hand was
comments from students. These va
sitting in the back of the classroom
increased class participation by giv
participation on alternate days. Partic
days but was significantly higher on
these studies specifically targeted ini
such students found credit for class
Although awarding credit for partic
improve class discussion, keeping
conducting class discussion could
examining a way to make assessment
teacher, Krohn et al. (2008) had stud
number of self-recorded student com
with the number of comments rec
number of comments usually resu
comments, resulting in very few in
credit for participation. Krohn et al.
reliable and manageable with large
specifically with the lowest respond
A primary goal of the study was fi
students who typically have a low
students). Obviously, some students
discussions, while other students go t
a single comment. Thus, we were pa
small amount of contingent credit f
percentage of low-responding studen
self-recording participation under bo
a small amount of credit for clas
students to record their own co
inconspicuous way to promote low
discussion. Because these students m
of earning course credit for participa
presumably should encourage partici
participation.
Thus, the focus of the current study was to assess the effects of two credit levels
(small vs. no credit), used in conjunction with two previously established self-
recording procedures, on the percentage of initially low-responding students who
subsequently participated in class discussion. The low-responding students approx-
imated the bottom quartile of class participants in the baseline (i.e., the first unit) of
each section of the course. The credit and self-recording procedures were used in all
sections of the course over a two-semester period.
ô Springer
176 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
Method
Participants
Students were selected from six sections of a large undergraduate course in human
development required of all students who wished to enter the Teacher Preparation
Program in a large state university in the Southeastern United States. Each section
had approximately 55 students. The study was conducted over two consecutive
semesters. Students were selected on the basis of their participation levels in the first
of five units in the course (i.e., Physical Development). Although the intent was to
select the bottom quartile of participants in the first unit for each section, several ties
in percentile ranks within sections permitted only an approximation of the bottom
quartile of participants within each section. The students ultimately selected are
referred to as low responders throughout this manuscript. Initially, 49 students were
identified as low responders the first semester and 45 the second semester across
sections.
First Semester
For Section A, students in the bottom 31.9% (n = 15) were identified as low
responders, with the percentage of these students participating across baseline days
ranging from 23 to 73%. For Section B, students in the bottom 32.1% (n = 17) were
identified as low responders, with the percentage of them participating across
baseline days ranging from 6 to 41%. For Section C, students in the bottom 29.8%
(n = 17) were identified as low responders, with the percentage of them
participating across baseline days ranging from 0 to 47%.
Second Semester
For Section A, students in the bottom 33.3% (n = 12) were identified as low
responders, with the percentage of these students participating across baseline days
ranging from 17 to 36%. For Section B, students in the bottom 24.0% ( n = 14) were
identified as low responders, with the percentage of them participating across
baseline days ranging from 0 to 8%. For Section C, students in the bottom 25.9%
(n = 19) were identified as low responders, with the percentage of them
participating across baseline days ranging from 0 to 6%.
General Discussion Arrangement
For 4 days in each of five units in all course sections during both semesters, students
were instructed to answer questions from their study guide over a specific section of
the instructor notes included in their reading material. Students reported at the
beginning of each class period either on a sign-in sheet passed around the class (first
semester) or on a record card (second semester) whether they had answered all the
assigned homework questions for that day. The homework assignments were
designed to prepare students for class discussions in the corresponding class
Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 1 8: 1 73-1 88 1 77
sessions. In all sections, instructors ask

hension questions concerning those issues
in the course. Instead, from the outset o
instructor posed questions about the issu
remained active in the discussion throug
The agenda for discussion on a partic
instructors. These instructors were secon
who were coached by the same superviso
content common to all sections. Although
ask questions in their own style, they dis
particular day in the study. Additionally
follow-up on student comments - ty
importance of each student comment an
a subsequent instructor question. Thu
throughout the study, question and an
were designed to be highly similar acros
agenda, and supervisory coaching. Also,
intra- rather than inter-participant,
instructors would be less damaging to th
instructional style across units within th
Self-reporting of Class Comments
On the 4 days corresponding to the hom

