Grading on an Introverted Curve

Caroline Blake, Opinion

June 23, 2024

As I scanned my sixth-grade English course’s grading rubric, my eyes fell to the bottom of the page. There, bolded in bright red letters, was my participation grade: NON-PROFICIENT. From that day on, I tried to work up the courage to raise my hand in class, but every time, I felt my stomach turn, lowered my hand, and kept quiet. 

As a shy middle school student, I found my school’s discussion-based curriculum damaging to my academic success. I crammed my nights with homework over-analysis to plan what I might say in class; however, my understanding of texts narrowed as I prioritized getting a word in over making thought-provoking contributions. After all, for most of my teachers, participation relied solely on speaking in class, a concept that, to me, never fully reflected my academic engagement, but has unfortunately been an integral part of my education and followed me to high school. 

In many American schools, teachers grade participation. Depending on a student’s personality, that grade may not prove problematic; in fact, some may consider it an “easy A.” But for the 30 to 50 percent of the nation’s population that identifies as “introverted,” that assessment can be the difference in an overall letter grade. To benefit those introverted students, schools should redefine participation to avoid penalizing students with quieter personalities. 

Class participation grading affects students ranging from elementary to graduate school. According to a study by Polly Fassigner, an associate professor in sociology at Concordia College, the factors that most impacted college students’ in-class speaking levels came down to class size and “confidence.” To measure this confidence, Fassigner used a scale of student-selected statements, including “I cannot organize my thoughts clearly” and “I feel too tense to participate.” If college students’ low self-esteems cause them to hesitate in class, just imagine how younger students, still growing into themselves, may feel.

Along with its negative implications for more reserved, less “confident” students, participation grading is subject to teachers’ biases. As a novice high school teacher, James Lang, now an English professor at Assumption University in Worcester, allotted 10 percent of his students’ final grades to participation. However, after realizing that keeping track of students’ participation rates was challenging and susceptible to favoritism when he relied only on his recollection, Lang quit his participation-grading practice to minimize bias in the classroom.

Then there’s the issue of the quality of a student’s participation. Introverted students often process information internally, taking time to formulate their ideas and thus arguably contributing more thoughtfully than other, more vocal students. How is a teacher supposed to measure the difference between an introvert who makes one comment that changes the class’s perception and an extrovert who makes ten comments agreeing with everyone else? 

Many may argue that participation grading helps students learn to articulate their thoughts in class and the real world. While I think this perspective stems from a positive intention of wanting kids to “come out of their shells,” reducing participation to students’ ability to vocalize thoughts underestimates their engagement in other aspects of class—plus the many real-world jobs that don’t rely solely upon verbosity.

 Others argue that altering participation grading eliminates students’ incentive to speak up. However, a study by Lolita Paff, a professor at Penn State Berks, found that only 43 percent of students agreed with the statement, “I participate more in classes when participation is graded.” I’d argue further that when participation is graded less harshly, students participate more actively, taking time to think more deeply about material. 

In order to benefit students less inclined to participate in class, schools should not eliminate participation grading completely but rather make it more inclusive, redistributing the 10 to 20 percent of a student’s grade that usually accounts for participation.    

As Susan Cain outlines in her best-selling, critically acclaimed book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in A World That Can't Stop Talking,” there are numerous ways educators can better include their introverted students and assess their contributions to class. Cain’s advice for educators to “broaden the notion of what constitutes participation” summarizes her suggestions. I propose that we achieve this goal by adopting the following changes. First, teachers should examine a student’s engagement level on a scale ranging from always, usually, sometimes, or rarely. It’s pretty clear to a teacher whether a student is paying attention or daydreaming. Then there’s discussion, the supposed peak of participation. Discussion can be divided into various group sizes and modes including digital or journal participation, an alteration that relieves pressure from large group discussions and makes quieter students more comfortable sharing their thoughts. Finally, all educators should refocus on the quality of students’ contributions rather than simply the quantity, encouraging introverted and extroverted students alike to think critically and actually invest in the discussion instead of shying away from or hogging airtime. 

These adjustments could transform the overall school experience for introverted students who have long struggled with the traditional grading of class participation. As things stand, nothing’s changed—probably because we’ve had trouble speaking up.