PROMOTING CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION OF WEAKENED STUDENTS (A CASE

STUDY ON FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS)

Names of candidates Signature

1. Bawoke Simachew __________
2. Adane Getachew __________
3. Alemneh Bezuayehu __________
4. Liulsged Epherem __________

An Action Research paper Submitted to Wolaita Sodo university higher diploma program
(HDP) coordination office in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the award of
higher diploma certificate.

Wolaita Sodo University

School of Education and Behavioral Science

Higher diploma program office

June 17, 2020

Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

1|Page
Table of contents
Contents Page

CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................2

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................................3

1.3. Research questions................................................................................................................4

1.4. Objective of the study...........................................................................................................4

1.3.1. General Objectives.............................................................................................................4

1.3.2. Specific Objectives............................................................................................................4

1.5 significance of the study............................................................................................................4

1.6 scope of the study......................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................................5

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......................................................................................5

2.1 Definition and Meaning of Participation...................................................................................5

2.2. Benefits of Class Participation...............................................................................................7

2.3. Reasons Students Do or Do Not Participate in Class...........................................................7

2.3.1. Logistic..................................................................................................................................7

2.3.2. Confidence and Classroom Apprehension.............................................................................9

2.3.3 Personality Traits..................................................................................................................9

2.4. Impact of the Instructor and Classroom Climate................................................................10

2.5. Methods of encouraging student participation.......................................................................11

CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................13

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................13

2|Page
3.1. Research Design.................................................................................................................13

3.2. Target Population................................................................................................................13

3.3. Sampling technique and Sample size.................................................................................13

3.4. Data type and Sources............................................................................................................13

3.7. Method of Data Analysis and presentation.............................................................................14

Time Schedule...............................................................................................................................15

References......................................................................................................................................16

3|Page
 CHAPTER ONE

This chapter provides introductory information about the study. It presents background of the
study, statement of the problem, research questions, objective of the study, and significance of
the study, scope and limitation of the study.

1.1 Introduction
In recent years the higher education community has confronted the challenges of globalization
not only in terms of globalization’s impact on subject matter taught within the disciplines, but
also with respect to broader implications for pedagogy. Many revolutionary changes are
occurring in our world today. The globalization of society, multicultural diversity, new economic
systems, the information revolution, genetic engineering, the struggle for female equality and
freedom…are just a few. All are significant. But no less significant is the way people learn how
they are educated, and how they use their educations to improve the human condition (Airasian,
2001).
In the efforts of developing the socio-economic and cultural status of a nation, education is
expecting to play several key roles. Thus in modern society education is increasingly viewed as
the primary means of solving social, economic and political problems. The future welfare of
nations has been place on the shoulder of higher institution especially on universities. However,
it is impossible to think the quality of education without having a scientific and systematic way
of teaching and learning process.

Many academics consider class participation evidence of active learning or engagement that
benefits learning, critical thinking, writing, appreciation of cultural differences, time engineering
and interpersonal, listening and speaking skills (Howard & Hennery 1998; Peterson 2002;
Petress 2006). Modular curriculum stipulates that class participation in course syllabus as a
responsibility that students are expected to perform, whether participation is graded or ungraded.
With the shift from a predominately instructive to constructivist pedagogy the need for tertiary
educators to use a variety of teaching strategies and methods is becoming increasingly important.
Learning designs need to incorporate student-centered team based learning pedagogy such as
project-based, case-based, inquiry-based and problem-based scenarios (Oliver, 2001). Students
need to be immersed in learning environments that promote real learning in real contexts. Groups
4|Page
and group work help to promote deep learning that occurs through interaction, problem solving,
dialogue, cooperation, and collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 1995).
As it has been indicated in Van Offenbeek (2001), there are, of course, always potential
problems and difficulties of working with groups in an educational setting. It is quite usual for
students to dislike some aspects of group work. They may feel frustrated because less effective
group members are reducing individual effort. Alternatively, there may be uncomfortable peer
pressure to work harder or to meet deadlines etc.

Besides these factors, teachers tend to have lower expectations for weakened students and this
attribute to the disparity between male and weakened students in group work. What the teachers
believe about weakened students is that they are low achiever and low participant. This can
influence the participation of students in the class activity. This poor participation of weakened
students in group work is the common problem observed First Year engineering students in
Wolita Sodo University. Thus, this study will be initiated to identify root causes of this real
problem and to give immediate remedial solutions.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Classroom participation is a feature of many course designs. It can result in insightful comments
and interesting connections being made by students and can foster a high level of energy and
enthusiasm in the classroom learning environment. However, poorly managed participation can
also lead to instructor frustration and student confusion. 

weakened student’s participation in the class room was very low when compared to male
student’s participation in the class due. Low student participation leads to restricting their
educational and career options. It also led disparity in interest, abilities, and income.

