Predictors of Class Participation within College Students

By Ekim Luo and Kathryn Cassutt, University of Southern California

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between gender, self-esteem, and class participation among college students. Previous literature has shown a gender disparity in class participation and self-esteem and that self-esteem was predictive of class participation. Therefore, we examined self-esteem as a mediator between gender and class participation. Eighty-seven undergraduate students completed a survey that contained the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE) and the Willingness to Communicate Scale (WTC). Linear regression and simple correlation tests were used in statistical analysis. Inconsistent with our hypothesis, gender was not correlated with class participation. Consistent with our hypotheses and previous literature, gender and self-esteem were significantly correlated with females scoring lower on self-esteem than males, and self-esteem and class participation were significantly and positively correlated. In conclusion, gender is not predictive of class participation, but self-esteem emerged as a significant variable correlated with both gender and class participation. Limitations and implications are discussed.

---

Reviewing literature, numerous studies have been done to examine the gender disparity in student engagement. As the 2016 U.S. presidential election has renewed enthusiasm for feminist movements across the country as a push-back to the growing misogyny and misinformation on various gender disparity issues, our study localizes one aspect of such disparity and examines the role of gender in class participation with self-esteem as a potential mediator and attempts to offer an explanation for the existence of this gender divide.

Student engagement is an umbrella term that encompasses several measures. Here, we define student engagement in reference to Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan and Towler’s paper: it is a broad term containing areas of four factors including skills, participation or interaction, emotional and performance (2005). In this study, we focus on class participation as a sub-measure of student engagement. While gender differences in classroom setting has long been studied, these studies tend to have contradictory findings with some confirming an existing gender difference in class participation and some finding no significant results. This could be partially due to the way researchers operationalize and define the variables class participation and gender differently. For example, class participation can be measured through student self-reports as well as professor ratings of students. Various studies have also defined participation in different ways: faculty perceive six levels of participation from students that range from class attendance to giving oral presentations (Fritschner, 2000); participation can be “the number of unsolicited responses volunteered” (Burchfield & Sappington, 1999); participation can be from a few seconds long to a few minutes (Cohen, 1991). Overall, literature has defined participation via mainly “quantitative and overt means” (Rocca, 2010). Rocca also points out that measuring students by their biological sex or their psychological sex contributes to the conflicting results over the years: students who were masculine-oriented tend to ask questions in class more than feminine-oriented students, regardless of their biological sex (2005; Pearson & West, 1991). All of these factors point to the necessity to further examine the role of gender as a predictor of class participation with variables more clearly defined and a possible explanation for the existence or lack of gender differences.

Furthermore, class participation has long been studied as a beneficial factor in various positive outcomes, such as in education and in cognitive capacities. According to Smith, higher class participation leads to higher levels of thinking, promoting students’ abilities to interpret, analyze and synthesize (1977). Higher class participation also promotes group interactions, and a study has found that it leads to better functioning in a democratic society (Armstrong & Boud, 1983; Grigin & Stevens, 2005). Less abstractedly, higher class participation is directly linked to higher grades (Handelsman et al., 2005). However, despite all the positive correlations between class participation and beneficial outcomes, only a few students regularly participate – a phenomenon termed “consolidation of responsibility”, describing the fact that about 90% of class participation measured by interactions were made by only a few students, and only about one-third of the class regularly participate (Karp & Yoels, 1976; Howard & Henny, 1998). This phenomenon also points to the necessity of examining the underlying factors of class participation in order to offer insights on how class participation can be improved.

In this study, we examine the role of gender in class participation. Several factors ranging from seating preferences to the timing of class could affect class participation (Rocca, 2010), but abundant studies have found that gender differences exist in class participation. Four studies that span from the 1970s to the 2000s have found that male college students participate more than female students in class (Crawford & MacLeod, 1990; Crombie et al., 2003; Peters, 1978; Sternglanz & Lyberger-Ficek, 1977), and another study found that males saw their own participation as more valuable than that of females’ (Wade, 1994). Furthermore, Tannen suggested that this gender difference may be attributed to the fact that males have had experience in class participation throughout their education while females tend to have less practice in this arena (1992). While there are contradictory findings to the results mentioned above, Rocca suggested this may be due to the different operationalization of gender in different studies (2010). However, there is still ample evidence, regardless of the operationalization of gender, that suggest a gender divide in class participation.

