Understandings
To me classroom participation is an integral part of any successful learning environment. Human verbal communication is one of the most important ways in which people share feelings and ideas. If students participate during instruction time they are not only developing their own verbal skills, but are also contributing to the overall learning environment in the classroom. The idea that students participate at the school where I teach is even more necessary due to the Harkness style of teaching that is a cornerstone of the teaching philosophy of the school. The fact that participation is so valued in my workplace makes this study very relevant to bettering my own classroom practice. My study explores what happens when all students participate and have a voice at the Harkness table in a History classroom.
In the sections that follow, I discuss participation and the Harkness method of teaching, the relationship between student motivation and classroom participation, and how gender influences participation. I also explore methods teachers can use to encourage student participation and to build 21st century skills, particularly those focused on student communication.
Participation and Harkness teaching:
Classroom participation is something that is generally thought of as students verbally contributing during a lesson. While this would seem to be the most obvious way for students to participate in class, there are other more subtle ways that students involve themselves in lessons.
Participation in a Harkness discussion relies on a student-driven discussion-based approach which focuses discussion on course content. Harkness teaching has students sitting with their teacher at an oval table where everyone faces each other and no person at the table is thought of as being more important than the rest. It is the role of the teacher to not drive discussion, but to facilitate a conversation that is focused on the topic at hand.
Participation in a Harkness discussion is not limited to just speaking. It is desired that students also be active listeners and note takers during a Harkness discussion. Active listening means that students are encouraged to listen and absorb what is being said by their peers and then build on this information through their own verbal contributions to the discussion. Good Harkness participants do not interrupt speakers nor do they monopolize speaking time at the table. Instead, they take into consideration what is being said at the table and are respectful of all opinions.
Although active listening is an important part of Harkness participation, it is desirable that students also express their opinions so as to fully experience Harkness learning. Students involved in a Harkness discussion are not expected to raise their hands when they want to speak, but are expected to learn the art of “easing” themselves in the conversation by waiting for the right opportunity to speak. Realizing and seizing this “moment” is something that does not come easily to most students and as a result is something that has to be learned.
The fact that some students don’t ever summon sufficient courage to speak brings up issues of equity in all Harkness classrooms. It has been my experience that it is more often male students who “muscle” their way into conversations more frequently than their female counterparts. This is more evident when the conversation is not focused on material that students have had time to prepare for. When students have been given a passage to read for homework for example, it is here where female students tend to be far more vocal in class. As a teacher this raises a few questions: What motivates students to want to participate? What roles do teachers and students play in facilitating discussion-led learning? And what can teachers do to ensure that all students are able to participate meaningfully and equitably in classroom discussions?
Motivation and Participation
For most students to join classroom discussions, it is generally accepted that they have to be motivated by something that will urge them to take the significant, and for some students, unnerving step to raise their hand to participate verbally. For students in my own classes this intimidating step is even more pronounced because in the Harkness method of teaching students are encouraged to not raise their hands to speak, but are simply told to speak when the opportunity presents itself. This means that not only are students pressured to speak, but they need to find the appropriate time in which to do so.
Student motivation can come in a variety of forms for students but I have found that students are often motivated to participate if they are engaged in the classroom lesson itself. The difficult part as a teacher is often designing a teachable lesson and delivering instruction that is varied, challenging, and keeps students interested. Daniel Pink (2009) suggests that in times past, when people were engaged in less complex work, rewards helped to motivate them, but that now people and students are engaged in more varied and interesting work. He writes, “Yet for some people work remains routine, unchallenging, and directed by others. But for a surprising number of people, jobs have become more complex, more interesting, and more self directed” (2009, p.29).
Pink argues that this type of work requires an intrinsic motivation that comes from three primary sources - autonomy, mastery, and purpose - and that organizations and schools can nurture these things to increase motivation. According to Pink, autonomy is best defined as the desire to direct our own lives. He describes how a company which gives its employees 20% of their time at work to create anything that they desire results in innovative ideas and very productive workers. Pink describes how in order for companies to remain competitive it is often necessary for “bosses to relinquish control” (2009, p. 165). Bosses who give their workers leeway to be creative in their own ways should do so by involving workers in the setting of goals. Pink describes “how a considerable body of research shows that individuals are far more engaged when they’re pursuing goals that they had a hand in creating” (2009 p.165). He recommends including workers in the setting of goals because they frequently have higher goals and aspirations than when employers just assign them.
I believe that this method of motivating workers in industry can also be used in the classroom to further student participation at the Harkness table. I have recently experimented with two different 10th grade history classes and have found that Pink’s theory of autonomy increasing motivation in humans, to be true. The experiment required that I compare two classes by staging two different Harkness discussions focused on the issues in Northern Ireland in the 20th century. The Harkness discussion was the culmination of two days of studies on the troubles in Northern Ireland and most students understood the complexities of the topic quite well. My first class of 15 students is my most vocal class and it has at least half of the students frequently competing for “airtime” during discussion time. This class of students was given questions by me to discuss during the Harkness discussion. The questions were all easily understood by students and were purposefully designed to get students to emotionally connect to the topic. This was purposefully done to encourage engagement.
The Harkness conversation was allotted half of the 90 minute period that our class had for that day. I started the conversation by letting students know that conversation could only be focused on the questions that I posed to them. Immediately after saying this I saw three students sit back in their chairs and look dissatisfied with this news. The Harkness conversation lasted only 24 minutes before students had finished discussing the questions that I had for them. A few of the questions were indeed, hotly debated and students seemed to enjoy the controversy that some of these questions brought to the room. Two questions however were answered by only about three or four of the students in the class, showing limited engagement. In all, my conversation map showed that only 11 of the 15 students in the class had spoken at all and only eight of the 15 had spoken more than once.
Although I was satisfied with the outcome of the Harkness conversation I proceeded with my experiment after lunch on the same day with a new class of 10th grade students. The topic was the same as before, but this time I used Pink’s theory of autonomy and I let the students guide the conversation. Aside from introducing the Harkness topic and giving the students a brief review of the material that was to be the focus, I spoke very little during the conversation. I simply said that they would discuss the issues in Northern Ireland and attempt to develop a strategy to stop the violence. The difference between how the students conversed was significant when compared to the first group. The students in the second group were more animated and passionate as they spoke, and the Harkness conversation lasted 53 minutes before I stopped it and suggested that we could continue it the next day. All 15 students in the second group spoke at least once, and 10 of the 15 spoke more than once.
Significantly, the second class tends to have far less outgoing students than my first class. It was also clear that the autonomy given to students in the second discussion resulted in a better mastery of the subject matter after the discussion was complete. Students spent more time discussing Northern Ireland and because the conversation was at times more meaningful to them, and had greater student input, the students better understood the complex subject matter. This experiment clearly showed me that Daniel Pink’s theory that relinquishing leader control leads to better results is not just confined to the business world, but can also be used to motivate student participation in the classroom.
I recently had 10th grade students take a survey which asked them to describe a class in which they participated often, and what caused them to participate in that class. The results were predictably varied, but one student’s comment in particular, validates Pink’s theory of autonomy leading to excellence. Mason wrote, “I enjoy Harkness because it allows me to participate freely and this makes me want to speak more in class.”
The second factor Pink (2009) discusses as contributing to intrinsic motivation is opportunities for mastery. Mastery is described as having the urge to want to get better and better at something that matters. To achieve mastery as Pink describes it would require that students first “buy into” the idea that Harkness learning is something that is going to be of benefit to them. Before this even happens many 10th grade students need to be convinced that school itself is something that will benefit them later on in life. For those that strive for mastery during classroom participation they have to first overcome so many of the issues that surround students taking the risk of speaking in front of their peers on subjects that they are not necessarily well versed in.
I believe that in order for students to feel motivated enough to participate verbally in class they need more than just the incentive of a high grade in the class. Students need to feel like they are being challenged in the lesson that is being taught. They also need a classroom environment that is frequently changing so that they do not become complacent and then feel like their verbal contributions are not having a positive impact on the learning environment. If complacency sets in and students are not feeling challenged, student participation will become limited. Motivated students need to feel engaged in a lesson to the point where they feel like what they are doing is meaningful to their purpose at school, or to their overall goals. They also need to feel some kind of accomplishment in doing the task outlined by the teacher. Brophy, a psychologist who has researched motivation, writes, “In specific situations, a state of motivation to learn exists when students engage themselves purposefully in classroom tasks by trying to master the concepts or skills involved” (1983, p.205).