The way we teach in class and preparation of the teachers are also the main thing for the
successfulness of the students and the reverse is true which creates students’ anxiety. Teaching
and learning styles, syllabi and examination structures can account for an increase in class
anxiety and result in a consequent lack of confidence. Thus, much of this anxiety happens in the
classroom due to the teachers’ lack of consideration of different teaching styles for students.
Generally, Class anxiety is therefore one of the major factors that limit the participation of
weakened in class.
5|Page
Therefore, the study assessed the cause of weakened student’s low participation in group active
or cooperative learning and to develop measure to be undertaken to alleviate the above stated
problems.

1.3. Research questions

Generally the study was guided by the following research questions
1. What are the factors that limit weakened student’s participation in the classroom?
2. What is the effect low participation on the achievement of weakened students?
3. How classroom participation of weakened student can be increased?

1.4. Objective of the study

1.3.1. General Objectives
The General objective of this study was to promote effective classroom participation of first year
engineering students

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

In light of the general objective the study have the following specific objectives

1. To identify the factors that limit weakened student’s participation in a group work
2. To find out effects of low weakened students participation on their achievements
3. To develop measures to be undertaken to improve first year weakened student’s
participation in a group work or cooperative learning

1.5 significance of the study

After successful completion, this study will have several contributions for the staffs and students
of Wolaita Sodo University particularly for the engineering staffs and students in a way that the
study will helps both the teachers and students who are participating in the process of teaching-
learning methods to have a better understanding and deeper insights about their roles in
implementing active learning methods or students centered approach. Such understanding
enables them to effectively and efficiently identify the factors that contributed to poor or low
participation of the students. Moreover, it may also help the teachers to collect information about

6|Page
the problems and to take relevant remedies to improve and facilitate the active learning activity
to which it paves the way students can learn at their own pace.

1.6 scope of the study

The study will be delimited geographically, conceptually, methodologically and time horizon.
Geographically, the study delimited to Wolaita Sodo University, college of engineering first
year students.

Conceptually, the study focused on student participation only in the class room like asking and
answering questions and actively engage in group discussion hence, student participation outside
the class room are not the out of the study.

Methodologically, the study was descriptive type of research. Moreover, the study will employ
cross sectional research design.

Timely: the study completed within the period between January 25, to June 16, 2020.

7|Page
 CHAPTER TWO

This chapter provides theoretical foundation of the study. The chapter presents a summary of
definitions, assumptions and major concepts regarding student participation.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Definition and Meaning of Participation

Participation usually means students speaking in class: answer and ask questions, make
comments, and join in discussions. Students who do not participate in those ways mentioned
above are often considered to be passive and are generally penalized when participation is graded
(Jacob & chase, 1992).
Though professors all tend to recognize ‘‘class participation,’’ and many use it in calculating
students’ grades, what may or may not be counted as ‘‘participation’’ varies slightly with
individual instructors and researchers. Participation can be seen as an active engagement process
which can be sorted into five categories: preparation, contribution to d i s c u s s i o n , group
s k i l l s , communication skills, and a t t e n d a n c e (Dancer & Kamvounias, 2005). It also has
been shown that faculty perceives six levels of participation from students, moving from
simply attending class through giving oral presentations (Fritschner, 2000). Participation also
has been defined as ‘‘the number o f unsolicited responses volunteered’’ (Burchfield &
Sappington, 1999, p. 290). It can come in many different forms, including students’ questions
and comments (Fassinger, 1995b), and it can take a few seconds or an extended period of time
(Cohen, 1991). Wade (1994) considered the ‘‘ideal class discussion’’ as one in which almost all
students participate and are interested, learning, and listening to others’ comments and
suggestions (p. 237). It seems that researchers and instructors favor these mainly quantitative
and overt means of defining participation. Though the quality of student participation is
likely as important, it is also much more subjective and presents more of a measurement
challenge.
Several authors have proposed specific ways to measure participation. Melvin (1988) and
Melvin and Lord (1995) suggested having both students and professors evaluate participation,
a n d Melvin (1988) found that those ratings were quite similar to each other. In three other
8|Page
studies, however, it was found that students rated themselves higher t h a n their p r o f e s s o r s
did ( Burchfield & Sappington, 1 9 9 9 ; Dancer & Kamvounias, 2005; Gopinath, 1999); peers
also evaluated one another’s participation higher than the professor did (Gopinath, 1999).

In class measurement of participation can either be recorded each day in class (which may
interfere with the chemistry of the class or the instruction), or by waiting until the end of the
semester (which can be problematic because of the reliance on memory and the increased
likelihood of biases; Armstrong & Boud, 1983). Thus, the authors suggested recording
participation at every other class meeting but not to tell the students when they would be
assessed. Another possibility is to have individuals other than the instructor assess
participation, including outside observers, peers (though they may be biased), or tutors in
that subject (Armstrong & Boud, 1983) whose ratings of student participation are highly
correlated with those of professors (Burchfield & Sappington, 1999). The fact that researchers
have similar but slightly different definitions of participation and its measurement should be
kept in mind while reading this manuscript, but the operational definition used here for article
inclusion is ‘‘in-class student participation,’’ which consists of asking questions, raising one’s
hand, and making comments.