Several factors may contribute to this gender disparity. For example, the gender of the professor has been shown to contribute to class participation. According to Karp and Yoels, males were more likely to participate in classes taught by male professors (1976). A landmark study done by Sandler and Hall examining the “chilly climate” for women in education settings attempted to offer an explanation: they claimed that professors communicated differently with their students based on gender (1986). This study was later reviewed by Williams, who confirmed that female students participated more in classes taught by female professors (1990). These findings could be explained by the fact that female professors tended to engage both genders more than male professors did (Crawford & MacLeod, 1990).

A possible explanation for why females, when encouraged by female professors to engage more, tend to have higher class participation is that encouragement from professors boosted the self-esteem of females. In fact, there is ample evidence that points to a deep gender disparity in self-esteem with females on the lower side of the spectrum. As Rocca points out, if females think less highly of themselves than males, it makes sense that they would participate in class less (2010). Additionally, several studies converge on the results that confidence is the most motivating factor for class participation (Armstrong & Boud, 1983; Wade, 1994; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Furthermore, student confidence has been found to be the largest predictor of class participation (Fassinger, 1996). As a related measure, self-esteem has also been found to affect class participation regardless of its operationalization. Studies have found that self-esteem, either in general or specific to academic self-esteem in class, is linked to class participation, as high self-esteem seems predicative of more class participation. (Morrison & Thomas, 1975; Williams, 1971). In other words, if females have lower self-esteem than males, it is not at all surprising that female college students would participate less in class. In fact, a meta-analysis has found that males scored higher on standard measures of global self-esteem than females, and the largest effect peaked in late adolescence, right around college age (Kling et al., 1999). Evidently, gender differences seem to correlate with levels of class participation through the effects of self-esteem.

Given that this topic has not been thoroughly examined and could be particularly useful in providing insights on the current political climate as well as feminist literature in a scientific context, we explore the question of whether gender differences in class participation exist, and whether self-esteem plays a role in this gender disparity. First, we hypothesize that is that gender is correlated with self-esteem, and males would score higher on self-esteem than females. Second, we hypothesize that gender is predicative of class participation, with males participating more and females less. Third, we hypothesize that self-esteem is positively correlated with class participation. Therefore, this study examines the mediating role of self-esteem in the correlation between gender differences and class participation.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 87 college students enrolled at the University of Southern California. Ages ranged from 18 to 23 years. Women made up 54% of the sample (n=47) while males made up 46% of the sample (n=40). 65.6% of the participants were caucasians, 25.3% were Asians, and 16.1% also identified with other ethnicities. Participants were recruited through emails and are primarily students in psychology and philosophy classes or associated with a college sorority. Convenience sampling was used as participants were either peers of authors or referred by those peers.

Procedure

Participants were given a link to a Qualtrics survey that contained three parts. The first part asked for their gender identification with the options “male” or “female”. The second part of the survey contained the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE), a 10-item scale that measures self-esteem. The third part of the survey consisted of the Willingness to Communicate Scale (WTC), a 20-item scale predictive of class participation. At the beginning of the survey, participants were instructed to remove themselves from distractions and focus on the questions in a solitary setting such as an empty room for the duration of the survey. A digital consent form is attached following the instructions. Upon completion of the survey, participants were debriefed about the nature of the study. No deception was involved.

Materials

The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE). The RSE is a 10-item, reliable and valid measure of global self-esteem, widely used and empirically validated (Robins, Hendin & Trzesniewski, 2001). It has an internal consistency of 0.77 and a minimum Coefficient of Reproducibility of at least 0.90 (Rosenberg, 1965). For instance, item 1 states that “on the whole, I am satisfied with myself” with scores ranging from 1 to 4, 1 being strongly agree and 4 being strongly disagree. The RSE is a Guttman scale and requires a dynamic approach to scoring (Robins, Hendin & Trzeniewski, 2001). On items 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, “disagree” or “strongly disagree” point to low self-esteem responses. On items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, “strongly agree” or “agree” point to low self-esteem. Therefore, the scale is scored by summing up each individual item after reverse-scoring the negatively worded items, consistent with Ciarrochi and Bilich’s method (2006).

The Willingness to Communicate Scale (WTC). The WTC is a 20-item scale that measures the most basic orientation toward orientation, or a person’s willingness to initiate communication (McCrosky & Richmond, 2013). It has a strong face validity, and extensive research has reflected its predictive validity. Additionally, its Cronbach’s Alpha ranges from 0.85 to above 0.90 (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). It depicts various scenarios a person may encounter and reflects their orientation to communication. For example, item 1 states “talk with a service station attendant” with the option of choosing any number between 0 and 100 to indicate the percentage of time the respondent chooses to communicate, 0 being never and 100 being always. Chan and McCroskey found that undergraduate students who scored high on the WTC also participated significantly more frequently in class, which is consistent with existing literature on class participation suggesting that class participation is mostly a function of a student’s orientation toward communication and not just dependent on types of situations (Chan & McCroskey, 1987). Therefore, it is used in the current study as a measure predictive of class participation. The WTC can be scored based on four context-type and two receiver-type sub-scores. In the current study, the total WTC scores is calculated by adding up both context-type and receiver-type scores of participants, and dividing the sum scores by twenty per number of questions on the scale. Therefore, it is reflective of participants’ average score on the WTC scale. This averaging method is also consistent with Richmond and McCroskey’s suggestions on scoring WTC results (2013).

