Butler University
Digital Commons @ Butler University
Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
2004
What Does Research Tell Us about Classroom
Discussion?
Jay R. Howard
Butler University, jrhoward@butler.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers
Part of the Educational Sociology Commons
Recommended Citation
Howard, Jay R. 2004. “What Does Research Tell Us about Classroom Discussion?” pages 2-8 in Jay R. Howard (Editor). 2004.
Discussion in the College Classroom: Applications for Sociology Instruction. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more
information, please contact fgaede@butler.edu.
WHAT DOES RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT CLASSROOM DISCUSSION?
Jay Howard
Indiana University Purdue University Columbus
Why should sociologists be concerned with discussion in the college classroom? A
major reason is that students' active participation in the classroom has been linked with learning
(Astin 1985, Johnson and Johnson 1991, Kember and Gow 1994, McKeachie 1990), critical
thinking (Garside 1996, Smith 1977, Weast 1996), and degree completion (Tin to 1975,
Tinto 1997). In addition to facilitating these general education goals, Brookfield and Preskill
(1999) argue that classroom discussion is a particularly useful tool for helping students develop a
sociological imagination (p.8). They go on to suggest there are four key purposes of discussion:
(1) to help participants reach a more critically informed understanding about the topic or
topics under consideration, (2) to enhance participants' self-awareness and their capacity
for self-critique, (3) to foster an appreciation among participants for the diversity of
opinion that invariably emerges when viewpoints are exchanged openly and honestly, and
(4) to act as a catalyst to helping people take informed action in the world. (Brookfield
and Preskill1999, p.3)
Each of these four goals is consistent with the goals of an undergraduate education in sociology.
However, despite these benefits, instructors are often hesitant to utilize discussion.
Reasons for this hesitation are many. Some suggest that discussion is too time
consuming. It does allow for sufficient coverage of the range and volume of content desired.
Others argue that while discussion might be appropriate in some courses (usually someone else's
courses), it is inappropriate for my course. Of course, covering content is not particularly helpful
if students fail to engage it in a meaningful way. Likewise, discussion can be adapted to any
course if creatively applied. The challenge for instructors is to determine how best to engage
students with the material in a way that will facilitate reflective thinking about it.
Karp and Yoels (1976) first identified a couple of college classroom norms that work
against effective classroom discussion. The first they called civil attention. Because college
professors will rarely call on students who don't show some indication that they are willing to
contribute, it is easy for students to merely created the appearance of paying attention in class
(civil attention), rather than actually being engaged in classroom activities. Secondly, Karp and
Yoels (1976) found that regardless of class size the vast majority of contributions to classroom
discussion will come from a very small number of students. Students come to accept and even
expect this consolidation of responsibility for classroom participation often directing their
attention to those few "talkers" when an instructor asks for input from the class. Thus an
instructor can leave a classroom thinking an effective discussion took place without recognizing
that the discussion occurred primarily between the instructor and three to five students while the
rest of the class primarily were onlookers. In order for effective discussion to occur instructors
need to seek the active participation of a much higher percentage of students. In order to do this,
it helps to be aware of the research on classroom discussion which tells us which students are
most likely to accept the consolidation of responsibility for classroom discussion and which are
likely to remain passive onlookers.
2
Variables that Influence Student Participation in Classroom Discussion
Studies of student participation in discussion in the college classroom have addressed a
number of variables thought to have significant impact. The variable most often studied is
student gender. This line of research springs from Hall and Sandler's (1982) "chilly climate"
thesis which postulated that patterns of interaction and behavior in the college classroom create a
climate that is less hospitable to female students than to male students. Tannen (1991), based
both on her research on gender conversation rituals and on her experiences as an instructor, has
suggested that male and female students see and respond to the classroom differently. She
argued that there are three reasons why men speak more frequently in class than do women.
First, men speak more in class because they find the "public" nature of the classroom more
conducive to speaking while women are more comfortable speaking in private settings with a
small group. Second, men are more comfortable with the debate-like form of discussion that
may occur in the classroom. Finally, Tannen suggests that males more frequently take the
attitude that it is their job to think of contributions and to try to get the floor in order to express
them. Whereas female students monitor their participation and may avoid getting the floor in
order to avoid dominating the discussion. Yet, Tannen ( 1991) cautions that no one's
conversational style is absolute. Styles change in response to the context and to the styles of
other participants in the conversation.