The final factor Pink identifies as contributing to intrinsic motivation is purpose. The author describes this as the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. This would seem to be the most difficult way of motivating young people in America to participate in class. If we are to attempt to use Pink’s method to motivate students to participate, a major shift away from societal norms would need to be implemented. In America, many children are taught that they are to “claw” their way to the top through hard work and not necessarily care for those that are left in their wake on the way to the top. What Pink is suggesting and how it relates to classroom participation suggests that students should participate in a Harkness discussion purely for the betterment of the learning environment and the learning of all involved. While this might seem to be a noble cause, if we are to think how contrary this is to how most American teenagers are brought up, it would seem to be a very difficult way in which to motivate young people to speak more in class. In order to counter this I believe that the teacher needs to create and nurture over time a classroom environment that champions academic thought and reasoning, and expression above everything else. Although this might not push young people into doing something for the better good of their classmates, it can ultimately further stimulate those who are already pursuing autonomy to participate with greater vigor.
The willingness to want to participate in the classroom might exist in some students due to the fact that they experienced success with this early in their educational lives. Brophy writes, “Individuals learn to value certain activities and outcomes over others, and they gradually develop stable beliefs and expectations about their likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses” (1983, p.206). I have seen this in my own classroom where students who have success with expressing themselves and get validation from the teacher and peers early in a single lesson tend to stay more motivated throughout the particular lesson and as a result continue to verbally participate. Brophy refers to this as “expectancy X value” which can be best described as students wanting to participate if they feel that they are going to receive a positive outcome for having taken the risk of choosing to verbalize an opinion. The positive outcome might be validation from the students in the class or simply a coherent and relevant response to a question or concept.
If motivation is an essential part of getting students to participate in class, do students
respond differently to different kinds of motivation? According to Brophy this is certainly the case. This provides significant challenges to teachers because it is not always certain which students will respond to specific motivational methods, and even then these same students might have a need to be motivated differently depending on the assigned task. Brophy found that “…teachers may be facing a complex situation in which different students need different motivational strategies. Application of a strategy that increases motivation in some students may decrease motivation in others” (1983, p.208). In general, students who are not confident about their abilities in my class during a certain activity will benefit from me telling them how well they are progressing with the task. Brophy writes, “We know, for example, that anxious and dependent students respond well to teacher praise and encouragement but not to teacher challenge and criticism” (1983, p.208). The opposite idea that students who are confident and independent actually benefit from teachers challenging their ideas and critiquing their work, is also offered by Brophy.
In order for students to feel motivated enough to want to participate in class they also need to feel confident that their contribution will be valued. In order for this to occur students need to have self-belief and competence in the subject matter. Andrew J. Martin, a psychologist from the University of Western Sydney, Australia, writes that “self-belief is critical to a student’s motivation” (2007, p.416). Student motivation and participation is also dependent on the interest that students have in the task at hand. If students are not interested in the lesson, activity, or the teacher’s instruction, motivation would be on the low end of any scale, and classroom participation highly unlikely. As Martin found, “What further contributes to students’ motivation and engagement is their valuing of a task” (2007, p.416).
Motivation and subsequent participation in a classroom setting is also related to how safe a student feels in the learning environment and around the instructor. In my observations of other classrooms, teachers who tend to be less supportive of student responses during a Harkness discussion have classroom discussions that are dominated by only two or three students. Students in these classes can feel like they might be belittled by the teacher, and as a result are less likely to participate. The opposite is evident in classrooms that I have visited where teachers take all student responses seriously. Student participation in these classes is more varied, and importantly student responses tend to be more adventurous as students are confident that their input will be valued by the teacher. Ultimately the sort of learning environment where teachers are supportive of almost any student participation not only encourages increased participation, but it also adds to the overall learning environment because it allows for a greater number of student voices, and as a result more analysis of an issue.
Building 21st Century Skills:
21st century skills are a set of learning tools considered vital to students who are coming of age in this new millennium. As the complexities of our world become more and more varied due to rapid connectivity advances between humans, students who don’t learn these skills in the classroom run the risk of not being prepared for the workforce later in life. It is therefore no surprise that Bernie Trilling emphasizes communication among students in 21st Century Skills Learning For Life In Our Times. To emphasize the importance of communication Trilling had teams of students working together communicating by email. The students sent over 3000 messages and were able to collaborate together to build a website. After a few months the students actually met one another at an event in San Francisco and some found it difficult to connect verbally as efficiently as they had while sending emails. Trilling found, “…even though they had spent countless hours working together online, it took them the better part of a day to fully readjust to each other” (2009 p.54). Trilling explained that although the students thought that they were communicating just fine online they were missing the finer nuances that are so vital in human face-to-face conversation, “There are no accents in online messages, and the finer points of personality, style, body language, and jokes could not be fully appreciated until the team was physically together” (2009 p.57).
Trilling’s experiment showed that although other 21 century skills like collaboration on a project with others using technology are valuable, it is the conversations and discussions that humans have in each other’s company that generally produce the best results. Though it took some adjusting, the students in Trilling’s experiment were able to be much more productive as they worked together in San Francisco then they had been when they had worked via email communication in the past. Trilling found, “By the end of their week together, they understood one another in new ways and could communicate on more meaningful levels” (2009 p.58). It should also be noted that the students were able to develop friendships by being in the company of each other, skills which are important for humans, regardless of which century we live in.
Communication skills as they relate to 21st century skills can be broken down into the following: students should be able to articulate thoughts and ideas effectively using oral and written communication skills in a variety of forms and contexts (Trilling, 2009). The differing contexts as they relate to my high school classrooms are many and the most obvious would be the Harkness discussions that we have during most classes. Harkness discussions would be considered communication as there is both a speaker at the table as well as an active listener. These discussions challenge the speaker to vary the way in which he or she articulates the point that is being made based on the wide variety of students that I teach in each of my classes. Other important parts of any high school classroom where students are required to articulate their thoughts and ideas include group work, where students are communicating less formally to solve problems, and during presentations where students explain their findings to a problem in front of the class.
According to Trilling, 21st century learners are also required to be effective listeners as they decipher meaning from a conversation. He mentions that students are to use communication for a range of purposes including motivation and persuasion. Both of these are cornerstones of the Harkness philosophy and should be encouraged in students. Another vital part of communication for students learning 21st century skills is the idea that they collaborate with others. Trilling mentions that it is essential that students work effectively and respectfully with diverse teams to solve problems. He notes that it is important that students learn to exercise “… flexibility and willingness to be helpful in making necessary compromises to accomplish a common goal” (2009 p.55).While 21st century skills are a vital part of preparing all students to be a successful part of the new millennium workforce, I am particularly interested in how to build students’ communication and discussion skills in the social studies classroom.
Student-Led Discussions in Social Studies
Properly structured discussions in a social studies classroom which focus on student input are usually vastly superior to teacher led discussions. Student led discussion if properly guided by the instructor allows participants to both connect history to the present, and also to question ingrained stereotypes. Student led discussions can be best described as situations where the students are guiding how the conversation develops by adhering to the Harkness skills that they have honed throughout high school. Student led discussions are discussions that have ideas generated by students and where most of the conversation that takes place is by the students. The teacher acts as an equal to the students and plays the role of someone who only refocuses the conversation should it venture too far outside the focus of the topic being studied. Nora Flynn in her article Towards Democratic Discourse: Scaffolding Student-Led Discussions in the Social Studies, mentions that “well-formed classroom discussions can create connections, challenge conceptions, and force reconsiderations” (2009, p. 2). Equally significant is that poorly structured classroom discussion can actually harm student development. Discussions that are not properly formed by the teacher can lead to students becoming disengaged or even disruptive in class. They can also have the effect of causing students to stop participating altogether in any classroom dialogue.
The structure of proper classroom discussion is also important because it has ramifications outside the actual classroom. Discussion teaches students the essential skill of discussing issues, which in turn leads to the analysis of issues, with the overall effect being that students are communicating, and learning from others. This is a vital part of human interaction and teaching it in the classroom goes a long way towards educating the “entire” adolescent. As Flynn writes, “Effectively participating in productive discussions is not a practice confined to the classroom, but discussing is an essential skill in itself; the processes of critically analyzing, considering, and communicating are the basis of human interactions” (2009 p.3).
Classroom discussion is also intrinsically linked to the development and sustainability of a democratic and diverse society. According to Flynn, well functioning classrooms that have good oral communication should leave “all parties empowered and none paralyzed” (2009 p.4). Although most educators agree that a well functioning classroom that has empowered student contributors is an important part of any successful social studies course, teachers also agree that it is something that is not easy to attain. California public school teachers who teach social studies courses are generally hampered by time as a result of the state content standards which dictate what should to be covered in the teaching year. At schools where Harkness teaching is present teachers are less likely to feel the pressures of having to cover all that is on the state standards because most of these schools are independent, and are not monetarily supported by the state. Independent schools are therefore often more able to have the time to develop well functioning participatory classrooms that follow the Harkness, or student led discussion based instruction.
