Have you ever raised your hand in a seminar, completely unprepared, just to snag a participation point? Maybe you hadn’t done the readings, or your brain was still processing last night’s problem set, but there you were, volunteering a vague comment because your grade depended on it.
Participation grades are meant to encourage engagement, but too often they reward showmanship over substance. At Brown, where intellectual curiosity is celebrated, it’s worth asking: Are participation grades really helping anyone learn? As a university invested in untraditional learning, it’s about time professors turn to other forms of assessment and allow students to contribute on their own terms.
On the surface, there’s nothing inherently wrong with grading participation. Professors hope they’ll coax quieter students into speaking, democratize discussion, and hold all students accountable. Innovative tools like Top Hat quizzes, where students answer questions in class for attendance credit, promise to modernize this system.
But the problem remains: extrinsic rewards—points, badges, and gamified apps—cannot guarantee intrinsic motivation. Experts have long warned about the pitfalls of participatory grading. Self-determination theory, developed by psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, asserts that external incentives don’t only leave individuals less fulfilled, they can actually suppress existing intrinsic motivation.
Participation grades compel students to regurgitate course content or paraphrase peers’ remarks for the sole purpose of receiving credit, thereby disincentivizing original analysis and engagement. This kind of reward system, by design, also disproportionately favors students with extroverted personalities, exposing unconscious biases in how instructors perceive class contributions.
Students with the confidence to speak up in class may earn disproportionately high marks, while introverted or neurodivergent students are unfairly disadvantaged. Brown, a university that prides itself on inclusivity, shouldn’t embrace a system that risks reinforcing inequality under the guise of encouraging engagement.
Top Hat quizzes only mask the problem. A student can click through questions for points without engaging with the material, leaving the classroom with high participation yet a limited grasp on the course content. While these tools may create the appearance of interactivity and provide instructors with instant feedback, they often measure compliance rather than cognitive engagement.
If professors continue to liberally adopt these tools, we risk losing the essence of a real intellectual classroom environment. True engagement—the kind that sparks debate, challenges assumptions, and expands thinking—must instead be facilitated by offering multiple avenues for participation that reward thoughtfulness over volume.
Short reflection papers or online discussion boards, for example, would allow students to engage with class material on their own terms. Group projects or peer-led discussions can also provide quieter students with a space to lead without being forced into the spotlight. Even small steps, like acknowledging insightful emails or contributions in office hours, signal how meaningful engagement doesn’t have to be loud or performative.
By valuing curiosity, preparation, and critical thinking over frequency of speech, these alternative approaches create a classroom where every student has a chance to contribute. If we want classes that actually spark intellectual engagement—not just hand-raising—it’s time we stop rewarding noise.
https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/10/azhar-29-participation-grades-cant-buy-curiosity