Despite the ongoing concern with student gender in classroom participation, the research
support has been mixed at best. Some studies have found that males participate more frequently
than females (Auster and MacRone 1994, Brooks 1982, Crawford and MacLeod 1990 [in their
small college sample, but not in their university sample], Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones and
Piccinin 2003, Fassinger 1995, Karp and Yoels 1976, O'Keefe and Faupel 1987, and Statham,
Richardson and Cook] 991). Other studies have suggested that males participate more
frequently in courses taught by male instructors (Pearson and West 1991, Sternglanz and
Lyberger-Ficek 1977) but not in courses taught by female instructors. Brooks (1982) concluded
the opposite - that males participate more in female taught courses. Fassinger (1995) and Karp
and Yoels (1976) found that females participate more in courses taught by female instructors
than in courses taught by male instructors. A large number of other studies found no significant
difference in participation based on student gender (Boersma 1981, Constantinople, Cornelius,
and Gray 1988, Corneilius, Gray and Constantinople 1990, Crawford and MacLeod 1990 [in
their university sample], Heller, Puff, and Mills 1985, Howard, James, and Taylor 2002, Jung,
Moore and Parker 1999). One possible explanation for the lack of significance of student gender
is the presence a significant percentage of females in the classroom. However, in their study
which utilized a survey methodology, Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones, and Piccinin (2003)
failed to find a significant relationship between percentage of female students in a class and
students' participation.
Several studies have suggested that student age has a stronger impact than student gender
on participation in classroom discussion. Nontraditional students (25 years of age or older) have
been consistently shown to participate more frequently than traditional students (less than 25
years of age) (Fritschner 200, Howard, Short and Clark 1996, Howard and Henney 1998,
Howard and Baird 2000, Howard, James and Taylor 2002, Jung, Moore and Parker 1999, Lynch
3
and Bishop-Clark 1993). However, Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones and Piccinin (2003)
found no differences in participation by student age in a study that utilized self reports rather
than observation. Faust and Courtenay (2002), who observed only a single class of 20 students,
concluded that in that particular course traditional students contributed to class discussion more
frequently than did nontraditional students.
Instructor gender is another variable that has been examined in relation to students'
participation in classroom discussion. The results have again been mixed. Some studies have
found that there is more discussion in courses with female instructors (Canada and Pringle 1995,
Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray 1988, Crawford and MacLeod 1990, Fassinger 1995,
Howard and Baird 2000, Howard, James and Taylor 2002, Karp and Yoels 1976, Pearson and
West 1991, and Statham, Richardson and Cook 1991). While no study has suggested that
students participate more frequently in courses with male instructors, numerous studies have
failed to find a difference based on instructor gender (Auster and MacRone 1994, Cornelius,
Gray, and Constantinople 1990, Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones, and Piccinin 2003, Heller,
Puff, and Mills 1985). Of these studies that failed to find an effect of instructor gender all but
one (Cornelius, Gray and Constantinople 1990) relied on student self reports via survey rather
than observation. This may account for the lack of significant findings. Karp and Yoels (1976)
reported that while students reported no effect of instructor gender in their survey responses,
based on observations of actual classroom behaviors female students participated significantly
more in female taught courses than in male taught courses. Howard and Baird (2000) had the
same result with survey responses failing to find a relationship between instructor gender and
participation, but observations of classroom behavior revealing that students participate more
frequently in courses with female instructors. Based on observations of student behaviors,
Howard and Henney (1998) found that a higher percentage of students present partici pated in
discussion in female taught courses. Also using observation, Howard, Taylor, and James (2002)
found that students were significantly more likely to participate in female taught courses than in
male taught courses.
Class size is another variable frequently found to have a significant impact on student
participation in discussion. Most studies have found that more interaction occurs in smaller
classes (Auster and MacRone 1994, Constantinople, Cornelius and Gray 1988, Cornelius, Gray
and Constantinople 1990, Crawford and MacLeod 1990, Fassinger 1995, Howard, Short and
Clark 1996, Howard and Henney 1998, Neer and Kircher 1989). However, Crombie, Pyke,
Silverthorn, Jones and Piccinin (2003) and Karp and Yoels (1976) failed to find a significant
impact of class size.
Fassinger (1995) argued that instructor traits (e.g., gender) have little impact on student
participation. Instead, student traits (confidence, comprehension, interest, preparation) and class
traits (size, emotional climate, interaction n00115, frequent large group discussions) were more
important influences on participation. Likewise, Aitken and Neer (1992) concluded that it is a
student trait (motivation or the lack thereof) that best explains students' lack of participation.
However, it is clear that instructor behaviors can influence student traits like comprehension and
interest and can influence class traits such as emotional climate and interaction norms. Nunn
(1996) argued that it is instructor teaching techniques (such as praise, posing questions, asking
4
-
-~---"='-----
for elaboration, and using students' names) that significantly improve levels of discussion. Thus
Nunn concludes that instructors do play an important role in student participation.