As a social studies teacher teaching in an independent school, I am aware of my role as a facilitator in classroom discussion, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how best to structure a discussion-based social studies classroom. What is clear to me, and should be to all teachers who plan to implement well organized student-led discussions in class is that it is important to carefully monitor student reactions during discussions to guide any future improvements in the planning of future classroom discussions. And, as Flynn notes, it is also important to test your own definition of what makes a good discussion (2009). Good classroom contributors in a Harkness setting don’t necessarily have to be always contributing verbally. Effective Harkness practice can also be something that sees students being active listeners while their peers are speaking. Good verbal contributors in class are those who engage actively in conversation, offer new ideas, and are able to cite a common text to support their ideas (Flynn, 2009). While these three elements are all vital, it should also be impressed on students the need to build on the ideas of other students in the room during conversation. Failure to do so by students can sometimes lead to a discussion that seems more about students simply “having their say” on an issue rather than a conversation that builds in complexity and ultimately seems more democratic in nature. The same applies to the teacher who should not necessarily be the authority during a classroom conversation, but simply a guide to ensure that the conversation does not deviate too far from the objective.
If discussion among students is so important, is it always necessary that students discuss something directly related to the content of the class? I generally find that students are most interested in discussing something outside of the confines of our history curriculum, and it is during these discussions that most students verbally participate. Although this might be the case, it is important for teachers to strike a balance between engaging students in conversation for conversations sake, and sticking to the intended curriculum. Some teachers who are committed to increasing classroom discussion are wary of relinquishing control of the direction of the conversation. As Flynn notes, “By choosing to implement discussion, teachers can feel that they cede control of both the classroom and of the content they “need” to convey” (2009 p.6). Teachers who put themselves at the forefront of these sorts of “conversations” and are controlling often end up stifling student voice because students feel like anything that they say will be subjected to scrutiny by the teacher, either in the moment, or later in the grade book.
Methods to encourage effective participation in a social studies classroom
Aside from actively studying student reaction to classroom discussion and implementing the necessary steps to make improvements, there are some basic, but difficult to master steps that teachers can consider to increase student participation during a discussion.
Research has shown that during instruction teachers who ask questions of students wait averages of only one second for a student to respond. (Rowe, 1986, p.45) Clearly this puts many students at a disadvantage due to a myriad of factors that might include student processing time, or the simple level of engagement of the students involved. The issue is compounded when many “teachers react or respond with another question in less than one second” (Rowe, 1986, p. 44). To accommodate the differences in learning styles and aptitude of learners, teachers can implement “wait-time,” the practice of giving students extra time to process the question and formulate an answer. Because conversation at the Harkness table is collaborative and students are learning from each other, the benefits of wait time go beyond the student who is expected to answer the question posed by the teacher, and can involve the entire room. Harkness being such a collaborative venture, and one that benefits from the responses of everyone (either directly involved or not) it might be possible that wait- time could positively affect that style of learning more than any other.
Wait time can be divided into two different types as described by Kenneth Tobin in his article The Role of Wait Time in Higher Cognitive Learning (1987). Type I involves the teacher pausing after they have asked a question of the student, and Type II is the time that lapses after a student has spoken in a conversation.
Studies have shown that increased teacher wait-time after having asked a question in class caused significant increases in student responses. Wait time also improved the quality of student responses, as well as the time that students took to explain their answer (Tobin, 1987). This result can be attributed to the fact that students were able to organize their thoughts better and felt less rushed to answer in the usual second or two that was available to them. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that studies have shown that wait time does result in a decrease in the number of students who fail to respond to a question posed by the teacher (Tobin, 1987). Rowe found, “Under the longer wait time schedule, some previously “invisible” people become visible. Expectations change gradually, often signaled by remarks such as “He never contributed like that before” (1986, p. 45).
Extended wait-time also contributed to increased participation in minority students. Rowe determined, “This effect was particularly pronounced where minority students were concerned. They did more task relevant talking and took a more active part in discussions than they had before” (1986, p. 48). For teachers who facilitate Harkness discussions all this information can be considered vital to nourishing stimulating, meaningful conversations which involve all students. Although wait time type I (which involves teacher pauses) could be fairly easy to implement in Harkness teaching, type II wait time (where students are asking clarifying questions of one another) could be more difficult to implement. Teachers who plan on using both types of wait time as described by Tobin might consider explaining to students the benefits of using wait time during a Harkness discussion and teachers could also implement a role play exercise to show the value of wait-time.
Studies have also shown that wait-time has a significant impact on teachers during lesson time. Tobin (1987) found that teachers who use wait time type I actually become better at asking follow up questions as they were afforded more time to develop those probing follow up questions. In addition, teachers who implemented wait time in their lessons used fewer memory, management, and rhetorical questions as they interacted with students. Very importantly for teachers who lead Harkness discussions in a social studies setting, the use of wait-time can be beneficial as it can result in fewer leading questions in an environment that can often be “heated” due to the issues that are explored in upper level classes. By using wait time in a social studies classroom, teachers can be less prone to students using labels or stereotypes as they are afforded more time to develop discourse that is more appropriate to further developing the discussion.
Increased wait-time does however contribute to increased nervousness in teachers as wait- time is increased. Tobin found, “…an increase in teacher anxiety when moving from short wait time to long wait time” (1987, p. 77). Tobin notes that this anxiety can result in teachers abandoning of the use of wait time and returning to more predictable patterns of classroom interactions. This is unfortunate, as Tobin's work found that as wait time was implemented, the lessons became more understandable for students. Students experienced less confusion, as well as increased confidence in all aspects of the class. Interestingly, extended wait-time, according to Tobin lead to “…greater group spirit during lessons that utilized an average wait time of more than 3 seconds” (1987, p.79). This is important for my study as Harkness teaching and participation are dependent on students trusting each other and feeling comfortable during the discussion. This in turn makes a strong argument for the use of wait- time in increasing student participation during Harkness discussions.
As mentioned before teachers experience anxiety when trying to implement wait-time, and as a result tend to not use the tool during instruction. According to Tobin the best way in which to overcome this is for teachers to “use feedback guided by analysis.” Tobin involved himself in a study and “training program” that was designed for teachers in grades 1-7. Tools to increase wait-time in teachers were used with varying results. However, Tobin found that the use of video with feedback from other educators was effective in helping educators to extend wait-time type I by an average of 3.7 seconds. This was significantly more successful than the use of video without feedback. This makes a strong case for educators who want to increase student participation in their classes to not only video lessons, but also to have the videos reviewed by fellow teachers who would then provide feedback on how wait-time was implemented.
It is important to note that wait time does not necessarily always mean that the class is sitting silently, anxiously waiting for a response from a student. Wait-time can include students writing a response to a question before the teacher opens the class up to discussion. It is again important that teachers in this situation give learners the necessary wait-time to develop written responses which will allow for stimulating conversation. I also think it is important that teachers use other methods of waiting for students to develop their thoughts before they are expected to verbalize them. I intend to continue to use the think-pair-share method of allowing students to “rehearse” what they are going to say with a partner before the conversation is turned over to the entire room. This method helps alleviates some of the anxiety that students have with verbal participation because it allows students to practice what they are going to say with a peer beforehand. This method also helps students further develop their thoughts as they verbalize their ideas with their peers.
Gender as it affects classroom participation
I was educated at an all boy’s school throughout most of my schooling. Not having been around female students I have at times been unsure as to the role that gender might play in student motivation and frequency of classroom participation. By observation I have slowly become more aware of the different ways in which the different genders behave in the classroom. While there are always exceptions to the rule, generally boys and girls tend to behave in distinct stereotypical ways. I think that it is fundamentally important that teachers realize that gender differences are important to consider when presented with a co-ed classroom of students. Leonard Sax suggests that boy students don’t need ADD drugs but “…rather a teacher that understands the hardwired differences in how boys and girls learn” (2005, p. 154).