2.2. Benefits of Class Participation

There is strong evidence for the importance of participating in class (Lyons, 1989; Petress,
2006; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Participation is a way to bring ‘‘students actively into the
educational process’’ and to assist in ‘‘enhancing our teaching and bringing life to the
classroom’’ (Cohen, 1991, p. 699). Students are more motivated (Junn, 1994), learn better
(Daggett, 1997; Garard, Hunt, Lippert, & Paynton, 1998; Weaver & Qi, 2005), become better
critical thinkers (Crone, 1997; Garside, 1996), and have self- reported gains in character (Kuh
& Umbach, 2004) when they are prepared for class and participate in discussions. The more
they participate, the less memorization they do, and the more they engage in higher levels of
thinking, including interpretation, analysis, and synthesis (Smith, 1977). Students who
participate also show improve- ment in their communication skills (Berdine, 1986; Dancer &
Kamvounias, 2005), group interactions (Armstrong and Boud, 1983), and functioning in a
democratic society (Girgin & Stevens, 2005).

9|Page
 Fassinger (1995a) noted that both students and professors can see the benefits of student
participation, and Fritschner (2000) found that students thought participation was
‘‘essential’’ to their own learning. Students have been found to earn higher grades as their
participation increases (Handelsman et al., 2005). Though students see participation as
important, and one-third would like to participate more (Wade,1994), research suggests
that it is not happening, as it is only a handful of students in any given classroom who
participate regularly (Karp & Yoels, 1976), a phenomenon dubbed ‘‘consolidation of
responsibility’’ (p. 429). This finding has been reconfirmed decades later in several studies
(Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones, & Piccinin, 2003; Fritschner, 2000; Howard & Henney,
1998; Howard et al., 1996; Nunn, 1 9 9 6 ).

2.3. Reasons Students Do or Do Not Participate in Class

2.3.1. Logistic
There are various reasons, both speculative and empirically supported, that students fail to
participate in class. One reason is class size, with students being more willing to participate
(Berdine, 1986; Howard & Henney, 1998; Hyde & Ruth, 2002; Myers et al., 2009; Neer, 1987;
Smith, 1992), less anxious about participating (Smith, 1992), and less likely to be able to
‘‘hide’’ (Weaver & Qi, 2005) in smaller classes than larger classes; large class size tends to
hamper communication (Gleason, 1986). Howard et al. (1996) found class size to be more
predictive of participation than sex. Karp and Yoels (1976) found that while the number of
students who participate in any given classroom is often the same, courses which have more
than 40 students have fewer overall interactions per class period. Bowers (1986) and Nunn
(1996) found this to be true for courses with over 35 students, and Crombie et al. (2003)
found small differences based on class size in their assessment of courses with 16 50
students. Auster and MacRone (1994) found that the courses where students reported the most
participation were likely to be smaller (i.e., 10 or fewer students) than those where students
reported the least participation (i.e., 40 or more students). Often, more lecturing occurs in
larger classes, which, in turn, means fewer participatory opportunities for students
(Weaver & Qi, 2005). It also is possible that just the perception of being in a large class can
deter participation. For example, a course of 30 students at one university might be small,

10 | P a g e
but could be perceived as large by students at another university (Howard et al., 1996). Large
classes, however defined, are not something we can eliminate on our college campuses, and
thus, educators must find means to encourage participation, regardless of class size (Gleason,
1986).
The type of course can have an impact on whether students participate. Not surprisingly,
students are more likely to participate (Crombie et al., 2003) and feel comfortable in
(Bowers, 1986) communication courses than those in the other social sciences or the natural
sciences. Students are more likely to ask questions in the natural sciences than in the arts or
social sciences, but more likely to talk for longer periods of time in the arts and social
sciences than the natural sciences (Cornelius, Gray, & Constantinople, 1990). Whether a
course was a requirement or an elective did not impact student-reported comfort level
(Bowers, 1986), but did impact preference for seating type with the U-shaped arrangement
preferred by those in elective courses, and the row/column arrangement preferred by those
in required courses (McCroskey & McVetta, 1978). Students in upper level courses were
more likely to participate than those in lower division courses (Fritschner, 2000).
2.3.2. Confidence and Classroom Apprehension
Another reason that students may not participate in class is because of their own personal
fears of feeling inadequate in front of others, regardless of the logistics of the classroom setting.
Armstrong and Boud (1983), Fritschner (2000), Howard and Henney (1998), Hyde and
Ruth (2002), Karp and Yoels (1976), and Weaver and Qi (2005) all noted that students may
feel intimidated or inadequate in front of their classmates and professors, and thus choose not
to participate. Students even reported confidence as the most motivating factor for their
participation in several studies (Armstrong & Boud, 1983; Fassinger, 1995a,b; Wade, 1994;
Weaver & Qi, 2005).