To Grade or Not to Grade
As we seek to stimulate student participation in discussion in the college classroom, it is
onlly logical that sociology instructors pay attention to the structural conditions that can either
encourage or inhibit students' participation. We also need to reflect upon how we can overcome
any structural barriers to discuss (e.g., class size). Perhaps this will require breaking the class
into smaller groups to allow for wider participation. It may mean using two minute papers which
allow those students who are normally reluctant to participate (e.g., traditional students) an
opportunity to think and reflect before being required to speak. It may mean grading students'
participation in discussion in order to convey the importance of discussion as a learning tool.
This last suggestion may be met with resistance from students who sometimes view discussion as
an "optional" component of the course (see, for example, Howard and Baird 200). Instructors
may need to "sell" the learning benefits that come from discussion in order to convince students
that it is a reasonable expectation.
This raises the dilemma of how to grade participation in discussion. I have always found
it difficult to keep track of who is speaking how often along with the quality of their contribution
to discussion. One strategy is for instructors to give students an occasional discussion grade
based on the instructors' impressions. This approach can lead to student objections over the
assessment if the instructor is not somehow keeping systematic track of student participation.
My solution to this dilemma has been to have students grade themselves at the end of each class
period. I use the following grading scale when the discussion format includes the entire class as
a single group.
o
1
2
3
4
Absent
Present, but did not verbally participate
Verbally participated one time
Verbally paJ1icipated more than once
Made an equitable contribution to discussion in terms of both quality and
quantity.
By requiring students to grade themselves using this grading scale, students are forced to reflect
upon the quantity and quality of their participation at the end of every class period. This frequent
reflection makes students more aware of their contributions to the discussions. I find that most
students give themselves a grade of four, but also that most students will earn that grade.
Knowing that they will be asked to assess their own participation at the end of the class period,
encourages them to contribute. For courses where the discussion is based on small group
oarticipation, I have students use the following grading scale.
1
2
3
Present, but did not contribute to the discussion.
Made at least one contribution, but had not read the assigned material prior to class.
Made one contribution to group discussion and had read the material prior to class.
5
4
5
Made more than one contribution to the group discussion and had read the material
prior to class.
Made more than two contributions to the group discussion, had read the material
prior to class and made an effort to secure the participation of all group members
This scale has the additional benefit of slowing down the dominant contributors by requiring
them to make overt attempts to encourage the quieter students to join in the dialogue. One
cannot maximize their discussion grade unless every member of the group has participated in the
discussion. Again, students almost always give themselves fours and fives, but based on my
observations of their groups in the vast majority of cases those grades are well deserved. This
approach also is flexible enough that a very shy student who speaks up only twice can reward
him or herselfwith full credit while talkative students often feel they must contribute more than
twice to be deserving of full credi 1.
]n order to convey the importance of discussion participation in student learning, I make
the discussion grades which students assign to themselves count for ten percent of the final
course grade. For me this approach reinforces to students, that they have something to contribute
to their own and their classmates learning.
]n sum, research suggests that the benefits of discussion (increased learning, critical
thinking, development of a sociological imagination) make it a pedagogical strategy well worth
utilizing. In sociology courses in particular, where our students have 18 or more years of life
experience in society, students have much to contribute to the learning of their classmates. ]t is a
good investment of instructors time and energy to determine how best to integrate classroom
discussion into their courses.
References
Aitken, Joan and Michael R. Neer. 1992. "The Relationship of Classroom Communication
Apprehension and Motivation to College Student Question-Asking." Paper presented at the
th
Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (78 , Chicago, IL, October 29­
November 1, 1992).
Astin, Alexander W. 1985. Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Auster, Carol. 1. and Mindy MacRone. 1994. "The Classroom as a Negotiated Social Setting:
An Empirical Study of the Effects of Faculty Members' Behavior on Students' Participation."
Teaching Sociology 22:289-300.
Boersma, P. D., D. Gay, R.A. Jones, L. Morrison, and H. Remick. 1981. "Sex Differences in
College Student-teacher Interactions: Fact or Fantasy?" Sex Roles 7:775-84.
Brookfield, Stephen D. and Stephen Preski11. 1999. Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools
and Techniquesfor Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brooks, V. 1982. "Sex differences in student dominance behavior in female and male
professors' classrooms." Sex Roles 8:683-90.
Canada, Katherine and Richard Pringle. 1995. "The Role of Gender in College Classroom
Interactions: A Social Context Approach." Sociology ofEducation 68: 161-186.
Constantinople, Ann, Randolph Cornelius, and Janet M. Gray. 1988. "The Chilly Climate: Fact
or Artifact?' The Journal ofHigher Education 59:527-50.
6
Cornelius, Randolph, Janet M. Gray, and Anne P. Constantinople. 1990. "Student Faculty
Interaction in the College Classroom." Journal ofResearch and Development in Education
23:189-97.