According to Sax (2005), there are not only fundamental social differences between the genders, but physiological ones as well, such as hearing. Boys tend not to be able to hear as well as girls, and this often results in misdiagnosis by the teacher. The teacher might be frustrated in the inability of some male students to concentrate and participate during lessons but the deficit of attention is sometimes a result of the student not being able to actually hear the teacher. Sax writes, “The teacher, a woman, is speaking in a tone of voice that seems about right to her. Justin barely hears her. Instead, he’s staring out of the window…” (2005, p.4). The result is often that the student is placed on medication for his lack of attention in the classroom and a hearing condition is never considered. According to Sax, “... his attention deficit isn’t due to “attention deficit disorder”, it’s due to the fact that Justin can barely hear the soft-spoken teacher” ( 2005, p. 82).
Clearly, if a student cannot hear the teacher he or she is less likely to participate during class time. The obvious remedy for this is to move male students to the front row of class where they can hear more easily. For females the volume in which a teacher speaks while he or she teaches might also be a consideration in how much or how little girls participate in class. A male teacher who speaks loudly might unnerve female students to the point where they would not be willing to express their opinion in class. While this is important to consider, the issue of hearing and how it hampers students in their ability to concentrate, would seem to not apply in my own classes. In my 10th grade history classes students don’t sit in rows and it is actually the male students who tend to participate considerably more than their female counterparts.
Research has also found that female students are more concerned than male students with pleasing their teachers. Girls expect that the teacher will stick up for them and behave with their best interests in mind. Sax notes, “Most girls will naturally seek to affiliate with the teacher. They expect the teacher to be on their side, to be their ally” (2005, p. 80). Girls also tend to do their homework to a higher standard than boys, even if they are not interested in the content. So, if this is the case, why is it that girls in my classes are less willing to participate even when they know very well that this is the expectation, and that those not participating results in a lowered overall grade at the end of the year? This is especially intriguing since Sax suggests that girls are more driven by results. If negative results stem from not participating in my classes, there must be some important factors dissuading girls from participating, to the point where they won’t participate even if it means affecting something as important as their overall grade in the class.
One possible contributing factor is that girls and boys communicate differently. Boys tend to find communication less important than girls, and as a result, do so in different ways. Boys often stand around at school and discussion surrounds something that is a physical object, like a photograph or a sports website. Sax notes, “Boys friendships are shoulder-to-shoulder, a group of boys looking at some common interest” (2005, p. 83). Girls on the other hand seem to thrive with talking to one another and tend to make eye contact more often. According to Sax “…girls friendships are face-to-face, two or three girls talking with one another” (2005, p. 83). It would seem to make sense then that teachers who desire more classroom participation should consider these differences. Teachers who look students in the eye when they ask them a question are more likely to get a more developed response, particularly from female students (Sax, 2005). Girls are more aware of facial expressions than boys and react accordingly in a classroom. A teacher who has a more relaxed and friendly way about him or her is more likely to get verbal responses from girl students during lesson time.
A lot of the above would suggest that girls are more likely to participate in Harkness discussions. My experience however has shown that boys tend to participate in Harkness more frequently. This could be because boys are programmed by their parents and society to take more frequent risks than girls. Girls are taught to proceed cautiously so as not to get injured physically or emotionally. Sax notes, “Parents in North America and Europe are more likely to shield their girls from risks and less likely to praise them for engaging in risky activities… (2005, p.48). The result of this is evident in the classroom where boys tend to dominate Harkness discussions and are not afraid to engage in sometimes heated discussions with their peers (who are mostly boys). I believe that it is the teacher’s role to attempt to break down these societal stereotypes in the classroom and make the space one where girls are encouraged to take risks. Sax’s research has revealed that if female students are pushed by their teachers to take risks, they are more willing to speak out in class.
There are also large gender differences in how stress is handled in school children. Sax (2005) has found that, as a general rule, school age boys tend to deal with moderate stress better than girls. For example, moderate stress improved boys’ performance on tests, whereas girls’ performance suffered. I have wondered if girls in my class experience Harkness discussions as more stressful than boys, and that perhaps that has impacted their participation. As a result I have found that in seeking to improve the participation levels of my female students around the Harkness table I have had to carefully structure the Harkness discussion. I have experimented in saying to the class at the beginning of the discussion that a graded Harkness is about to take place. The result of this is always limited female participation in the discussion. Conversely when I have not mentioned grades, and I don’t take notes of what students are saying during the discussion, girl students tend to participate more. I have also experimented with telling students in advance that we will be having a graded Harkness discussion. The participation of girl students in the class on these occasions is considerably heightened presumably because students know the topic in advance and by doing the work to prepare, girl students associate less stress with the discussion.
Levels of classroom participation and engagement can also be gauged by the frequency and types of questions that students ask during class time. Asking questions during class time is considered to be a vital part of participation, and hence the learning process in any classroom. Pearson notes, “Classroom teachers identify student question asking as critical to successful participation in the educational setting” (1991, p. 23). It has also been determined that students of different genders tend to ask questions differently, and either more or less frequently depending on the classroom environment. While it is important to consider the gender of students and how this affects the frequency and intensity of question asking, it is also important to consider that the gender of the teacher is also directly related to student participation and the frequency of student questions during a lesson.
My initial observations have allowed me to observe that as a general rule boys tend to ask questions in my History class that are less related to the topic being studied. Sometimes it seems like they are trying to direct the conversation into something that is more interesting to them. Girls on the other hand tend to stick more closely to the topic being studied. Girls are less likely to connect the discussion topic to current world events, and are more concerned with learning concrete historical facts, such as dates. As a general rule boys also tend to be much “bigger picture” as they discuss history. By playing close attention to the questions that boys and girls ask, I want to see if these observations hold true and find ways to encourage both boys and girls to ask questions that demonstrate deep and critical thinking.
Although it has been determined that questioning what is said in a classroom by either the teacher or the students results in higher student achievement, there is an ingrained culture in most educational settings against asking questions. According to Pearson, “...there appears to be a practical norm against student questions in the classroom" (1991, 24). In fact, studies have shown that on average elementary school students tend to ask four questions for every hour of class time. Teachers on the other hand ask far more questions of students (Pearson, 1991). It is thought that students avoid asking questions because they fear a negative reaction from the teacher. It has also been theorized that students will only ask a question during class time if they think that it is going to directly affect them positively. An example of positive reinforcement which encourages future student participation might be the teacher giving the student a positive response to their contribution to the discussion, or more importantly the student’s peers validation of the verbal contribution. In a Harkness setting it would be very valuable to have students build on what a peer had said previously by acknowledging the earlier comment before proceeding with their line of thought.
For some students asking questions during lesson times is a difficult exercise which leaves them feeling apprehensive. Students who are not often asked for opinions or are not asked questions by the teacher are less willing to ask questions. Pearson notes, “…other students who are particularly unlikely to ask questions are those who are not called upon frequently, those who are often criticized for the wrong answer, and those who seem to provide the wrong response rather than the right response” (1991, p.24). As time progresses, these students start to feel less and less a part of what is happening in the classroom and become less likely to engage in the classroom environment and ask questions. As a teacher I continually strive to make the learning environment one where all students feel like any verbal contribution that they have to make to a conversation will be considered as valuable.
Teacher expectations on individual students are also a large factor in how willing a student is going to be to ask a question during lesson time. If a teacher has high expectations for a student, the student usually rises to the occasion, and as a result is more willing to ask questions because he or she is more likely to want to impress the teacher. The reverse is perhaps more relevant, where students who are ignored by teachers tend to basically ignore the teacher and not engage in the classroom content that is being taught on a daily basis. Pearson found that female students tend to feel this difference in expectations more acutely. He writes, “Students are aware of different expectations; however, females are more sensitive to those expectations when they have access to visual cues, as is normally the case in the classroom” (1991, p. 25). He also found that teachers tend to treat boy and girl students differently, which can have huge effects on the classroom environment, participation levels of students, and the frequency of questions asked by both students and teachers. If boys and girls acted in the same way, the actions of girls were usually not as highly valued as the same actions of boys. Furthermore, Pearson found that if two assignments from different genders were compared and seen to be of similar quality, the male assignment usually received a better grade. What is perhaps most interesting is that both male and female teachers tended to have these same biases. Remembering that female students are more sensitive to teacher bias can mean that girls are less likely to ask questions and verbally participate in a high school classroom.
Studies have shown that student participation and in particular question asking tends to differ based on the gender of the teacher. The same studies found that students think that female teachers are more open to discussion in their classrooms. The results of the study however found that although female teachers are perceived by students to be receptive to student verbal participation, the frequency of students asking questions did not increase in these classes. Pearson suggests that this is due to the sexist notion that female instructors are less competent, and in the eyes of some students, not worthy of questioning.