recorded their comments in class and su
conclusion of each class. On the three re
largely devoted to video presentations, e
choice unit exams. As previously noted, t
Development) was used to identify th
continued across the remaining units in
Social Development, Psychological Deve
recording was held constant across treat
corresponded to the different units. Com
content questions posed by the instructor
instructor, and volunteered student opin
When students expressed opinions as a
perspectives, they were asked to articula
disagreement for the comment to be reco
The current study employed two ver
comments, both of which were used i
semesters, students recorded their comm
to the instructor at the conclusion of cla
a plain 3 by 5 notecard on which stude
comments they had made in class that d
to questions, or viewpoints concerning d
Springer
178 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
Students were asked to number or bullet their comments so that instructors could
easily distinguish between the comments.
Because some students did not submit the 3 x 5 notecards when credit was not
given for participation during the first semester, a more comprehensive record card
that included space for recording other credit-producing activities, as well as
participation, was used the second semester. Consequently, if students did not
submit the expanded record card on a particular day, they received no credit for the
day. The second-semester record card precisely delineated space for recording
comments and checking attendance, display of namecards, and completion of
homework assignments. In both semesters, students submitted their participation
records on the four discussion days in each unit.
Reliability of Self-recorded Participation
Each semester two GTAs from another section of the course observed class
discussion 1 day in each unit. GTAs observed the 3rd day of each unit the first
semester and the 4th day of each unit the second semester. The selection of the
observation day was based primarily on the GTAs' class schedules. The GTAs were
given the same instructions as the students regarding what constituted a comment
(included in the syllabus). The observers sat in the two front corners of the tiered
amphitheater in which the course was conducted. From their perspective, they could
see all of the students and the name cards in front of the students. The students had
been told that the GTAs would be observing the discussion. The same GTAs also
assisted with the administration of the unit exams and consequently were in the
classroom for the five observation days plus the five unit exam days across units,
allowing considerable time for students to habituate to their presence.
Inter-rater agreement between the low-responding students' and observers'
records of class participation was established in a somewhat different manner from
that previously employed by Krohn et al. (2008) over a wide range of students in
large classes. In the Krohn et al. study, each observer's total comments for a
particular student was compared with that student's self-reported total for the day.
The smaller of the two totals was divided by the larger to determine percentage of
agreement between the observer and the student. Cases in which neither the student
nor the observer recorded a comment for the day were excluded from the reliability
assessment. The reliability calculations for each student were then averaged across
students in each section of the course for each unit.
Because of much smaller ns in the current study plus numerous cases in which
neither the low-responding student nor the observer recorded a comment,
correlational analyses that included zero-zero comparisons were used in quantifying
the level of agreement between student and observer participation records. For the
first semester, the correlations ranged from .76 to .97 across units: Unit 1 = .76,
Unit 2 = .87, Unit 3 = .97, Unit 4 = .88, and Unit 5 = .92. The average
correlation between student and observer records the first semester was .88. For
the second semester, the correlations across units ranged from .81 to .94: Unit
1 = .81, Unit 2 = .94, Unit 3 = .93, Unit 4 = .88, and Unit 5 = .90. The average
correlation between student and observer records the second semester was .89.
Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188 179
Credit Contingencies
Each semester allotted some credit for class discussion in two of the five course
units per section. However, the amount of credit was slightly different for the two
semesters. The first semester, students could receive one point for their first
comment and another point for a second comment. During the second semester,
students received two points for their first comment and one point for their second
comment. Our rationale for this change was that low-responding students may have
more difficulty in making their initial comment than in making additional
comments. Determination of credit for class participation was based strictly on
the participation reports of the students across all discussion days, even on days
when observers also recorded student comments.
Research Design
The same research design was used each semester. It was pre-determined that each
section of the course would have the credit contingency in two units, which would
be separated by a unit without credit for participation. This credit arrangement for
participation was described in the course syllabus. By random selection at the
beginning of each semester, two sections had a baseline, credit, non-credit, credit,
and non-credit sequence, with each phase equivalent to one unit in the course. A
third section had an extended baseline covering the first two units and then a credit,
non-credit, and credit sequence. Thus, the design included features of a reversal
and multiple-baseline across sections design. Students self-recorded comments in
all phases of the study. Students in each section were informed at the beginning of
each unit whether credit would be available for self-recorded participation that
unit.
Results
The findings are first presented for each semester and then compared across
semesters. Because of the relatively small ns, we analyzed the data through graphic
presentation rather than through analysis of variance. Figures 1 and 2 show the
mean percentage of low responders (identified by section in the baseline phase) who
participated in every phase of each section, displayed separately by semester.
Additionally, we identified the percentage of low-responding students showing
different levels of consistency in treatment effects in the various sections.
First Semester
Figure 1 shows the percentage of the initially low-responding students who