Confidence gained by advanced preparation helps to counteract classroom apprehension, as

evidenced by the fact that students who were allowed to talk about the topic with another
student or to complete it as a homework assignment before discussing it with the entire class
were more likely to participate (Fassinger, 1995a; Neer, 1987; Neer & Kircher, 1989; Wade,
1994). Cohen (1991) also made several suggestions to increase participation by all class
members through advanced preparation. He asked students to complete readings as

11 | P a g e
homework and bring to class the top five words to explain the readings; in class, words are
written on the board and students explain why they were chosen. He also suggested
brainstorming what the lesson would cover while in class and using role-playing debates to
increase participation through advanced preparation. Crone (1997) suggested having students
prepare arguments in advance for weekly debates, and Wilcox (1994) suggested allowing
students to go over their answers with a partner or in a group before stating the answers
out loud to the class. Cohen (1991), Hyde and Ruth (2002), and Reinsch and Wambsganss
(1994) also promoted advanced preparation to increase participation.
2.3.3 Personality Traits
To this point, Communication Apprehension (CA) has been discussed in terms of
situational or classroom-specific apprehension, but there also has been research on CA as a
trait and its impact in the classroom. For example, Booth-Butterfield (1986) found that
students high in CA participated more when the task at hand was more structured, and she
recommended offering choices in assignments that involve participation so that even
those with high CA can participate more comfortably. Booth-Butterfield (1988) also
suggested that instructors offer assignment choices to lessen student apprehension and
increase participation, and suggested allowing students to work with others with whom they
are familiar to decrease apprehension.
Another personality trait, self-esteem, may impact one’s willingness to participate in class,
depending on how it is measured. In comparing participation behaviors of students with three
different measures of self-esteem, Morrison and Thomas (1975) found that only the measure
of self-esteem which was directly related to the classroom impacted the participation
behaviors of students. Specifically, those with lower school-related self-esteem were less likely to
participate and more likely to sit in the back of the classroom, but overall self-esteem did not
impact participation. Williams (1971), however, did find low self-esteem in general to be
predictive of low levels of class participation.
2.4. Impact of the Instructor and Classroom Climate
On top of classroom logistics, student confidence, and student personality traits, there is
still evidence that the instructor contributes to students’ levels of participation, and
students believe that their professors influence their participation based on the ways in
which the professors communicate with them (Fritschner, 2000). Karp and Yoels (1976)

12 | P a g e
 found that ‘‘the actions of the teacher are indeed most crucial in promoting classroom
interaction’’ (p. 426) and Wade (1994) noted that a primary reason students do not
participate may be because of the instructor. Specifically, students are less likely to
participate if their professors do not pay attention to them, make fun of them, put them
down, or are overly critical of them. Similarly, Kearney, Plax, Hays, and Ivey (1991) found
that offensive behaviors engaged in by instructors, including using sarcasm and putdowns,
being verbally abusive toward students, sexually harassing students, and having a negative
personality had a negative impact in the classroom and on student learning, and Berdine
(1986) found that instructors who were considered ‘‘boring, bored, pushy, moody, close-
minded, too opinionated, condescending, and unfriendly’’ (p. 23) were likely to be faced with
students who do not participate in class. Even lecturing too often decreases professors’
ratings and student participation (Phoenix, 1987).
2.5. Methods of encouraging student participation
Encouraging Student Participation some classes are just too quiet don’t readily ask questions,
don’t leap to engage in discussions. The students might be attentive, and engaged in learning,
but the silence is deafening, and makes it hard to create the classroom you want. You end up
talking louder, talking faster, sweating, babbling, thinking that they’re enjoying watching you
squirm and then you hear “hello darkness, my old friend.” Here are some things to consider:

1. Learn as many names as you can. If students don’t feel that they’re anonymous, they’re more
liable to participate.

2. Periodically divide students into pairs or small groups. Students find it easier to speak to
groups of three or four than to an entire class. Divide students into small groups, have them
discuss a question or issue for five or ten minutes or even less and then return to the whole class.
Choose topics that are focused and straightforward: “What are the five basic textures of
metamorphic rock?” or “What are the two most common kinds of intentional communities?”
Have each group report orally and record the results on the board.

3. Have students write comments/answers on 3x5 cards. Ask students to jot down an answer to a
question you’ve posed. Many students are worried about thinking on their feet, so allowing them
to write something down first takes away some pressure.  You can then do one of two things:

13 | P a g e
you can ask them to read what they’ve written, or you can ask them to pass the cards three or
four people to the right. This way, students are reading what someone else has said, and you can
ask them to comment on the answer they have just read.