All the sections above are an attempt to explain some of the issues that students and teachers are faced with as they engage in classroom discourse. My research question: “How can I structure classroom discussions to ensure equitable participation?” continues to be intriguing to me because I think that many students learn best through the discussion of course material with their peers. In particular, my current workplace seems perfectly suited to a thorough examination of student-led discussions due to our focus on the Harkness method of teaching.
In the sections that follow, I discuss participation and the Harkness method of teaching, the relationship between student motivation and classroom participation, and how gender influences participation. I also explore methods teachers can use to encourage student participation and to build 21st century skills, particularly those focused on student communication.
Participation and Harkness teaching:
Classroom participation is something that is generally thought of as students verbally contributing during a lesson. While this would seem to be the most obvious way for students to participate in class, there are other more subtle ways that students involve themselves in lessons.
Participation in a Harkness discussion relies on a student-driven discussion-based approach which focuses discussion on course content. Harkness teaching has students sitting with their teacher at an oval table where everyone faces each other and no person at the table is thought of as being more important than the rest. It is the role of the teacher to not drive discussion, but to facilitate a conversation that is focused on the topic at hand.
Participation in a Harkness discussion is not limited to just speaking. It is desired that students also be active listeners and note takers during a Harkness discussion. Active listening means that students are encouraged to listen and absorb what is being said by their peers and then build on this information through their own verbal contributions to the discussion. Good Harkness participants do not interrupt speakers nor do they monopolize speaking time at the table. Instead, they take into consideration what is being said at the table and are respectful of all opinions.
Although active listening is an important part of Harkness participation, it is desirable that students also express their opinions so as to fully experience Harkness learning. Students involved in a Harkness discussion are not expected to raise their hands when they want to speak, but are expected to learn the art of “easing” themselves in the conversation by waiting for the right opportunity to speak. Realizing and seizing this “moment” is something that does not come easily to most students and as a result is something that has to be learned.
The fact that some students don’t ever summon sufficient courage to speak brings up issues of equity in all Harkness classrooms. It has been my experience that it is more often male students who “muscle” their way into conversations more frequently than their female counterparts. This is more evident when the conversation is not focused on material that students have had time to prepare for. When students have been given a passage to read for homework for example, it is here where female students tend to be far more vocal in class. As a teacher this raises a few questions: What motivates students to want to participate? What roles do teachers and students play in facilitating discussion-led learning? And what can teachers do to ensure that all students are able to participate meaningfully and equitably in classroom discussions?
Motivation and Participation
For most students to join classroom discussions, it is generally accepted that they have to be motivated by something that will urge them to take the significant, and for some students, unnerving step to raise their hand to participate verbally. For students in my own classes this intimidating step is even more pronounced because in the Harkness method of teaching students are encouraged to not raise their hands to speak, but are simply told to speak when the opportunity presents itself. This means that not only are students pressured to speak, but they need to find the appropriate time in which to do so.
Student motivation can come in a variety of forms for students but I have found that students are often motivated to participate if they are engaged in the classroom lesson itself. The difficult part as a teacher is often designing a teachable lesson and delivering instruction that is varied, challenging, and keeps students interested. Daniel Pink (2009) suggests that in times past, when people were engaged in less complex work, rewards helped to motivate them, but that now people and students are engaged in more varied and interesting work. He writes, “Yet for some people work remains routine, unchallenging, and directed by others. But for a surprising number of people, jobs have become more complex, more interesting, and more self directed” (2009, p.29).
Pink argues that this type of work requires an intrinsic motivation that comes from three primary sources - autonomy, mastery, and purpose - and that organizations and schools can nurture these things to increase motivation. According to Pink, autonomy is best defined as the desire to direct our own lives. He describes how a company which gives its employees 20% of their time at work to create anything that they desire results in innovative ideas and very productive workers. Pink describes how in order for companies to remain competitive it is often necessary for “bosses to relinquish control” (2009, p. 165). Bosses who give their workers leeway to be creative in their own ways should do so by involving workers in the setting of goals. Pink describes “how a considerable body of research shows that individuals are far more engaged when they’re pursuing goals that they had a hand in creating” (2009 p.165). He recommends including workers in the setting of goals because they frequently have higher goals and aspirations than when employers just assign them.
I believe that this method of motivating workers in industry can also be used in the classroom to further student participation at the Harkness table. I have recently experimented with two different 10th grade history classes and have found that Pink’s theory of autonomy increasing motivation in humans, to be true. The experiment required that I compare two classes by staging two different Harkness discussions focused on the issues in Northern Ireland in the 20th century. The Harkness discussion was the culmination of two days of studies on the troubles in Northern Ireland and most students understood the complexities of the topic quite well. My first class of 15 students is my most vocal class and it has at least half of the students frequently competing for “airtime” during discussion time. This class of students was given questions by me to discuss during the Harkness discussion. The questions were all easily understood by students and were purposefully designed to get students to emotionally connect to the topic. This was purposefully done to encourage engagement.
The Harkness conversation was allotted half of the 90 minute period that our class had for that day. I started the conversation by letting students know that conversation could only be focused on the questions that I posed to them. Immediately after saying this I saw three students sit back in their chairs and look dissatisfied with this news. The Harkness conversation lasted only 24 minutes before students had finished discussing the questions that I had for them. A few of the questions were indeed, hotly debated and students seemed to enjoy the controversy that some of these questions brought to the room. Two questions however were answered by only about three or four of the students in the class, showing limited engagement. In all, my conversation map showed that only 11 of the 15 students in the class had spoken at all and only eight of the 15 had spoken more than once.
Although I was satisfied with the outcome of the Harkness conversation I proceeded with my experiment after lunch on the same day with a new class of 10th grade students. The topic was the same as before, but this time I used Pink’s theory of autonomy and I let the students guide the conversation. Aside from introducing the Harkness topic and giving the students a brief review of the material that was to be the focus, I spoke very little during the conversation. I simply said that they would discuss the issues in Northern Ireland and attempt to develop a strategy to stop the violence. The difference between how the students conversed was significant when compared to the first group. The students in the second group were more animated and passionate as they spoke, and the Harkness conversation lasted 53 minutes before I stopped it and suggested that we could continue it the next day. All 15 students in the second group spoke at least once, and 10 of the 15 spoke more than once.
Significantly, the second class tends to have far less outgoing students than my first class. It was also clear that the autonomy given to students in the second discussion resulted in a better mastery of the subject matter after the discussion was complete. Students spent more time discussing Northern Ireland and because the conversation was at times more meaningful to them, and had greater student input, the students better understood the complex subject matter. This experiment clearly showed me that Daniel Pink’s theory that relinquishing leader control leads to better results is not just confined to the business world, but can also be used to motivate student participation in the classroom.
I recently had 10th grade students take a survey which asked them to describe a class in which they participated often, and what caused them to participate in that class. The results were predictably varied, but one student’s comment in particular, validates Pink’s theory of autonomy leading to excellence. Mason wrote, “I enjoy Harkness because it allows me to participate freely and this makes me want to speak more in class.”
The second factor Pink (2009) discusses as contributing to intrinsic motivation is opportunities for mastery. Mastery is described as having the urge to want to get better and better at something that matters. To achieve mastery as Pink describes it would require that students first “buy into” the idea that Harkness learning is something that is going to be of benefit to them. Before this even happens many 10th grade students need to be convinced that school itself is something that will benefit them later on in life. For those that strive for mastery during classroom participation they have to first overcome so many of the issues that surround students taking the risk of speaking in front of their peers on subjects that they are not necessarily well versed in.
I believe that in order for students to feel motivated enough to participate verbally in class they need more than just the incentive of a high grade in the class. Students need to feel like they are being challenged in the lesson that is being taught. They also need a classroom environment that is frequently changing so that they do not become complacent and then feel like their verbal contributions are not having a positive impact on the learning environment. If complacency sets in and students are not feeling challenged, student participation will become limited. Motivated students need to feel engaged in a lesson to the point where they feel like what they are doing is meaningful to their purpose at school, or to their overall goals. They also need to feel some kind of accomplishment in doing the task outlined by the teacher. Brophy, a psychologist who has researched motivation, writes, “In specific situations, a state of motivation to learn exists when students engage themselves purposefully in classroom tasks by trying to master the concepts or skills involved” (1983, p.205).
