Teachers should incorporate more anonymous participation in class

As the teacher scans the class waiting for a response, the room’s silence rings loudly. My mind races, contemplating breaking the silence with the answer I am second-guessing. My classmates make eye contact with each other while waiting for someone brave enough to volunteer an answer. Aware of the potential judgment of others, I keep my hand heavy on my desk.

Over the past school year, I can count the number of times I’ve asked a question in class on the ngers of one hand. Although my teachers often encourage participation, a select few students end up being the only participants each time.

Usually self-doubt convinces me that the solution I have in mind is wrong. I can’t take the risk, no matter how small, of humiliating myself in front of 30 students and the teacher, knowing that if I answer incorrectly, all my peers will know that I was con my incompetent answer to volunteer. is constant feeling of shame will haunt me for the rest of the day, diverting me away from raising my hand again.

e same mentality goes for asking clarifying questions. When I need an explanation, I prioritize turning to my friends — who are sometimes more confused than me — over raising my hand to publicly ask the teacher. Overthinking prompts the belief in my mind that my question is absurd, and my classmates will silently ridicule me.

Even though I know my peers will likely forget about my irrelevant comment in the next minute, the lingering thought that my errors will negatively in uence their perception of me overpowers my desire to speak.

According to a 2006 study by New York University, the leading cause of this lack of participation in students is fear of embarrassment. Consequently, the majority of students stay silent even when teachers welcome their voices. participated the least in class tended to score at a lower-level academically than students who actively participated. Since students have greater academic students feel con dent sharing their ideas, one that encourages participation by utilizing anonymity. When students remove their identity from a discussion, the ever-present fear of being judged is removed as well.

To implement anonymous participation in the classroom, teachers can use websites such as Pear Deck and Padlet which all have anonymous elements. Padlets, used as digital boards, are best for classroom discussions while Pear Decks, used as interactive slideshows, are best used for participation in slideshow Using education tools like these means that even if I give a wrong answer in class, the only person with this information is me, eliminating embarrassment in front of my classmates and allowing me to maintain dence, which is essential to future classroom participation.

A 2014 study led by Dr. Max Liboiron, a researcher at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, showed that 70% of college students said they were more likely to participate when the participation was anonymous, which demonstrates the impact of anonymity in correlation with the desire to participate in class Some might argue that public participation promotes public speaking skills which are useful in the real world. Although true, students who do not consistently participate will rarely choose to participate in any case. When we allow anonymous participation, students warm up to the idea of sharing their thoughts with others, thereby increasing the chances of them sharing their thoughts in a public scenario. So, teachers should still incorporate formal presentations and discussions into the curriculum to develop public speaking skills. However, when a discussion is informal, they should provide an anonymous participation system for those still struggling with their self-esteem.

Heather Song Sta Writer

Lucas Guan Guest Writer

e British Broadcasting Corporation released the two-part documentary, “India: e Modi Question” in January. Although it contained supposedly controversial and in ammatory content, the documentary did not make headlines until Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the subject of the documentary, spoke publicly about it.

Within days of the documentary’s release, Modi banned it from streaming in India, cut power to universities planning to show it and raided the BBC India o ce for “tax violations.” However, Modi wasn’t fooling anyone about the true reason for the raid.

I watched it a few weeks ago out of curiosity, since the whole a air ooded the pages of every news source I read. I must say it wasn’t a remarkable watch, and Modi’s reaction to the asco has far eclipsed any claim made by the documentary.

While the documentary is a two-part series, the majority of media attention has focused on the rst episode, which details the deadly 2002 riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat. Over the three days of riots, between 1,040 and 3,000 people died during violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims. At the time, Modi was serving as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. e rst episode focuses on claims he was complicit in the Hindu-led violence or at least knowingly turned a blind eye.

Much of the negative coverage surrounding the documentary has accused it of bias, but the documentary is generally fair. e lmmakers have largely cited appropriate sources, using both domestic and foreign government reports, and the documentary also features interviews with individuals holding a variety of viewpoints, from foreign o cials and citizens critical of Modi’s conduct to politicians from Modi’s party convinced of his innocence.

e larger problem is the documentary attempts to blame a complex, nuanced problem entrenched in Indian society on

Modi. Ultimately, the narrative it creates is relatively fair and well-researched but far too narrow in scope.

Since Partition in 1947, Hindu-Muslim violence has been continuous, partially stemming from the expectation that India would be for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. Although this has some truth in Pakistan, where 96% of the population is Muslim, India has never seen the same religious homogeneity because it is far larger in size, population and diversity. Today, India’s 200 million Muslims make up a substantial proportion have bolstered opposition parties and drawn a ood of media attention towards Modi’s censorship and democratic backsliding in India. e Indian government has now drawn the condemnation of the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders. Although neither the documentary nor Modi’s response to it is enough to kill his political career, Modi’s response taints India’s reputation as the world’s most populous shortcomings, Modi has ultimately come out of this asco worse than anyone else. His actions have drawn increased scrutiny toward his administration and furthered the appeal of the documentary out of sheer curiosity. by his government to suppress the documentary have only made him look more guilty, despite the questionable nature of many of the documentary’s claims. e Modi government has made a serious misstep in its handling of the documentary. Had Modi just stayed silent and let the storm pass, perhaps more attention would have been given to the documentary’s Instead, the brutal, authoritarian nature of the government’s actions

ART BY CHERIANNE YOON