participated during the various treatment and no-treatment phases. The mean
percentage of low responders who participated was consistently greater in treatment
than no-treatment phases (including baseline phase). The percent of low-responding
ô Springer
180 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
Fig. 1 Percent of initially low-responding stud

phases in the first semester
students who participated varied fr

57% in a treatment phase (Section A
increase in the percentage of low-re
lowest no-treatment percentage to t
Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188 181
Table 1 Consistency of treatment effects for
Level of treatment effect Section A Section B Section C
n Percent n Percent n Percent
First treatment phase

Not consistent3 2 13.3 7 41.2 9 52.9
Partly consistent 9 60.1 8 47.1 6 35.3

Mostly consistent0 2 13.3 0 0.0 1 5.9
Consistent0 2 13.3 2 11.7 1 5.9
Second treatment phase
Not consistent3 7 46.7 10 58.8 13 76.5
Partly consistent0 3 20.0 5 29.5 3 17.6

Consistent0 3 20.0 2 11.7 0 0.0
Combined treatment phases
Not consistent6 2 13.3 5 29.5 7 41.2
Inconsistent 9 60.1 10 58.8 9 52.9

Consistent11 3 20.0 2 11.7 1 5.9
a Not consistent, participation on no treatm

b Partly consistent, participation on treatme
0 Mostly consistent, participation on treatm
d Consistent, participation on treatment day
e Not consistent, participation on no treatm
f Partly consistent, participation on treatme
g Mostly consistent, participation on treatm
h Consistent, participation on treatment day
hand, there was a 10% increase in the

no-treatment percentage to the lowe
Although the data patterns point to s
low-responding students as a group,
even under the treatment condition
effects for low responders as not con
consistent. These classifications
participation between the baseline an
was defined as no gain in daily part
participation on corresponding baseli
on one or two treatment days com
consistent as more participation on
baseline days; and consistent as m
compared to comparable baseline day
The percentages of low-responding
consistent, mostly consistent, and con
182 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
across sections of the course. Despite

participants (consistent treatment ef
showed a substantial percentage of p
(ranging from 13.3 to 76.5% acros
improvement appeared to be a functio
low-responding students. Four of the
three in Section C made two comm
these students were responding at w
comments per class period) on some b
difficult to demonstrate for them.
Second Semester
Figure 2 shows that baseline percentages for students identified as low responders
differed across sections: about 26% of the low responders participated in class
discussion in the baseline phase for Section A, about 5% in Section B, and about 2%
in Section C. With regard to the latter section, the low responders did not make a
single comment on most baseline days (which spanned 8 days across the first two
units of the course).
Treatment comparisons for the low-responding students revealed consistent
treatment effects for all sections. Despite the substantial percentage of low-
responding students who participated during baseline in Section A (26%), an
average of 18% more of these students participated during the treatment than the no-
treatment phases (including the baseline phase). In Section B, 41% more of the
initially low-responding students participated in the treatment than in the no-
treatment phases. In Section C, 33% more of the initially low-responding students
participated in the treatment than in the no-treatment phases. Figure 2 suggests that
increased participation of low-responding students was dependent on the credit
incentive. For example, in addition to the small percentage of low-responding
students who participated in baseline, very low percentages also participated in the
credit-withdrawal phases across sections.
Although the data showed strong and consistent treatment-effects for the low-
responding students as a group in semester two, some of these students participated
minimally even under the treatment condition. As in Table 1, Table 2 classified
treatment effects for low responders as not consistent, partly consistent, mostly
consistent, and consistent treatment effect. These classifications were based on day
to day comparisons of participation between the baseline and the two treatment
phases and determined in the same manner as in the first semester.
Even though the percentages of low-responding students demonstrating not
consistent, partly consistent, mostly consistent, and consistent treatment effects
differed somewhat across sections of the course, all sections contained a substantial
percentage of participants in the "not consistent" category (ranging from 21.4 to
58.4% across sections). Despite the effectiveness of the treatment for other
participants (consistent effect for 14.2-31.6% across sections), some low responders
were unaffected by the credit contingency. A close examination of baseline data
showed that only one low responder made two comments (which would have
Ô Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188 183
Fig. 2 Percent of initially low-responding stude