The final factor Pink identifies as contributing to intrinsic motivation is purpose. The author describes this as the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. This would seem to be the most difficult way of motivating young people in America to participate in class. If we are to attempt to use Pink’s method to motivate students to participate, a major shift away from societal norms would need to be implemented. In America, many children are taught that they are to “claw” their way to the top through hard work and not necessarily care for those that are left in their wake on the way to the top. What Pink is suggesting and how it relates to classroom participation suggests that students should participate in a Harkness discussion purely for the betterment of the learning environment and the learning of all involved. While this might seem to be a noble cause, if we are to think how contrary this is to how most American teenagers are brought up, it would seem to be a very difficult way in which to motivate young people to speak more in class. In order to counter this I believe that the teacher needs to create and nurture over time a classroom environment that champions academic thought and reasoning, and expression above everything else. Although this might not push young people into doing something for the better good of their classmates, it can ultimately further stimulate those who are already pursuing autonomy to participate with greater vigor.
The willingness to want to participate in the classroom might exist in some students due to the fact that they experienced success with this early in their educational lives. Brophy writes, “Individuals learn to value certain activities and outcomes over others, and they gradually develop stable beliefs and expectations about their likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses” (1983, p.206). I have seen this in my own classroom where students who have success with expressing themselves and get validation from the teacher and peers early in a single lesson tend to stay more motivated throughout the particular lesson and as a result continue to verbally participate. Brophy refers to this as “expectancy X value” which can be best described as students wanting to participate if they feel that they are going to receive a positive outcome for having taken the risk of choosing to verbalize an opinion. The positive outcome might be validation from the students in the class or simply a coherent and relevant response to a question or concept.
If motivation is an essential part of getting students to participate in class, do students
respond differently to different kinds of motivation? According to Brophy this is certainly the case. This provides significant challenges to teachers because it is not always certain which students will respond to specific motivational methods, and even then these same students might have a need to be motivated differently depending on the assigned task. Brophy found that “…teachers may be facing a complex situation in which different students need different motivational strategies. Application of a strategy that increases motivation in some students may decrease motivation in others” (1983, p.208). In general, students who are not confident about their abilities in my class during a certain activity will benefit from me telling them how well they are progressing with the task. Brophy writes, “We know, for example, that anxious and dependent students respond well to teacher praise and encouragement but not to teacher challenge and criticism” (1983, p.208). The opposite idea that students who are confident and independent actually benefit from teachers challenging their ideas and critiquing their work, is also offered by Brophy.
In order for students to feel motivated enough to want to participate in class they also need to feel confident that their contribution will be valued. In order for this to occur students need to have self-belief and competence in the subject matter. Andrew J. Martin, a psychologist from the University of Western Sydney, Australia, writes that “self-belief is critical to a student’s motivation” (2007, p.416). Student motivation and participation is also dependent on the interest that students have in the task at hand. If students are not interested in the lesson, activity, or the teacher’s instruction, motivation would be on the low end of any scale, and classroom participation highly unlikely. As Martin found, “What further contributes to students’ motivation and engagement is their valuing of a task” (2007, p.416).
Motivation and subsequent participation in a classroom setting is also related to how safe a student feels in the learning environment and around the instructor. In my observations of other classrooms, teachers who tend to be less supportive of student responses during a Harkness discussion have classroom discussions that are dominated by only two or three students. Students in these classes can feel like they might be belittled by the teacher, and as a result are less likely to participate. The opposite is evident in classrooms that I have visited where teachers take all student responses seriously. Student participation in these classes is more varied, and importantly student responses tend to be more adventurous as students are confident that their input will be valued by the teacher. Ultimately the sort of learning environment where teachers are supportive of almost any student participation not only encourages increased participation, but it also adds to the overall learning environment because it allows for a greater number of student voices, and as a result more analysis of an issue.
Building 21st Century Skills:
21st century skills are a set of learning tools considered vital to students who are coming of age in this new millennium. As the complexities of our world become more and more varied due to rapid connectivity advances between humans, students who don’t learn these skills in the classroom run the risk of not being prepared for the workforce later in life. It is therefore no surprise that Bernie Trilling emphasizes communication among students in 21st Century Skills Learning For Life In Our Times. To emphasize the importance of communication Trilling had teams of students working together communicating by email. The students sent over 3000 messages and were able to collaborate together to build a website. After a few months the students actually met one another at an event in San Francisco and some found it difficult to connect verbally as efficiently as they had while sending emails. Trilling found, “…even though they had spent countless hours working together online, it took them the better part of a day to fully readjust to each other” (2009 p.54). Trilling explained that although the students thought that they were communicating just fine online they were missing the finer nuances that are so vital in human face-to-face conversation, “There are no accents in online messages, and the finer points of personality, style, body language, and jokes could not be fully appreciated until the team was physically together” (2009 p.57).
Trilling’s experiment showed that although other 21 century skills like collaboration on a project with others using technology are valuable, it is the conversations and discussions that humans have in each other’s company that generally produce the best results. Though it took some adjusting, the students in Trilling’s experiment were able to be much more productive as they worked together in San Francisco then they had been when they had worked via email communication in the past. Trilling found, “By the end of their week together, they understood one another in new ways and could communicate on more meaningful levels” (2009 p.58). It should also be noted that the students were able to develop friendships by being in the company of each other, skills which are important for humans, regardless of which century we live in.
Communication skills as they relate to 21st century skills can be broken down into the following: students should be able to articulate thoughts and ideas effectively using oral and written communication skills in a variety of forms and contexts (Trilling, 2009). The differing contexts as they relate to my high school classrooms are many and the most obvious would be the Harkness discussions that we have during most classes. Harkness discussions would be considered communication as there is both a speaker at the table as well as an active listener. These discussions challenge the speaker to vary the way in which he or she articulates the point that is being made based on the wide variety of students that I teach in each of my classes. Other important parts of any high school classroom where students are required to articulate their thoughts and ideas include group work, where students are communicating less formally to solve problems, and during presentations where students explain their findings to a problem in front of the class.
According to Trilling, 21st century learners are also required to be effective listeners as they decipher meaning from a conversation. He mentions that students are to use communication for a range of purposes including motivation and persuasion. Both of these are cornerstones of the Harkness philosophy and should be encouraged in students. Another vital part of communication for students learning 21st century skills is the idea that they collaborate with others. Trilling mentions that it is essential that students work effectively and respectfully with diverse teams to solve problems. He notes that it is important that students learn to exercise “… flexibility and willingness to be helpful in making necessary compromises to accomplish a common goal” (2009 p.55).While 21st century skills are a vital part of preparing all students to be a successful part of the new millennium workforce, I am particularly interested in how to build students’ communication and discussion skills in the social studies classroom.
Student-Led Discussions in Social Studies
Properly structured discussions in a social studies classroom which focus on student input are usually vastly superior to teacher led discussions. Student led discussion if properly guided by the instructor allows participants to both connect history to the present, and also to question ingrained stereotypes. Student led discussions can be best described as situations where the students are guiding how the conversation develops by adhering to the Harkness skills that they have honed throughout high school. Student led discussions are discussions that have ideas generated by students and where most of the conversation that takes place is by the students. The teacher acts as an equal to the students and plays the role of someone who only refocuses the conversation should it venture too far outside the focus of the topic being studied. Nora Flynn in her article Towards Democratic Discourse: Scaffolding Student-Led Discussions in the Social Studies, mentions that “well-formed classroom discussions can create connections, challenge conceptions, and force reconsiderations” (2009, p. 2). Equally significant is that poorly structured classroom discussion can actually harm student development. Discussions that are not properly formed by the teacher can lead to students becoming disengaged or even disruptive in class. They can also have the effect of causing students to stop participating altogether in any classroom dialogue.
The structure of proper classroom discussion is also important because it has ramifications outside the actual classroom. Discussion teaches students the essential skill of discussing issues, which in turn leads to the analysis of issues, with the overall effect being that students are communicating, and learning from others. This is a vital part of human interaction and teaching it in the classroom goes a long way towards educating the “entire” adolescent. As Flynn writes, “Effectively participating in productive discussions is not a practice confined to the classroom, but discussing is an essential skill in itself; the processes of critically analyzing, considering, and communicating are the basis of human interactions” (2009 p.3).
Classroom discussion is also intrinsically linked to the development and sustainability of a democratic and diverse society. According to Flynn, well functioning classrooms that have good oral communication should leave “all parties empowered and none paralyzed” (2009 p.4). Although most educators agree that a well functioning classroom that has empowered student contributors is an important part of any successful social studies course, teachers also agree that it is something that is not easy to attain. California public school teachers who teach social studies courses are generally hampered by time as a result of the state content standards which dictate what should to be covered in the teaching year. At schools where Harkness teaching is present teachers are less likely to feel the pressures of having to cover all that is on the state standards because most of these schools are independent, and are not monetarily supported by the state. Independent schools are therefore often more able to have the time to develop well functioning participatory classrooms that follow the Harkness, or student led discussion based instruction.