4. Avoid “yes or no” questions and “What do you think?” questions. They’re sure to shut down
discussion.

5. Don’t just say you’re interested in what students think: show them that you are. Comment
positively about students’ contributions and reinforce good points by paraphrasing or
summarizing them. Bring students’ outside comments into class. Talk to students during office
hours, in hallways, and around campus. If they make a good comment, check with them first to
see whether they are willing to raise the idea in class, then say: “Jana, you were saying
something about that in the hall yesterday Would you repeat it for the rest of the class.”

6. Have students pose questions on 3x5 cards. At the end of class, have students write down the
one or two questions they have about the material for the day. At the beginning of the next class,
pose some of these questions to the group as a whole, or redistribute the cards and ask
individuals if they can answer.

7. Draw all students into the discussion, by asking whether they agree with what has just been
said or whether someone can provide another example to support or contradict a point: “How do
the rest of you feel about that?” Don’t be afraid of asking individuals questions (but be prepared
if they don’t have anything to say. Move on.)

8. Encourage those who haven’t done so to come to your office hours.

9. Arrange seating to promote discussion. 1) Ask students to sit in a semicircle so that they can
see one another. 2) At a long seminar table, seat yourself along the side rather than at the head. 3)
Ask students to print their names on folded 3x5 cards and display them on their desk or the table.
In larger rooms that aren’t full, ask students to sit down front. In one class, the faculty member
has students sit in groups by section, so that they can periodically talk among themselves.

14 | P a g e
10. Ask students to lead a discussion session sometime during the term. Have the leaders
distribute three to six discussion questions to the class a week before the discussion. Encourage
creativity for the discussion. During class the leaders assume responsibility for generating and
facilitating the discussion.

11. Tactfully correct wrong answers. Any type of put-down or disapproval will inhibit students
from speaking up and from learning. Say something positive about those aspects of the response
that are insightful or creative but do point out those aspects that are off base. Provide hints,
suggestions, or follow-up questions that will enable students to understand and correct their own
errors: “Good–now let’s take it a step further”; “Keep going”; “Not quite, but what if we...” A
whole future newsletter will be devoted to this topic.

12. Make your body language welcoming to questions. Don’t stay behind the podium. Get up,
move around. Walk over to a student who raises a hand (but don’t loom). (Simon & Garfunkel,
2005)

15 | P a g e
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides the research methodology employed to conduct the study. Accordingly,
this chapter presents data type and source, method of data collection, sampling design
technique, research design and technique, total population and sample size and method of data
analysis and presentation.

3.1. Research Design

The study employed descriptive research design. Descriptive research provides an accurate
account of characteristics of a particular individual, event or a group in real-life situations
(Polit&Humger 1999). The types of research design was cross sectional survey.
3.2. Target Population
The population for this study consisted of first year engineering students. The total populations
are 320.
3.3. Sampling technique and Sample size

The sample for the study was taken from engineering first year students by using simple random
sampling technique. To determine the sample size, the researchers used Toro Yamane (1967)
sample size determination formula.

N 320
n= n= =76
1+ N (e) 2 1+320 ( 0.1 ) 2

Where, N= Total population, n= sample size, e= error

3.4. Data type and sources

The study used primary source of data to generate and extract all necessary information to the
research

3.5. Methods of Data Collection

16 | P a g e
The data for this study was collected through the administration of questionnaires, and classroom
observations. The questionnaires were 5 point likert scale. Classroom observations were
conducted to gain an insight into the interactions of students in the classroom.

3.7. Method of Data Analysis and presentation

In achieving the objective of the study, the collected data were analyzed using descriptive statics
such as tables, simple percentages and mean. Quantitative data which collected through close
ended questionnaires analyzed using tables, frequencies and percentages and classroom
observations were transcribed first and categorized into various themes and sub themes
identifying the causes and remedial measures of low student’s participation in classroom.

17 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, findings of the study are analyzed, presented and discussed. The first part of the
chapter deals with demographic characteristics of the respondents. The remaining parts of the
chapter assess the factors that limit weekend student’s classroom participation. accordingly,
lack of preparation , fear of making mistakes and being laughed at , lack of confidence, lack of
interest , negative lecturer traits , aggressive attitude of students , lack of interaction with
other classmates are discussed one after the other.

4.1 Part I: Demographic Profiles of the Respondents

In this part, demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented. These characteristics
include sex and age of respondents.

Table 4.1.1 sex of the respondents

Sex of respondents Frequency Percent

Male 22 31.4
Female 48 68.6
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

The above table 4.1 indicates that 22 (31.4%) of the respondents are male and the remaining 48
(68.6%) are female from the 70 active respondents. From this, we can understand that the
number of female respondents is greater than the number of male respondents.