phases in the second semester
maximized credit in the treatment p

for virtually all the low-responding
maximize credit under the credit cont
Consequently, while the low-resp
increased their percentage of particip
percentage of individual low-respondi
their participation. Nonetheless, consi
than the first semester. Consistent tr
Ö Springer
184 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
Table 2 Consistency of treatment effects f
Level of treatment effect Section A Section B Section C
n Percent n Percent n Percent
First treatment phase

Not consistent3 6 50.0 3 21.4 11 57.9

Consistent0 3 25.0 2 14.3 3 15.8
Second treatment phase
Not consistent3 7 58.4 5 35.7 8 42.1

Consistent0 2 16.6 2 14.3 4 21.1
Combined treatment phases
Not consistent6 6 50.0 3 21.4 9 47.3
Partly consistent 2 16.6 5 35.7 4 21.1

Consistent11 3 25.0 2 14.2 6 31.6
a Not consistent, participation on no treatmen

b Partly consistent, participation on treatmen
c Mostly consistent, participation on treatmen
d Consistent, participation on treatment days
e Not consistent, participation on no treatmen
f Partly consistent, participation on treatmen
g Mostly consistent, participation on treatme
h Consistent, participation on treatment days
0.0 to 20% across sections, whereas con

from 14.2 to 31.6% across sections. Thi
higher levels of baseline participation
treatment gains less likely to be achiev
Otherwise, one would assume that th
in the recording system (reporting oth
on specially designed record cards) an
comments (two points for the first co
second semester vs. one point for each
accounted for the difference in indivi
semester credit ratio appeared to work
Discussion
Although the designation of low-responding students was based on students' self-

report of participation, observers agreed with this designation in virtually 100% of
<£) Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:1 73-1 88 1 85
the cases. Thus, the data on which the

can be regarded as generally reliable. V
of participation to gain undeserved cr
agreement between low-responding
class discussion was in the .76 to .97 ra
range for the second semester, with no
under credit versus non-credit conditions.
The credit phases had a higher percentage of low-responding students partic-
ipating in class than did most non-credit phases. However, the percentage of low
responders in the credit phases was far from 100%. Plus, in most withdrawal-of-
credit phases in the first semester, the percentage of low-responding students
participating in discussion was lower than in the baseline period for all sections
(suggesting the possibility of a contrast effect even for students who initially
participated infrequently in class discussion). This pattern was less pronounced in
the second semester, but still occurred to a mild degree in Section A. Another
possibility is that the low-responding students were inclined to participate more than
normally at the outset of the course because of the newness of self-recording, even
without the provision of credit for self-recorded comments.
Although more of the low-responding students participated in class discussion
when credit was given for participation than when no credit was available, we do
not yet know why a sizeable percentage of these students did not respond to the
credit contingency. Several questions remain to be answered about the absence of
treatment effects for these low-responding students. For example, was the amount of
credit too small to reverse their inclination toward reticence? The composite credit
given in the study represented only about 3-5% of the course credit across the two
semesters, permitting students to make an A in the course without participating in
class discussion. In the future, the credit for participation could be escalated to an
extent that an A would not be possible without considerable participation credit.
Nonetheless, some students in the study complained about awarding any credit for
participation, indicating a personal dislike for that arrangement.
Also, it may be that participation in class discussion must be initiated early in the
course or not at all. However, this hypothesis is based more on experiential
observation than empirical research. We suspect that the longer students wait to
engage in class discussion, the more difficult participation may become. Thus, credit
for participation could be given at the outset of the course and every day thereafter,
as opposed to only in certain units in the course. This arrangement might produce
earlier and more sustained participation than the arrangement used in the current
study. Although not a direct parallel to this suggestion, Auster and MacRone (1994)
reported that early participation in college courses is a reliable predictor of
participation in later college classes.
Because minimal participation may largely be linked to characteristics students
bring to a course, it might be helpful to know whether the reticence observed in our
course was typical of the low-responding students' verbalization in other courses of
comparable size. Similarly, determining how long this tendency had persisted in
their schoolwork might be valuable information. It may be that some of our low-
responding students have a history of reticence in all their courses that would be
Ô Springer
186 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
extremely difficult for them and the

