What are the ethical considerations regarding mandatory class participation?

Question

When I teach, I rely heavily on interactive methods. I don't know how else I can teach. In my experience teaching both (in-person) undergraduate courses and graduate seminars, I've encountered a new kind of situation that's becoming more and more common: I had many students showing strong resistance to verbal participation in class, even when gently encouraged.

Over the past two years, this has escalated to the point where four students have filed formal complaints, specifically citing discomfort with being called on directly in class and claiming a "right to not speak".

While I understand some students may feel anxious about speaking up, I worry that complete silence defeats the whole purpose of in-person learning. Indeed, I think the idea of "right to not speak" will be laughed at just 10~20 year ago. But maybe the cultural norm as changed...

My question is: Now, is it still ethically okay to require in-class participation? Or is there any new ethical issues we should consider?

---

Note: I'm not asking about any specific university's policy. I'm quite familiar with my own university's guidelines. I'm asking more about the current cultural norm.

Answer 1

I think it's reasonable to treat being able to participate verbally in a classroom environment as a learnable skill, and therefore the learning goals of a course that's part of a broad foundational education can include training that skill. Of course, some students may come into your course in different places or be less comfortable with learning that skill, and I think it's important to use strategies that make it smoother for students and to recognize that diversity.

I would make your expectations for participation clear in your syllabus. If students are unable to participate verbally in class, I think they need to have that documented through the relevant office at your institution at the start of your course (if no such office exists, I think there's a broader question about what to do in these cases). An accommodation might instead direct those students to write questions about the course content after class or respond to a prompt.

For everyone else, think carefully about how you are using participation and how it aligns with your learning goals for the course. If you expect students to respond individually "on the fly" some will end up spending more mental effort worrying about being called on rather than digesting what you are saying. Think about ways to facilitate participation and ease stress.

You might create groups (as small as 2) with a rotating spokesperson, where the group first discusses an answer in a smaller setting before someone reports to the group.

You might solicit brief answers from several students in succession to put less emphasis on any individual student's answer.

You might integrate electronic communication in your classroom to allow responses to some prompts anonymously.

You might create opportunities for participation where students who choose to can plan ahead, like ending one lecture with a series of questions and asking students to report at the beginning of the next class.

I would also avoid using class participation as a punishment for a student being distracted and avoid trick questions.

Lastly, if participation is important to you, I think it's worth spending some time explaining that to students and giving them an opportunity to understand your own goals and strategies. You can spell out specific techniques and strategies you plan to use along with tips to meet your expectations, they don't need to be secrets.

Answer 2

What are the ethical considerations regarding mandatory class participation?

There are no ethical considerations specifically with requiring students to speak in class, when such requirements are made in a sensible, thoughtful way that advances the educational goals of the class and complies with institutional policy. For example, many classes require students to give oral presentations, and demonstrating the ability to give such presentations may in fact be a degree requirement in some places. When making such requirements, instructors need to comply with relevant guidelines, such as:

For all oral presentations, students must receive clear, written guidelines for completing each assignment and they must receive written feedback from the instructor on their presentations. Clear criteria for evaluation must be established.

That being said, it's certainly possible to come up with in-class participation requirements that would be neither sensible nor thoughtful, and would not advance the educational goals of the class. In an extreme example, you might end up looking like an instructor who is abusing his authority by using his class to force the students to develop skills that are completely unrelated to the course topic, similarly to this professor. In a situation like this, yes, your behavior would be ethically (and practically, legally, etc) problematic.

As for whether there are any issues with the particular way in which you approach requiring students to participate, I don't think you've given us enough information to determine that. But when you say things like "I don't know how else I can teach", I do have a concern that you may be making some demands of your students that lie outside the norm of what is considered reasonable or acceptable. If you add more details about what you're asking of the students, maybe we can comment more on that.

Answer 3

I think students have a right not to be embarrassed in front of their peers. For some, say the neurodivergent, it may go (far) beyond that. Even in the more typical case, not every student is immediately ready to answer questions in public based on things they might be a bit behind on.

That doesn't mean that they have a right not to be called on, but it probably does include the right to decline with something like "Sorry, nothing to add."

But the way you phrase it and the pushback you are getting seems like you are using this as a stick. Perhaps you can turn it in to a carrot. If you can reward participation, more will be likely to participate, though not everyone. But a few points toward the grade for such things can be helpful, both in promoting participation and in pushing preparation. And, if you can encourage rather than require, some may become more comfortable with this.

I was once in an undergraduate class in which each student had to give actual lectures on the material a few times. But we were given a topic and a future date on which to give the lecture so we could prepare. It was a terrifying experience, but it taught us something and the professor, being present, kept things positive, even when we introverts were up there sweating.

One rule to keep in mind in such things is that your students aren't all alike and they learn differently. Respect that. They are also, most likely not like you unless this is a doctoral level class. In particular, some people, even some famous professionals, require time to think before answering questions. That isn't normally an option in the scenario you describe.

I would also suggest making it clear in the syllabus that the nature of the class has a participation element and the students will be asked questions as individuals. But make opt-out a possibility. And, of course, comply with special needs.

As for the face to face nature of in person classes, it is also, maybe primarily, so that students can ask questions, especially when the presentation isn't as clear as it might be. I was once fairly famous among my peers for the frequent questions I asked (and fairly infamous with my mom for the same reason).

See this post for more on the "few points" idea above. It is part of the practice of "cumulative grading".

Answer 4

I think any situation in which you are making people do something they do not want to do has ethical considerations, and in this case there is also a clear differential in the impact on different students. More anxious students may find the experience much more harrowing that others, for example. In any such situation it is right to consider the impact on your students, and whether that impact is justified.

Whether it is ethically justified depends on whether it provides sufficient benefits to offset the impact on students. As I understand it - and I should say this is not an area I'm any kind of expert on - the research is very clear that your approach of mandatory participation improves learning and even increases the likelihood that students will ask questions in class and become more comfortable with class discussion. It also seems clear to me that becoming comfortable with answering questions on the spot is itself a valuable life skill. By my judgement such benefits are a clear ethical justification for any discomfort the students feel, YMMV.

There is also research into the best and worst ways to manage "cold calling" (as it is referred to in the literature) and if you are using this technique then I think that it is appropriate to learn from this best practice knowledge. I won't pretend to have sufficient grasp myself to tell you what that is.

---

Obviously, none of the above applies in the situation where you have a student with a diagnosed condition excusing them from such participation which has been recognised through whatever system your university has for managing such things.