18 | P a g e
Table 4.1.2: Ages of the respondents

Age of respondents Frequency Percent

18-25 40 57
26-33 24 34
34-41 6 9
42-49 - -
Above 50 - -
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

Table 4.1.2 indicates the age composition of the respondents and clearly shows that the majority
of the respondents were within the age group of 18-25 years, which accounts for 57%. On the
other hand, 34% of respondents lie within the age group of 26-33 and only 9% of the respondents
were in the age group of 42-49 years old. From this, we can understand that the majority of the
respondents are lie within the age group of 18-25.

PART II: FACTORS THAT LIMIT CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS

Table 4.3 Lack of preparation

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Lack of preparation limits your classroom Strongly agree 7 10
participation Agree 35 50
Neutral 8 11.4
3.2
Disagree 4 5.7
Strongly disagree 16 22.8
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

The above table 4.3 shows that 7 (10%) of the respondents strongly agreed, 35 (50%) agreed, 8
(11.4%) neither agreed nor disagreed, 4 (5.7) % disagreed and 16 (22.8%) strongly disagreed
with the above statement. This means that majority (50%) of students believe that lack of
preparation limit students class room participation. In addition to this, the mean score of their

19 | P a g e
response is 3.2. This shows lack of preparation limit classroom participation. This finding is
consistent with that of the Study carried out by Abebe and et al (2014) who found lack of
preparation make students become less inclined to participate. Moreover, the literature also
suggests that the amount of preparation the student does before class could be an important
factor (Fassinger, 1995; Howard & Henney, 1998, 2005).

Table 4.4 shyness

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Shyness hinders your classroom Strongly agree 13 18.6
participation Agree 22 31.4
Neutral 16 22.9
3.3
Disagree 11 15.7
Strongly disagree 8 11.4
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2016

The above table 4.4 shows that 13 (18.6%) of the respondents strongly agreed, 22 (31.4%)
agreed, 16 (22.9%) neither agreed nor disagreed, 11 (15.7) % disagreed and 8 (11.4%) strongly
disagreed with the above statement. This means that majority (31.4%) of respondents responded
that they participate less because they feel shy. The finding is consistent with McCroskey (1992),
shyness, is a behavior that could be the result of any one or a combination of the following
factors: social introversion, unfamiliarity with academic discourse, lacking confidence in subject
matter, and/or communication apprehension.

Table 4.5 Fear of making mistake and Being Laughed at Classroom

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Fear of making mistakes and being Strongly agree 30 42.9
laughed at discourages your class room Agree 16 22.9
participation Neutral 3 4.3 3.66
Disagree 12 17
Strongly disagree 9 12.9
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

20 | P a g e
Table 4.5 indicates that 42.9% and 22.9% of the respondents were strongly agreed and agreed
respectively on the statement that explains; fear of making mistakes and being laughed at
discourages class room participation. While 4.3% of the respondents were neutral, 17% and
12.9% of them disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively on the statement. The mean score
of their response is 3.66. This clearly indicates that the majority of the respondents strongly
agreed that fear of making mistakes and being laughed at discourages class room participation.
Respondents expressed that they feel afraid and even panic because of the fear of committing
mistakes or errors in front of classmates. Students expressed their anxiety of making mistakes
because they think their mistakes make them feel incompetent. The finding of this study is in
agreement with Abebe and etal (2014), They think this will distort their image in front of their
classmates. Fear of being laughed at was one of the causes that contributes to the limited
participation and reticence of students to participate in the class discussion.

Table 4.6 Lack of confidence

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Lack of confidence discourages students Strongly agree 23 32.9
to participate in class Agree 19 27.1
Neutral 7 10 3.4

Disagree 7 10
Strongly disagree 14 20
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2016

Table 4.6 indicates that 32.9% and 27.1% of the respondents were strongly agreed and agreed
respectively on the statement that says; lack of confidence discourages students to participate in
class. While 10% of the respondents were neutral, 10% and 20% of them disagreed and strongly
disagreed respectively on the statement. The mean score of their response is 3.4. This clearly
indicates that the majority of the respondents strongly agreed on the above statement.

Table 4.7. Lack of interest in the subject

21 | P a g e
Description Response Frequency Percent Mean
Students having less interest in the Strongly agree 19 27
subject participate less in the class Agree 18 25.7
Neutral 16 22.9
3.2
Disagree 12 17.2
Strongly disagree 5 7.2
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2016

Looking at table 4.7 above, one can notice that more than half of students (52.7%), including
27% strongly agree and 25.7% agree, feel that having less interest in the subject results in less
class participation. However, while 22.9% of students were neutral the remaining 17.2 % and
7.2% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively. Besides, the mean score of their response is
3.2. This clearly indicates that the majority of the respondents strongly agreed on the above
statement. Lack of interest in topics plays a very vital role in students’ active participation in
classroom activities. According to Wang Ping (2010), “when something isn’t interesting, most
people are not willing to talk about it, while one can talk as much as he/she can on his/her
interests”.

