Class Reflection on the Student Class Participation

The theories included in the study were the Force-filed theory and Expectancy-value theory. Lewin’s force field analysis describes two main forces; driving and restraining forces (Lewin, 1951). Driving forces are those seeking change whilst restraining forces are those seeking to maintain the status quo (Bozak, 2003). If driving forces exceed that of restraining forces, they will exact change. In the classroom, students are more likely to participate in educational activities where there is some congruence between their perception of themselves, their self-concept and the nature of the education programme/environment.

The expectancy–value theory, is a sub–theory of human motivational theory, specifically a branch of the incentive theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). According to the model, an individual’s decision to pursue something will depend on two main factors. Firstly, expectancy about one’s chances of attaining the incentive and secondly the value on the desired incentive. In the classroom setting with regards to participation, the student’s expectation about the chances of attaining the incentives associated with participation and the value placed on that incentive will motivate participation. Other factors that are likely to affect a student’s decision to participate in class are the perceived cost in time, energy (Eccles&Wigfield, 2002; Stoller & Knobloch, 2005). The expectancy–value theory provides a framework in which to envision how students internalized needs and subsequently madedecisions about participation.

Influential Factors of Student Classroom Participation

Over the years a plethora of researchers have examined the influential factors of students’ classroom participation. The evidence provided by such studies indicate that the factors can be classified as students’ own factors, faculty factors, classroom factors and demographical factors. The effect of these variables is also found to be mixed. For instance, on students related factors earlier studies including Gomez, Arai and Lowe (1995) found that lack of confidence, lack of preparation, fear of appearing unintelligent to their classmates or instructors, and feeling intimidated make students become less inclined to participate. Recent studies seem to have found similar factors. A study by Susak (2016) found that feeling of inadequate in front of otherstudents and language barrier hindered their participation. Moffetet al. (2014) reported that the fear of speaking in public medical classroom as what impede students’ participation. Mustapha, Rahman and Yunus (2010) found lack of preparation, fear ofappearing unintelligent to their classmates or instructors, and feeling intimidated make studentsbecome less inclined to participate.

A study by Abebe and Deneke, (2015) on first year students found being afraid of speaking in front of others in class, lack of preparation before the lecture, shyness, incomprehensible input and fear of making mistakes and being laughed as the factors the affect students’ classroom participation. Khaleghi, (2016) reported that anxiety, lack of confidence, shyness and afraid of making mistakes influence students’ classroom participation. Maite Ruiz (2014) saw feeling scared seemed to be one of the reasons preventing English students from participating in class. In addition to the above, Green (2008) discovered that the knowledge students have on the particular topic, fear of negative evaluation and self-confidence affect teacher trainees classroom participation.

When it comes to faculty factors, Myers and Rocca (2000), Susak (2016), Green (2008), Nunn (1996), Appiah and Agbelevor (2015), Hall and Sandler (1982), Sternglanz and Lyberger Ficek (1977) among others have reported certain attributes associated with faculty to also influence students’ participation. For instance, Tedesco-Schneck (2016) found that classroom participation decreases when the faculty allowed individualization and also did not vary teaching strategies. Also, Abebe and Deneke (2015) found the procedure the teacher used for calling on students creates anxiety in the class and does not encourage their participation. Similarly, findings by Arafat (2012) indicated that students get more anxious when called upon to respond individually, rather than if they are given choice to respond voluntarily. Susak (2016) reported students participate if faculty use it as part of their continues assessment. In addition, types of activities, and teacher’s attitude (Green, 2008) as well as teaching technique (Nunn 1996) have been reported to affect level of students’ discussion. Appiah and Agbelevor (2015), Hall and Sandler (1982) and Sternglanz and Lyberger Ficek (1977) all found contradictory effect of gender of instructors on students’ participation in class.

Regarding classroom factors and classroom participation, studies by Moffet et al., (2014), Susak (2016) and Green (2008) all revealed that smaller classroom size enhances students’ participation since they have more opportunity to share their thoughts. However, Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones, and Piccinin (2003) and Karp and Yoels (1976) failed to find a significant impact of class size. Another classroom factor that influence students’ participation in class is the classroom arrangement (Abebe & Deneke, 2015). Rocca, (2010) found that the physical arrangement of student desks in traditional, forward-facing rows with the professor positioned in the front of the room has been demonstrated to decrease participation. The same study also reported that classes that met weekly and, in the evening, had lower rates of participation. The reason according to Abdullah, Abu Bakar and Mahbob, (2012) is that in the evenings usually feel tired and this may reduce their interest to get actively involved in the classroom. Further, Inderbitzin and Storrs (2008) have cited classroom conditions including alternate seating arrangements, such as a circular or horseshoe configuration, to affect students’ interaction.

The empirical studies have also reported that students’ demographic variables affect their participation in class. For example, in their study, Aziz, Quraishi and Kazi (2018) concluded that males participated more in the class as compared to females. Similarly, Ballen, Danielsen and Jorgensen, (2017) found that the number of volunteer responses attributed to females was significantly lower than their male counterparts. Other studies such Yaylaci and Beauvais (2017), Howard, Zoeller and Pratt, (2006) and Moffet et al., (2014) all reported that female students were less likely to participate in class than men. However, a research by Khalghi (2016) and Howard, James and Taylor (2002) did not find a significant difference in the male and female participation in the classroom.

When it comes to age numerous studies reported that students who were 25 years old and above participated more frequently than students less than 25 years of age (Howard, Short, and Clark, 1996; Howard and Henney, 1998; Howard and Baird, 2000; Howard, James, and Taylor 2002; Jung, Moore, and Parker, 1999). There are others who have found no statistically significant difference between different student age groups their levels of participation (Moffet et al., 2014; Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones and Piccinin 2003). With regards to the level of students and their participation, Moffet et al. (2014) found that there were several differences between semester 1 and semester 6 cohorts, in particular that senior students were more likely to participate in class than their junior counterparts. Fritschner (2000) revealed that students were more likely to participate in 300-400 level courses than in 100-200 level courses.