As a social studies teacher teaching in an independent school, I am aware of my role as a facilitator in classroom discussion, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how best to structure a discussion-based social studies classroom. What is clear to me, and should be to all teachers who plan to implement well organized student-led discussions in class is that it is important to carefully monitor student reactions during discussions to guide any future improvements in the planning of future classroom discussions. And, as Flynn notes, it is also important to test your own definition of what makes a good discussion (2009). Good classroom contributors in a Harkness setting don’t necessarily have to be always contributing verbally. Effective Harkness practice can also be something that sees students being active listeners while their peers are speaking. Good verbal contributors in class are those who engage actively in conversation, offer new ideas, and are able to cite a common text to support their ideas (Flynn, 2009). While these three elements are all vital, it should also be impressed on students the need to build on the ideas of other students in the room during conversation. Failure to do so by students can sometimes lead to a discussion that seems more about students simply “having their say” on an issue rather than a conversation that builds in complexity and ultimately seems more democratic in nature. The same applies to the teacher who should not necessarily be the authority during a classroom conversation, but simply a guide to ensure that the conversation does not deviate too far from the objective.
If discussion among students is so important, is it always necessary that students discuss something directly related to the content of the class? I generally find that students are most interested in discussing something outside of the confines of our history curriculum, and it is during these discussions that most students verbally participate. Although this might be the case, it is important for teachers to strike a balance between engaging students in conversation for conversations sake, and sticking to the intended curriculum. Some teachers who are committed to increasing classroom discussion are wary of relinquishing control of the direction of the conversation. As Flynn notes, “By choosing to implement discussion, teachers can feel that they cede control of both the classroom and of the content they “need” to convey” (2009 p.6). Teachers who put themselves at the forefront of these sorts of “conversations” and are controlling often end up stifling student voice because students feel like anything that they say will be subjected to scrutiny by the teacher, either in the moment, or later in the grade book.
Methods to encourage effective participation in a social studies classroom
Aside from actively studying student reaction to classroom discussion and implementing the necessary steps to make improvements, there are some basic, but difficult to master steps that teachers can consider to increase student participation during a discussion.
Research has shown that during instruction teachers who ask questions of students wait averages of only one second for a student to respond. (Rowe, 1986, p.45) Clearly this puts many students at a disadvantage due to a myriad of factors that might include student processing time, or the simple level of engagement of the students involved. The issue is compounded when many “teachers react or respond with another question in less than one second” (Rowe, 1986, p. 44). To accommodate the differences in learning styles and aptitude of learners, teachers can implement “wait-time,” the practice of giving students extra time to process the question and formulate an answer. Because conversation at the Harkness table is collaborative and students are learning from each other, the benefits of wait time go beyond the student who is expected to answer the question posed by the teacher, and can involve the entire room. Harkness being such a collaborative venture, and one that benefits from the responses of everyone (either directly involved or not) it might be possible that wait- time could positively affect that style of learning more than any other.
Wait time can be divided into two different types as described by Kenneth Tobin in his article The Role of Wait Time in Higher Cognitive Learning (1987). Type I involves the teacher pausing after they have asked a question of the student, and Type II is the time that lapses after a student has spoken in a conversation.
Studies have shown that increased teacher wait-time after having asked a question in class caused significant increases in student responses. Wait time also improved the quality of student responses, as well as the time that students took to explain their answer (Tobin, 1987). This result can be attributed to the fact that students were able to organize their thoughts better and felt less rushed to answer in the usual second or two that was available to them. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that studies have shown that wait time does result in a decrease in the number of students who fail to respond to a question posed by the teacher (Tobin, 1987). Rowe found, “Under the longer wait time schedule, some previously “invisible” people become visible. Expectations change gradually, often signaled by remarks such as “He never contributed like that before” (1986, p. 45).
Extended wait-time also contributed to increased participation in minority students. Rowe determined, “This effect was particularly pronounced where minority students were concerned. They did more task relevant talking and took a more active part in discussions than they had before” (1986, p. 48). For teachers who facilitate Harkness discussions all this information can be considered vital to nourishing stimulating, meaningful conversations which involve all students. Although wait time type I (which involves teacher pauses) could be fairly easy to implement in Harkness teaching, type II wait time (where students are asking clarifying questions of one another) could be more difficult to implement. Teachers who plan on using both types of wait time as described by Tobin might consider explaining to students the benefits of using wait time during a Harkness discussion and teachers could also implement a role play exercise to show the value of wait-time.
Studies have also shown that wait-time has a significant impact on teachers during lesson time. Tobin (1987) found that teachers who use wait time type I actually become better at asking follow up questions as they were afforded more time to develop those probing follow up questions. In addition, teachers who implemented wait time in their lessons used fewer memory, management, and rhetorical questions as they interacted with students. Very importantly for teachers who lead Harkness discussions in a social studies setting, the use of wait-time can be beneficial as it can result in fewer leading questions in an environment that can often be “heated” due to the issues that are explored in upper level classes. By using wait time in a social studies classroom, teachers can be less prone to students using labels or stereotypes as they are afforded more time to develop discourse that is more appropriate to further developing the discussion.
Increased wait-time does however contribute to increased nervousness in teachers as wait- time is increased. Tobin found, “…an increase in teacher anxiety when moving from short wait time to long wait time” (1987, p. 77). Tobin notes that this anxiety can result in teachers abandoning of the use of wait time and returning to more predictable patterns of classroom interactions. This is unfortunate, as Tobin's work found that as wait time was implemented, the lessons became more understandable for students. Students experienced less confusion, as well as increased confidence in all aspects of the class. Interestingly, extended wait-time, according to Tobin lead to “…greater group spirit during lessons that utilized an average wait time of more than 3 seconds” (1987, p.79). This is important for my study as Harkness teaching and participation are dependent on students trusting each other and feeling comfortable during the discussion. This in turn makes a strong argument for the use of wait- time in increasing student participation during Harkness discussions.
As mentioned before teachers experience anxiety when trying to implement wait-time, and as a result tend to not use the tool during instruction. According to Tobin the best way in which to overcome this is for teachers to “use feedback guided by analysis.” Tobin involved himself in a study and “training program” that was designed for teachers in grades 1-7. Tools to increase wait-time in teachers were used with varying results. However, Tobin found that the use of video with feedback from other educators was effective in helping educators to extend wait-time type I by an average of 3.7 seconds. This was significantly more successful than the use of video without feedback. This makes a strong case for educators who want to increase student participation in their classes to not only video lessons, but also to have the videos reviewed by fellow teachers who would then provide feedback on how wait-time was implemented.
It is important to note that wait time does not necessarily always mean that the class is sitting silently, anxiously waiting for a response from a student. Wait-time can include students writing a response to a question before the teacher opens the class up to discussion. It is again important that teachers in this situation give learners the necessary wait-time to develop written responses which will allow for stimulating conversation. I also think it is important that teachers use other methods of waiting for students to develop their thoughts before they are expected to verbalize them. I intend to continue to use the think-pair-share method of allowing students to “rehearse” what they are going to say with a partner before the conversation is turned over to the entire room. This method helps alleviates some of the anxiety that students have with verbal participation because it allows students to practice what they are going to say with a peer beforehand. This method also helps students further develop their thoughts as they verbalize their ideas with their peers.
Gender as it affects classroom participation
I was educated at an all boy’s school throughout most of my schooling. Not having been around female students I have at times been unsure as to the role that gender might play in student motivation and frequency of classroom participation. By observation I have slowly become more aware of the different ways in which the different genders behave in the classroom. While there are always exceptions to the rule, generally boys and girls tend to behave in distinct stereotypical ways. I think that it is fundamentally important that teachers realize that gender differences are important to consider when presented with a co-ed classroom of students. Leonard Sax suggests that boy students don’t need ADD drugs but “…rather a teacher that understands the hardwired differences in how boys and girls learn” (2005, p. 154).
According to Sax (2005), there are not only fundamental social differences between the genders, but physiological ones as well, such as hearing. Boys tend not to be able to hear as well as girls, and this often results in misdiagnosis by the teacher. The teacher might be frustrated in the inability of some male students to concentrate and participate during lessons but the deficit of attention is sometimes a result of the student not being able to actually hear the teacher. Sax writes, “The teacher, a woman, is speaking in a tone of voice that seems about right to her. Justin barely hears her. Instead, he’s staring out of the window…” (2005, p.4). The result is often that the student is placed on medication for his lack of attention in the classroom and a hearing condition is never considered. According to Sax, “... his attention deficit isn’t due to “attention deficit disorder”, it’s due to the fact that Justin can barely hear the soft-spoken teacher” ( 2005, p. 82).