Table 4.8. Aggressive attitude of students

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Aggressive attitude of students becomes a Strongly agree 10 14.3
cause of less participation in class Agree 13 18.6
Neutral 12 17.1
2.76
Disagree 20 28.6
Strongly disagree 15 21.4
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

22 | P a g e
Table 4.8 indicates that 14.3% and 18.6% of the respondents were strongly agreed and agreed
respectively on the statement that explains; aggressive attitude of students discourage
participation in class. While 17.1% of the respondents were neutral, 28.6% and 21.4% of them
disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively on the statement. Moreover, the mean score of
their response is 2.7. This clearly indicates that the majority of the respondents don’t believe that
aggressive attitude of students discourage participation in class.

Table 4.9. Lack of interaction with classmates

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

having less interaction with classmates Strongly agree 13 18.5
results less participation in class Agree 10 14.3
Neutral 16 22.9
2.86
Disagree 16 22.9
Strongly disagree 15 21.4
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

The above table 4.9 shows that 13 (18.5%) of the respondents strongly agreed, 10 (14.3%)
agreed, 16 (22.9%) neither agreed nor disagreed, 16 (22.9) % disagreed and 15 (21.4%) strongly
disagreed. This indicates that the majority of respondents don’t feel that having less interaction
with classmates results less participation in class. The mean score of their response is 2.9 and
supports the above statement.

TEACHER RELATED FACTORS

Table 4.10. Being impatient

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

impatient teacher discourage classroom Strongly agree 35 50
participation Agree 25 35.7
Neutral 6 8.6
4.3
Disagree 4 5.7
Strongly disagree - -

23 | P a g e
 Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

Table 4.10 indicates that 50% and 35.7 % of the respondents were strongly agreed and agreed
respectively on the statement that says; impatient teacher discourage classroom participation
While 8.6% of the respondents were neutral, 5.7% 20 of them disagreed on the statement. The
mean score of their response is 4.3. This clearly indicates that the majority of the respondents
strongly agreed on the above statement.

Table 4.11. Being Unapproachable

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Unapproachable teacher discourage Strongly agree 30 42.8
classroom participation Agree 15 21.4
Neutral 10 14.3
3.8
Disagree 11 15.7
Strongly disagree 4 5.7
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

The above table 4.11 shows that 30 (42.8%) of the respondents strongly agreed, 15 (21.4%)
agreed, 10 (14.3%) neither agreed nor disagreed, 11 (15.7%) disagreed and 4 (5.7%) strongly
disagreed with the above statement. This means that majority (42.8%) of students believe that
unapproachable teacher discourage classroom participation. In addition to this the mean score of
their response is 3.8 and supports the above idea. The finding of this study is in also agreement
with Mustapha (2010); these students felt that lecturers who were not approachable or showed
hostility made them less participative.

24 | P a g e
Table 4.12. Less time for enjoyment

Description Response Frequency Percent Mean

Teachers providing less time for Strongly agree 23 32.9

enjoyment make students less participant Agree 22 31.4
Neutral 16 22.9 3.9

Disagree 11 15.7
Strongly disagree 2 2.9
Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey result, 2020

The above table 4.12 shows that 23 (32.9 %) of the respondents strongly agreed, 22 (31.4%)
agreed, 16 (22.9%) neither agreed nor disagreed, 11 (15.7%) disagreed and 2 (2.9%) strongly
disagreed with the statement that says teachers providing less time for enjoyment make students
less participant. This means that majority (32.9%) of students believe that less time for
enjoyment make students less classroom participation. In addition to this the mean score of their
response is 3.8 and supports the above idea. The finding of this study is in also agreement with
Mustapha (2010); Lecturers with sense of humor make learning and participating fun for the
students. The students expressed their liking for lecturers who can crack jokes like telling funny
stories, and then we would be more active in class.

4.3. ACTION PLAN

The followings are strategies that can increase classroom participation of week end students.

1. Encouraging them to read and prepare before class.

2. Encourage students to have the confidence to make mistakes to learn

3. Choose topics that most of the students share an interest in

4. Creating a friendly rapport with the students, lessen the gap among students and teachers
and to provide student-friendly atmosphere
5. Encourage students to take part in class freely

6. Guide the students to show good attitude to their fellow's comments

25 | P a g e
 7. Give some time for enjoyment
8. Provision of information, advice and guidance

9. Inspire and motivate students to participate in class

4.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN

The strategy identified by the team to improve classroom participation was implemented on first
year week-end engineering students. Therefore, the very beginning thing was communicating the
importance of classroom participation to the students as, learners’ participation is necessary for
the progress of instruction. Students’ participation is not confined only to physical presence, but
it means their mental presence. In class, their interaction should take interest in the class work
attentively, listen to the teacher, and give a give a good response. Accordingly the
implementation of these strategies were made in the following manner