Although most of these students were
substantial verbalization in group situa
demonstrate this skill or work toward
A realistic assessment of what was acc
leads to the conclusions that low-re
participation in class discussion with m
that providing a small amount of credit
reticent students become more engage
responding students, their silence ma
become involved in class discussion, wi
in the discussion or lack of sufficient cr
low-responding students may be so int
amount of extrinsic rewards would enl
Howard et al. (2002) determined thro
why some students minimally parti
compared talkers (those who make tw
non-talkers (those who make fewer th
were more likely than non-talkers to s
in a course, instead of an expendable o
likely than talkers to indicate that they
their ideas were not well enough form
Some educators (Angelo and Cross
allowing students more time formu to
those ideas in class. For example, stud
their ideas about an issue to be disc
student before voicing those ideas with
targeted in the current study, likely w
their ideas in pairs or small groups
transition to speaking before the class
one's views in large groups is a val
development of this skill may need to
for some students to become comfort
Although the current study showed
make treatment gains in quantity o
researched is whether increased quant
Several reports on student participatio
(e.g., Dallimore et al. 2004; Junn 19
quality of participation and then a
framework, these studies typically had
in a course. Several studies have lin
concepts of higher order thinking and
regarding improvement of these think
Smith 1977). Again, higher thinking l
comments, but rather through writte
ratings of satisfaction with the cours
Springer
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188 187
Given the difficulty in judging qua

judging thecom quality of their own
more complex than tracking quantit
cues following each student's comm
thinking level of the comment for
judgment as to the quality of the
assessing the student-teacher interac
we did not include that component i
viewed increasing participation by lo
in engaging them in discussion. Both
for quantity of participation can
percentage of participants.
The findings of this study point t
initially low-responding students w
was moderately increased by givi
reporting up to two comments each
when low-responding students were
inconsistent when participation of l
individual basis (ranging from studen
showed complete consistency in treat
and a small amount of credit for
participation from the most retic
increasing the percentage of stud
consider some kind of credit conting
most students, recognizing however t
to the credit contingency. Having st
task of awarding credit for student
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Auster, C. J., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical study of
the effects of faculty members' behavior on students' participation. Teaching Sociology , 22, 289-
300. doi: 10.2307/1 3 1 892 1 .
Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom
participation. Teaching of Psychology (Columbia, Mo.), 30, 224-227. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP
3003_05.
Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type
influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39,
888-900. doi: 10.1 1 1 1/U467-8535.2007.00804.X.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Piatt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion
effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53, 103-115. doi: 10. 1080/
0363452032000135805.
Erway, E. A. (1972). Listening: The second speaker. Speech Journal, 10, 22-27.
Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Professors and students' perceptions of why students participate in class
Teaching Sociology, 24, 25-33. doi: 10.2307/1318895.
Ô Springer
188 J Behav Educ (2009) 18:173-188
Ferguson, N. B. (1986). Encouraging responsi