Clearly, if a student cannot hear the teacher he or she is less likely to participate during class time. The obvious remedy for this is to move male students to the front row of class where they can hear more easily. For females the volume in which a teacher speaks while he or she teaches might also be a consideration in how much or how little girls participate in class. A male teacher who speaks loudly might unnerve female students to the point where they would not be willing to express their opinion in class. While this is important to consider, the issue of hearing and how it hampers students in their ability to concentrate, would seem to not apply in my own classes. In my 10th grade history classes students don’t sit in rows and it is actually the male students who tend to participate considerably more than their female counterparts.
Research has also found that female students are more concerned than male students with pleasing their teachers. Girls expect that the teacher will stick up for them and behave with their best interests in mind. Sax notes, “Most girls will naturally seek to affiliate with the teacher. They expect the teacher to be on their side, to be their ally” (2005, p. 80). Girls also tend to do their homework to a higher standard than boys, even if they are not interested in the content. So, if this is the case, why is it that girls in my classes are less willing to participate even when they know very well that this is the expectation, and that those not participating results in a lowered overall grade at the end of the year? This is especially intriguing since Sax suggests that girls are more driven by results. If negative results stem from not participating in my classes, there must be some important factors dissuading girls from participating, to the point where they won’t participate even if it means affecting something as important as their overall grade in the class.
One possible contributing factor is that girls and boys communicate differently. Boys tend to find communication less important than girls, and as a result, do so in different ways. Boys often stand around at school and discussion surrounds something that is a physical object, like a photograph or a sports website. Sax notes, “Boys friendships are shoulder-to-shoulder, a group of boys looking at some common interest” (2005, p. 83). Girls on the other hand seem to thrive with talking to one another and tend to make eye contact more often. According to Sax “…girls friendships are face-to-face, two or three girls talking with one another” (2005, p. 83). It would seem to make sense then that teachers who desire more classroom participation should consider these differences. Teachers who look students in the eye when they ask them a question are more likely to get a more developed response, particularly from female students (Sax, 2005). Girls are more aware of facial expressions than boys and react accordingly in a classroom. A teacher who has a more relaxed and friendly way about him or her is more likely to get verbal responses from girl students during lesson time.
A lot of the above would suggest that girls are more likely to participate in Harkness discussions. My experience however has shown that boys tend to participate in Harkness more frequently. This could be because boys are programmed by their parents and society to take more frequent risks than girls. Girls are taught to proceed cautiously so as not to get injured physically or emotionally. Sax notes, “Parents in North America and Europe are more likely to shield their girls from risks and less likely to praise them for engaging in risky activities… (2005, p.48). The result of this is evident in the classroom where boys tend to dominate Harkness discussions and are not afraid to engage in sometimes heated discussions with their peers (who are mostly boys). I believe that it is the teacher’s role to attempt to break down these societal stereotypes in the classroom and make the space one where girls are encouraged to take risks. Sax’s research has revealed that if female students are pushed by their teachers to take risks, they are more willing to speak out in class.
There are also large gender differences in how stress is handled in school children. Sax (2005) has found that, as a general rule, school age boys tend to deal with moderate stress better than girls. For example, moderate stress improved boys’ performance on tests, whereas girls’ performance suffered. I have wondered if girls in my class experience Harkness discussions as more stressful than boys, and that perhaps that has impacted their participation. As a result I have found that in seeking to improve the participation levels of my female students around the Harkness table I have had to carefully structure the Harkness discussion. I have experimented in saying to the class at the beginning of the discussion that a graded Harkness is about to take place. The result of this is always limited female participation in the discussion. Conversely when I have not mentioned grades, and I don’t take notes of what students are saying during the discussion, girl students tend to participate more. I have also experimented with telling students in advance that we will be having a graded Harkness discussion. The participation of girl students in the class on these occasions is considerably heightened presumably because students know the topic in advance and by doing the work to prepare, girl students associate less stress with the discussion.
Levels of classroom participation and engagement can also be gauged by the frequency and types of questions that students ask during class time. Asking questions during class time is considered to be a vital part of participation, and hence the learning process in any classroom. Pearson notes, “Classroom teachers identify student question asking as critical to successful participation in the educational setting” (1991, p. 23). It has also been determined that students of different genders tend to ask questions differently, and either more or less frequently depending on the classroom environment. While it is important to consider the gender of students and how this affects the frequency and intensity of question asking, it is also important to consider that the gender of the teacher is also directly related to student participation and the frequency of student questions during a lesson.
My initial observations have allowed me to observe that as a general rule boys tend to ask questions in my History class that are less related to the topic being studied. Sometimes it seems like they are trying to direct the conversation into something that is more interesting to them. Girls on the other hand tend to stick more closely to the topic being studied. Girls are less likely to connect the discussion topic to current world events, and are more concerned with learning concrete historical facts, such as dates. As a general rule boys also tend to be much “bigger picture” as they discuss history. By playing close attention to the questions that boys and girls ask, I want to see if these observations hold true and find ways to encourage both boys and girls to ask questions that demonstrate deep and critical thinking.
Although it has been determined that questioning what is said in a classroom by either the teacher or the students results in higher student achievement, there is an ingrained culture in most educational settings against asking questions. According to Pearson, “...there appears to be a practical norm against student questions in the classroom" (1991, 24). In fact, studies have shown that on average elementary school students tend to ask four questions for every hour of class time. Teachers on the other hand ask far more questions of students (Pearson, 1991). It is thought that students avoid asking questions because they fear a negative reaction from the teacher. It has also been theorized that students will only ask a question during class time if they think that it is going to directly affect them positively. An example of positive reinforcement which encourages future student participation might be the teacher giving the student a positive response to their contribution to the discussion, or more importantly the student’s peers validation of the verbal contribution. In a Harkness setting it would be very valuable to have students build on what a peer had said previously by acknowledging the earlier comment before proceeding with their line of thought.
For some students asking questions during lesson times is a difficult exercise which leaves them feeling apprehensive. Students who are not often asked for opinions or are not asked questions by the teacher are less willing to ask questions. Pearson notes, “…other students who are particularly unlikely to ask questions are those who are not called upon frequently, those who are often criticized for the wrong answer, and those who seem to provide the wrong response rather than the right response” (1991, p.24). As time progresses, these students start to feel less and less a part of what is happening in the classroom and become less likely to engage in the classroom environment and ask questions. As a teacher I continually strive to make the learning environment one where all students feel like any verbal contribution that they have to make to a conversation will be considered as valuable.
Teacher expectations on individual students are also a large factor in how willing a student is going to be to ask a question during lesson time. If a teacher has high expectations for a student, the student usually rises to the occasion, and as a result is more willing to ask questions because he or she is more likely to want to impress the teacher. The reverse is perhaps more relevant, where students who are ignored by teachers tend to basically ignore the teacher and not engage in the classroom content that is being taught on a daily basis. Pearson found that female students tend to feel this difference in expectations more acutely. He writes, “Students are aware of different expectations; however, females are more sensitive to those expectations when they have access to visual cues, as is normally the case in the classroom” (1991, p. 25). He also found that teachers tend to treat boy and girl students differently, which can have huge effects on the classroom environment, participation levels of students, and the frequency of questions asked by both students and teachers. If boys and girls acted in the same way, the actions of girls were usually not as highly valued as the same actions of boys. Furthermore, Pearson found that if two assignments from different genders were compared and seen to be of similar quality, the male assignment usually received a better grade. What is perhaps most interesting is that both male and female teachers tended to have these same biases. Remembering that female students are more sensitive to teacher bias can mean that girls are less likely to ask questions and verbally participate in a high school classroom.
Studies have shown that student participation and in particular question asking tends to differ based on the gender of the teacher. The same studies found that students think that female teachers are more open to discussion in their classrooms. The results of the study however found that although female teachers are perceived by students to be receptive to student verbal participation, the frequency of students asking questions did not increase in these classes. Pearson suggests that this is due to the sexist notion that female instructors are less competent, and in the eyes of some students, not worthy of questioning.
All the sections above are an attempt to explain some of the issues that students and teachers are faced with as they engage in classroom discourse. My research question: “How can I structure classroom discussions to ensure equitable participation?” continues to be intriguing to me because I think that many students learn best through the discussion of course material with their peers. In particular, my current workplace seems perfectly suited to a thorough examination of student-led discussions due to our focus on the Harkness method of teaching.