Crawford, Mary, and Margo MacLeod. 1990. "Gender in the College Classroom: An
Assessment of the 'Chilly Climate' for Women." Sex Roles 23:101-22.
Crombie, Gail, Sandra W. Pyke, Naida Silverthorn, Alison Jones, and Sergio Piccinin. 2003.
"Students' Perceptions of Their Classroom Participation and Instructor as a Function of
Gender and Context." The Journal ofHigher Education 74:51 -76.
Fassinger, Polly A. 1995. "Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students' and Professors'
Contributions to Students' Silence." The Journal ofHigher Education 66:82-96.
Faust, Debra Fair and Bradley C. Courtenay. 2002. "Interaction in the Intergenerational
Freshman Class: What Matters." Educational Gerontology 28:401 -422.
Fritschner, Linda M. 2000. "Inside the Undergraduate College Classroom: Faculty and
Students Differ on the Meaning of Student Participation." The Journal ofHigher Education
71 :342-62.
Garside, Colleen. 1996. "Look Who's Talking: A Comparison of Lecture and Group Discussion
Teaching Strategies in Developing Critical Thinking Skills." Communication Education
45:212-27.
Hall, Roberta M. and Bernice R. Sandler. 1982. "The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for
Women?" Project on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, D.C.: Association
of American Colleges.
Heller, Jack F., C. Richard Puff and Carol J. Mills. 1985. "Assessment of the Chi lly College
Climate for Women." Journal ofHigher Education 56:446-461.
Howard, Jay R. and Roberta Baird. 2000. "The Consolidat;ion of Responsibility and Students'
Definitions of the College Classroom." The Journal ofHigher Education 71:700-721.
Howard, Jay R. and Amanda L. Henney. 1998. "Student Participation and Instructor Gender in
the Mixed Age College Classroom." The Journal ofHigher Education 69:384-405.
Howard, Jay R., Lillard B. Short and Susan M. Clark. 1996. "Student Participation in the
Mixed-Age College Classroom." Teaching Sociology 24:8-24.
Howard, Jay R., George James, and David R. Taylor. 2002. "The Consolidation of
Responsibility in the Mixed-Age College Classroom." Teaching Sociology 30(2):214-234.
Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith. 1991. Cooperative Learning:
Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE_ERIC Higher Education
Report No.4. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University .
.lung, Jan, Rosemary L. Moore and Jim Parker. 1999. "A Study of Older Students Participation
in the College Classroom." Unpublished.
Karp, David A. and William C. Yoels. 1976. "The College Classroom: Some Observation on
the Meaning of Student Participation." Sociology and Social Research 60:421-39.
Kember, David and Lyn Gow. 1994. "Orientations to Teaching and Their Effect on the Quality
of Student Learning." Journal of Higher Education 65:58-74.
Lynch, Jean M. and Catherine Bishop-Clark. 1993. "Traditional and Nontraditional Student
Attitudes toward the Mixed Age College Classroom." Innovative Higher Education 18: 109­
121.
McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1990. "Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background."
Journal ofEducational Psychology 82: 189-200.
7
Neer, Michael R. and W. Faye Kircher. 1989. "Apprehesives' Perceptions of Classroom Factors
Influencing Their Class Participation." Communication Research Reports 6:70-77.
Nunn, Claudia E. 1996. "Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational
and Survey Results." The Journal o/Higher Education 67:243-66.
O'Keefe, Tim F. and Charles E. Faupel. 1987. "The Other Face of the Classroom: A Student
Ethnography." Sociological Spectrum 7:141-155.
Pearson, Judy and Richard West. 1991. "An Initial Investigation of the Effects of Gender on
Student Questions in the Classroom: Developing a Descriptive Base." Communication
Education 40:22-32.
Smith, Daryl G. 1977. "College Classroom Interactions and Critical Thinking." Journal of
Educational Psychology 69: 180-90.
Statham, A., L. Richardson, and lA. Cook. 1991. Gender and university teaching: a negotiated
difference. Albany: SUNY.
Stemglanz, Sarah Hall and Shirley Lyberger-Ficek. 1977. "Sex Differences in Student-Teacher
Interactions in the College Classroom." Sex Roles 3:345-52.
Tannen, Deborah. 1991. You Just Don't Understand: Mean and Women in Conversation. New
York: Ballantine.
Tinto, Vincent. 1987. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures o/Student Attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, Vincent. 1997. "Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of
Student Persistence." The Journal 0/ Higher Education 68:599-623.
Weast, Don. 1996. "Altemative Teaching Strategies: The Case for Critical Thinking."
Teaching Sociology 24: 189-194.
8