Results

To analyze the three variables, these statistical analyses were conducted: linear regression analyses between gender and self-esteem, gender and class participation, and self-esteem and class participation. Additionally, an additive model with gender and self-esteem as predictor variables and class participation as the outcome variable was conducted.

The following reports on the results of linear regression correlations between variables. First, gender and self-esteem are correlated and this correlation is statistically significant (p=0.042). Specifically, being female is negatively correlated with self-esteem (r=-1.9165). Moreover, gender accounts for 4.757% of the variance in self-esteem (F=4.245, r2=0.04757). Therefore, the first hypothesis regarding the correlation between gender and self-esteem is supported. Second, the correlation between gender and class participation is not statistically significant (p=0.244). This suggests that being female is not predictive of class participation. However, the correlation suggests a possible trend that being female is negatively correlated with class participation (r=-4.253). Moreover, gender accounts for 1.595% of the variance in class participation (F=1.378, r2=0.01595). Therefore, the second hypothesis regarding gender and class participation is not supported. Third, self-esteem is positively correlated with class participation, and this correlation is statistically significant (r=1.747, p=0.000009124). Moreover, self-esteem accounts for 20.78% of the variance in class participation (F=22.3, r2=0.2078). Therefore, the third hypothesis regarding self-esteem and class participation is supported.

An additive model with gender and self-esteem as predictor variables and class participation as the outcome variable find that the relationship between gender and class participation, while remains negatively correlated, is still not significant (r=-0.950, p=0.777). The relationship between self-esteem and class participation remains positively correlated and statistically significant (r=1.723, p=0.00002). However, the strength of correlation between self-esteem and class participation slightly weakens in the additive model compared to linear regression between the two variables. Overall, gender and self-esteem account for 20.86% of the variance in class participation (R2=0.2086). The model itself is significant (F=11.07, p=0.00005414). Therefore, the first and third hypotheses regarding the relationships between gender and self-esteem, self-esteem and class participation are supported, while our primary relationship of interest regarding gender and class participation, outlined in the second hypothesis, is not supported.

While self-esteem does not seem to mediate the relationship between gender and class participation, a plot (figure 1) exhibiting the relationship between self-esteem (RSE) and class participation (WTC) at two levels of gender (male=0, female=1) show a positive correlation between self-esteem and class participation, and the strength of this relationship changes depending on the level of gender. Specifically, this positive correlation between self-esteem and class participation is stronger for males than for females.

Figure 1

Discussion

The results show that gender is not predictive of class participation, the primary relationship of interest in the current study. Thus, the second hypothesis is not supported. However, linear regression analysis showed a significant positive correlation between self-esteem and class participation, suggesting that high self-esteem predicts high class participation. Analyses also showed a significant negative correlation between gender and self-esteem, suggesting that females tend to have lower self-esteem. These analyses suggest the the first and third hypotheses are supported, and self-esteem is associated with gender and class participation. To examine the mediating effect of self-esteem, an additive model is conducted. However, the addition of self-esteem does not appear to alter the statistical significance of gender in predicting class participation. Therefore, the current study find that gender does not predict class participation, and self-esteem is not a mediator.

However, self-esteem being a significant predictor of class participation, and gender in turn being a significant predictor of self-esteem, suggest a few implications. Class participation is predictive of various positive cognitive, behavioral and social outcomes (e.g. Smith, 1977; Berdine). Moreover, class participation is beneficial to both professors’ teaching and students’ learning (Fassinger, 1995). While the current study finds results inconsistent with prior research on gender and class participation, specifically, that females tend to participate less in academic settings, it confirms prior research findings on the positive correlation between self-esteem and class participation. Therefore, the current study contributes to the overarching theme that self-esteem is crucial in class participation, and instructors may benefit from taking into account the nuances that may contribute to the varying levels of student engagement in class. Our second and third hypotheses were supported.

