When I was growing up, a significant amount of my identity was wrapped up in my intellectual ability. I exceled in school, and made a name for myself or perhaps simply painted a target on my back for bullies. At any rate, I raised my hand often and usually pretty quickly after being prompted. Teachers knew to expect a good answer from me, and even implemented the phrase "let's hear from someone else first" that I now implement in class with an all-too-eager student. I sat in the front of the classroom and made sure I had the teacher's attention.
Some of you may relate to this story, whereas others may have quite the opposite tale to tell. Research has consistently supported the fact that boys, and in particular white boys, are more likely to raise their hand in class, even when they are less sure of the answer. Girls, and minority students, on the other hand, are far less likely to participate, and often wait until they are certain of the answer before raising their hand to participate.
From a cognitive standpoint, it makes sense to push the buzzer before you are certain of the answer, and then allow your brain that brief moment before being called on to recall the answer. Unfortunately, that cognitive strategy doesn't take into account the gender and racial stereotypes that influence behavior beginning at a very early age, and last all throughout life. It also doesn't take into account the cognitive biases that cause us to judge some people more harshly than others, often based on our affiliation with them.
Discussion and participation have been pedagogical strategies since Socrates pioneered the dialogue-centered approach to teaching. John Dewey's calls for cooperative learning around the turn of the 20th century are well known and influenced a great degree of learning theory today. However, research also shows that there has been a sharp rise in the implementation of discussion and participation as pedagogical tools in the last 50 years. Paulo Freire 's problem-posing method of teaching motivated many a researcher and teacher educator to focus increased attention on the benefits of class discussion.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that class participation does have benefits to student learning. Students are given a voice and an opportunity to express their own beliefs on a given topic, which can lead to the internalization of the lesson being taught. Research also shows the benefits of discussion for providing students with the tools to engage as adults later in life. This is in part why we no doubt see the same participation patterns unfold in the boardroom as we do in the classroom. That participation discrepancy has real world implications for who gets coveted assignments, who gains respect from colleagues and supervisors, and who gets raises and promotions.
The louder you are, the more attention and accolades you often receive. If it was as easy as recognizing this and playing the game, then all of the calls to teach girls to raise their hands more would probably be the solution. However, it doesn't take into account the increased consequences of being wrong that women and people of color face when deciding whether or not to raise their hands. Errors or poorly reasoned responses are much more likely to be seen as deeply embedded character flaws and influence future perceptions of them than is true for their white male counterparts. This is the power of privilege at work.
So, before we suggest that the answer is simply more involvement, we might want to question what additional risks exist in the environment for being wrong. When we can begin to think through those perspectives, we can begin to adjust our behavior, whether it's our pedagogy or our meeting facilitation. It's one thing to tell folks to push the buzzer quicker, but we also need to make sure the conditions are such that others will listen when they open their mouth, and give them a fair assessment afterwards.