psychology students. Teaching of Psycholo
Garside, C. (1996). Look who's talking: A com
in developing critical thinking skills. Com
Hartón, H. C., Richardson, D. S., Barreras
interactive learning: A tool for active class
10-15. doi : 1 0. 1 207/S 1 5 328023TOP290 1 _03
Howard, J. R., James, G. H., HI, & Taylor, D.
age college classroom. Teaching Sociology,
Jones, R. C. (2008). The "why" of class pa
CTCH.56. 1.59-64.
Junn, E. (1994). 'Pearls of wisdom5: Enhancing student class participation with an innovative exercise.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 94 , 385-387.
Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning of student
participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421-439.
Krohn, K. R., Foster, L. N., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nails, M. L., Quillivan, C. C., Taylor, C.
M., & Williams, R. L. (2008). Reliability of students' self-recorded participation in class discussion
(submitted).
McKinney, K. (2000). Teaching the mass class: Active/interactive strategies that have worked for me. In
J. Sikora & T. O. Anoloza (Eds.), Introductory sociology resource manual (pp. 13-16). Washington
DC: ASA Teaching Resources Center.
Morrison, T. L., & Thomas, M. D. (1975). Self-esteem and classroom participation. The Journal of
Educational Research, 68, 374-377.
Porat, K. L. (1990). Listening: The forgotten skill. Momentum, 27(1), 66-68.
Schuelke, L. D. (1972). Subject matter relevance in interpersonal communication, skills, and
instructional accountability: A consensus model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association in Chicago, IL.
Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69, 180-190. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.180.
Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. A. (2007). Credit for comments, comments for credit. Teaching of
Psychology ( Columbia , Mo.), 34, 104-106.
Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions.
The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 570-601. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0038.
Springer

Horse Chess

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Horse Chess

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Increasing Low-Responding Students' Participation in Class Discussion

Author(s): Lisa N. Foster, Katherine R. Krohn, Daniel F. McCleary, Kathleen B. Aspiranti,

Increasing Low-Responding Students' Particip

Lisa N. Foster * Katherine R. Krohn •

Published online: 14 April 2009

Abstract Students in six sections of a large undergraduate class were asked to

Keywords Class discussion • College students • Low participation •

When managing discussion in large classes, one fundamental instructional

L. N. Foster • K. R. Krohn • D. F. McCleary • K. B. Aspiranti • M. L. Nails • C. C. Quillivan •

voluntarily comment. For examp

engaged in class discussion. For exa

General Discussion Arrangement

sessions. In all sections, instructors ask

Self-reporting of Class Comments

On the 4 days corresponding to the hom

Reliability of Self-recorded Participation

Figure 1 shows the percentage of the initially low-responding students who

Fig. 1 Percent of initially low-responding stud

students who participated varied fr

Table 1 Consistency of treatment effects for

Level of treatment effect Section A Section B Section C

n Percent n Percent n Percent

First treatment phase

Partly consistent 9 60.1 8 47.1 6 35.3

Partly consistent0 3 20.0 5 29.5 3 17.6

Inconsistent 9 60.1 10 58.8 9 52.9

a Not consistent, participation on no treatm

hand, there was a 10% increase in the

across sections of the course. Despite

Fig. 2 Percent of initially low-responding stude

maximized credit in the treatment p

Table 2 Consistency of treatment effects f

Level of treatment effect Section A Section B Section C

n Percent n Percent n Percent

First treatment phase

Partly consistent15 2 16.6 8 57.2 4 21.0

Partly consistent0 2 16.6 2 14.3 5 26.3

Partly consistent 2 16.6 5 35.7 4 21.1

a Not consistent, participation on no treatmen

0.0 to 20% across sections, whereas con

Although the designation of low-responding students was based on students' self-

the cases. Thus, the data on which the

extremely difficult for them and the

Given the difficulty in judging qua

Ferguson, N. B. (1986). Encouraging responsi

You might also like