Several limitations of the study may contribute to our results. First, the WTC, while found to be predictive of class participation in previous research, is primarily designed to measure class participation in philosophy, math and geography classes (Chan & McCroskey, 1987). While many of our participants were recruited through a philosophy class, many came from other backgrounds and classes. Second, research has shown inconsistent findings on gender differences in self-esteem, partly due to the different operationalizations of self-esteem in literature. Notably, global self-esteem does not equate specific self-esteem, and the two reflect and predict strikingly different concepts and outcomes (Rosenberg, 1995). In fact, academic self-esteem belongs to a subset of specific self-esteem and has different correlates as global self-esteem. Specifically, global self-esteem reflects the psychological and more abstract aspects while specific self-esteem pertains to the more behavioral and cognitive outcomes that require judgement (Rosenberg, 1995). In the current study, the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used, which reflects global self-esteem and not specific to academic self-esteem. This may yield different outcomes as there may not be gender differences in academic self-esteem.

Finally, all participants were USC students. The use of convenience sampling means our study has low external validity and may not be generalizable outside of our participants. Future studies may improve upon the above limitations and explore the significance and implications of class participation in educational and long-term outcomes, which may contribute to educational policy interventions in maximizing positive academic outcomes for all genders.

---

References

Armstrong, M., & Boud, D. (1983). Assessing participation in discussion: An exploration of the issues. Studies in Higher Education, 8(1), 33-44.

Auster, C. J., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical study of the effects of faculty members' behavior on students' participation. Teaching sociology, 289-300.

Austin, J. R. (1990). The relationship of music self-esteem to degree of participation in school and out-of-school music activities among upper-elementary students. Contributions to Music Education, 20-31.

Berdine, R. (1986). Why some students fail to participate in class. Marketing News, 20(15), 23-24.

Buckley, S. (2016). Gender and sex differences in student participation, achievement and engagement in mathematics.

Burchfield, C. M., & Sappington, J. (1999). Participation in classroom discussion. Teaching of Psychology.

Caspi, A., Chajut, E., & Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discussions: Gender differences. Computers & Education, 50(3), 718-724.

Chan, B., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The WTC scale as a predictor of classroom participation. Communication Research Reports, 4(2), 47-50.

Ciarrochi, J., & Bilich, L. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.

Cohen, M. (1991). Making class participation a reality. PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(4), 699-703.

Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23(3-4), 101-122.

Crombie, G., Pyke, S. W., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A., & Piccinin, S. (2003). Students' perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and

context. The journal of higher education, 74(1), 51-76.

Dancer, D., & Kamvounias, P. (2005). Student involvement in assessment: A project designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 445-454.

Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students' and professors' contributions to students' silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82-96.

Fassinger, P. A. (1996). Professors' and students' perceptions of why students participate in class. Teaching sociology, 25-33.

Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and students differ on the meaning of student participation. The journal of higher education, 71(3), 342-362.

Girgin*, K. Z., & Stevens, D. D. (2005). Bridging in‐class participation with innovative instruction: use and implications in a Turkish university classroom. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 93-106.

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192.

Harper, S. R., Carini, R. M., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2004). Gender differences in student engagement among African American undergraduates at historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 271-284.

Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.

Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology & Social Research.

Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 125(4), 470.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16-25.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2013). Willingness to communicate (WTC). Measurement instrument database for the social science.

Morrison, T. L., & Duane Thomas, M. (1975). Self-Esteem and Classroom Participation1. The Journal of Educational Research, 68(10), 374-377.

Pearson, J. C., & West, R. (1991). An initial investigation of the effects of gender on student questions in the classroom: Developing a descriptive base. Communication Education, 40(1), 22-32.

Peters, R. A. (1978). Effects of anxiety, curiosity, and perceived instructor threat on student verbal behavior in the college classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 388.

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 27(2), 151-161.

Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication education, 59(2), 185-213.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American sociological review, 141-156.

Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty, administrators, and graduate students.

Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 180.

Sternglanz, S. H., & Lyberger-Ficek, S. (1977). Sex differences in student—teacher interactions in the college classroom. Sex Roles, 3(4), 345-352.

Tannen, D. (1992). How men and women use language differently in their lives and in the classroom. The Education Digest, 57(6), 3.

Wade, R. C. (1994). Teacher education students' views on class discussion: Implications for fostering critical reflection. Teaching and teacher education, 10(2), 231-243.

Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601.

Williams, D. (1990). Is the Post-Secondary Classroom a Chilly One for Women? A Review of the Literature. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 20(3), 29-42.

Williams, R. L. (1971). Relationship of class participation to personality, ability, and achievement variables. The Journal of Social Psychology, 83(2), 193-198.