From Digital to Verbal: Scaffolding Inclusive Discussion Participation in a Classroom
Sheika Ali, Kingsborough Community College
Bio
I am Sheikha Ali, a high school chemistry teacher and a College Now instructor at Kingsborough Community College. My teaching practice centers on creating inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments that honor diverse communication styles and student backgrounds. As a K16 Pedagogy Fellow, I focused on scaffolding discussion participation to ensure all students — particularly multilingual learners and first-generation college-bound students — have meaningful pathways to contribute to academic discourse.
Course Setting
I teach Concepts of Wellness as a College Now instructor at Kingsborough Community College, a CUNY campus serving a diverse urban community in Brooklyn. My class consists of 26 diverse 11th and 12th graders, including multilingual learners, English language learners, first-generation college-bound students, and recent immigrants from various cultural backgrounds. This early college experience introduces students to wellness concepts including mental health, self-advocacy, and behavior change while building the academic discussion skills they will need in college.
Problem of Practice
In my Concepts of Wellness class, I noticed a persistent participation gap: students who contributed rich, thoughtful ideas through digital tools like Slido and Padlet were largely silent during verbal discussions. Many of my students face cultural, linguistic, and social-emotional barriers that make speaking in academic settings feel risky.
Simply asking students to speak more was insufficient. I needed a structured, gradual approach that met students where they were, validated multiple modes of participation, and created intentional pathways toward verbal confidence without pressure or comparison.
My problem of practice: How might I scaffold discussion participation so that students who engage digitally also develop confidence contributing verbally?
Strategy
To address the participation gap in my classroom, I implemented a gradual release approach combining three interconnected strategies: digital participation tools, structured small group discussion roles, and self-assessment with reflection.
In Cycle 1, students first engaged with discussion questions through digital tools (Slido, Mentimeter) where they already felt comfortable. This validated their intellectual contributions regardless of language proficiency or comfort with public speaking, and established digital participation as a legitimate academic pathway. Students also completed a Discussion Participation Self-Assessment Rubric weekly, rating themselves across four dimensions: Preparation, Contribution, Listening & Responding, and Risk-Taking.
After analyzing Cycle 1 data — which showed strong digital engagement but limited redistribution of verbal participation in small groups — I adapted the strategy for Cycle 2. I introduced structured discussion roles (Facilitator, Idea Builder, Bridge Maker) within small groups, giving every student a defined verbal responsibility and a clear entry point for speaking. I also added three reflection questions to the Self-Assessment Rubric to discourage surface-level, inflated scoring and build genuine metacognition.
This approach is grounded in research on culturally responsive pedagogy, gradual release of responsibility, and metacognitive development — all of which support diverse learners in building academic confidence over time.
Documentation
Artifact 1: Mentimeter Discussion Board
A screenshot of a Mentimeter digital discussion board capturing student responses to a prompt. All 9 out of 9 students present submitted a response, demonstrating 100% participation through the digital platform.
Figure #1: Mentimeter Discussion Board
Artifact 2: Adjusted Self-Assessment Rubric
Discussion Participation Self-Assessment Rubric from a student, collected at the Week 8 midpoint checkpoint. This artifact serves as an early indicator that the adapted strategy is supporting individual student growth in both participation confidence and honest self-assessment.
Figure #2: Adjusted Self-Assessment Rubric
Measuring Impact
Measure 1: Student Progress at Three Points via Self-Assessment
This bar chart tracking shows each student's self-assessment rubric scores at three checkpoints: Week 2 baseline, Week 6 midpoint, and Week 11 endpoint. Data reveals individual growth trends across 23 students, with most showing score increases over time, particularly among students who scored lowest at baseline.
Figure #3: Student Progress at Three Points via Self-Assessment
Measure 2: Teacher Recorded Participation Mode Progress
A bar chart tracking instructor-observed participation modes for each student at three checkpoints (Weeks 2, 6, and 11) using a 4-level scale: digital only, small group verbal, whole-class verbal once, and whole-class verbal regularly. Data documents progression toward verbal participation across the semester.
Figure #4: Teacher Recorded Participation Mode Progress
Analysis
When I started this inquiry, I had a clear hunch: the students sitting quietly in discussion weren't disengaged — they just didn't have a comfortable way in. Digital tools like Slido and Mentimeter proved that right away. When given the option to respond in writing, participation hit 100%. Students who rarely spoke had plenty to say — they just needed a format that worked for them. Self-assessment data also showed real growth, especially among students who started with the lowest scores, which told me the scaffolding was reaching the students who needed it most.
What I learned between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 changed my approach significantly. Putting students in small groups wasn't enough on its own — the same voices still dominated. When I added structured roles in Cycle 2, something shifted. Students who had been observers started speaking because they had a specific job to do. The participation mode data backs this up, showing a clear movement toward verbal contribution over the semester. Adding reflection questions to the self-assessment rubric also made a difference — students began justifying their scores with real examples instead of just circling numbers.
That said, there's still work to do. Whole-class verbal participation remains uneven, and a few students' self-ratings don't quite match what I observe. Next time, I'd more explicitly connect the participation work to the wellness content we're studying — framing speaking up as an act of self-advocacy made it feel more purposeful for students when I tried it.
Recommendation
This approach works best when you treat participation as a skill to be scaffolded, not a personality trait students either have or don't. Start by validating digital participation — if students are contributing meaningfully through Slido, Padlet, or even a written response, that counts. Build from there gradually.
Structured discussion roles are a simple but powerful tool, especially in diverse classrooms where students may feel cultural or linguistic pressure around speaking publicly. Giving every student a defined role removes the ambiguity of open-ended group talk and creates a low-stakes entry point for verbal contribution.
The self-assessment rubric works best when students understand the criteria deeply — spend time calibrating together before asking them to rate themselves. Finally, if you teach a content course, connect the participation practices directly to your subject matter.