Lack of preparation was one of the causes for low participation of students. Thus, the teachers
gave advice and created awareness regarding the importance of preparation for classroom
participation. Besides lack of preparation, shyness was the causes for limited classroom
participation thus; teachers encouraged students to take part in class freely without any shy.
Concerning fear of making mistakes and being laughed at we have encouraged students to have
the confidence to make mistakes to learn. Regarding Students having less interest in the course,
we tried to promote their interest through, choosing topics that most of the students share an interest
in, linking the course with their day to day life, providing information, advice, and guidance to have
interest on the subject. For teacher related problems we have tried to create a friendly
relationship with the students, lessen the gap among students and teachers and to provide
student-friendly atmosphere.

4.5 EVALUATION OF ACTION PLAN

The teacher researchers tried to see whether the selected strategies have brought changes in
students’ classroom participation. It was observed that the majority of the students 77% were
able to answer and ask questions, make comments, and join in discussions. This indicates that the
selected actions or strategies were successful.

26 | P a g e
4.6. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis the researchers conclude the following major points.

The study assessed the main factors that limit classroom participation of first year week-end
engineering students. Accordingly, lack of Preparation, shyness, fear of making mistakes and
being laughed at , lack of confidence, having less interest in the subject , teachers providing less
time for enjoyment , being impatient and being unapproachable were the main factors that limit
student classroom participation.

1. The teachers implemented the following strategies and it was successful. Encouraging them
to read and prepare before class.
2. Encourage students to have the confidence to make mistakes to learn

3. Choose topics that most of the students share an interest in

4. Creating a friendly rapport with the students, lessen the gap among students and teachers
and to provide student-friendly atmosphere
5. Encourage students to take part in class freely

6. Guide the students to show good attitude to their fellow's comments

7. Give some time for enjoyment
8. Provision of information, advice and guidance

9. Inspire and motivate students to participate in class

27 | P a g e
References
Airasian, P. W. (2001). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications, 4th ed. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Dawit Tesfaye Abebe and Demis G/Tsadik Deneke Causes of Students' Limited Participation in
EFL Classroom: Ethiopian Public Universities in Focus Department of English Language and
Literature, College of Social Science and Humanities, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
Best, J. W.and Kahn, J. V.(2006). Research in education (10th ed). Boston: Pearson education,
Inc.

Harris, P. R., & Harris, K. G. (1996).Managing effectively through teams. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, 2(3), 23-36.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995).Social Interdependence - Cooperative Learning in
Education. In B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice (pp. 205-251).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lencioni P.M. (2003). The Trouble with Teamwork Leader to Leader Institute Summer 2003 pp
35-40.
Oliver, R. (2001). Developing e-learning environments that support knowledge construction in
higher education. Presented at the 2nd International We-B Conference, pp. 407 – 416. Perth,
Western Australia.
Polit D.F., Hungler B.P. (1999). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (6th Ed.)
Philadelphia, Lippincott

Scarnati, J. T. (2001). On becoming a team player. Team Performance Management: An

International Journal, 7(1/2), 5-10.
Van Offenbeek, M. (2001).Processes and outcomes of team learning. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 303-317.

28 | P a g e
 APPENDIX

Wolaita Sodo University

College of Engineering
Questionnaire

Dear respondents this questionnaires is designed to gather the relevant information on promoting
classroom participation of first year week-end egnineering students. The main objective of this
study is to identify the factors that limit Weekend student’s classroom participation and to take
corrective action. I assure you that the information you provide will be kept confidential,
questions you filled will not be used for other purpose. Your honest and kind effort will certainly
have significant effect on the result of this action research.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation

Direction

o No need to write your name

o You can circle the letter of your choice
Part one: Personal information

1) Sex A. Male B. Female

2) Age A. 18-30 B. 31-43 C. 44-56 D. above 57
Part two: Put a tick mark (√) in the appropriate box provided for the purpose.
3) Note: 1= Strongly Disagree (SD) 2= Disagree (D) 3= Neutral (N) 4 = Agree (A)
5=Strongly Agree (SA)
Question: To what extent do you think that the following variables limit your class room
participation?
Si no Questionnaire items SD D N A SA
I Student related factors
1. Lack of Preparation limit your classroom participation

29 | P a g e
2. Shyness hinders your classroom participation
3. Fear of making mistakes and being laughed at discourages
your class room participation
4. Lack of confidence discourages students to participate in
class
5. Students having less interest in the course participate less
in the class
6. Aggressive attitude of students becomes a cause of less
participation in class
7. Students having less interaction with other classmates
have less participation in class
II Teacher related factors
8. Teachers providing less time for enjoyment make students
less participant
9. being impatient discourage classroom participation
10. Being unapproachable discourage classroom participation

30 | P a g e