Another thought: don’t wait for students to raise their hands to ask them to speak. Look for other nonverbal cues—a confused expression, a rolling of the eyes, a nod of the head—and say, “Sarah, you look like you agree with Adam’s point,” or, “Robin, you look confused. Are we missing something?” It lets them know you’re paying attention.

My preference is for the traditional form of sitting around a table and sort of having a free exchange of ideas. But, I have come to realize that it would be difficult to expect that in an average undergrad class because many don’t do the readings ahead of time, they are not as committed about the subject matter as the instructor, and they are shy about expressing their views in front of their peers for being perceived as too geeky.

OK. Maybe I will give it a try if I ever get the luxury again of long seminars.

But this professor also had an incredible way of eliciting participation even from those who had not done any reading. He would begin class by asking a question, loosely based on the readings, but which forced people to raise their hands. For example: “so for today we read about the role of intellectuals in society. how many of you agree with author x that intellectuals comprise a class in themselves, an autonomous social group? raise your hands. ok, how many agree with author y that intellectuals are bound by their class? raise your hands. ok, how many agree with author z that intellectuals are class-less?” Then he would turn to somebody and say, “you raised your hand for intellectuals as a class in themselves, why?” He would listen, nod, and then turn to another person who had raised their hand for the same view, and repeat the question. Usually what would happen is that people would disagree and begin to cut in. Soon you had supporters of author x debating with supporters of author y and supporters of author z anxious to interrupt. The question was centered around the basic theme of the reading, but so loosely stated that everyone, even those that hadn’t read, had an opinion.

I found this use of straw polls to be ingenious. Someone would make a comment and he would repeat it and say, “does everybody agree? is technology culturally neutral? raise your hand if you agree.” And then he would ask randomly selected people why they held the opinion that they did. the raising of hands was critical. otherwise, it would have been far too easy for a couple of people to dominate the discussion and everyone else to zone out. by asking people to raise their hands, he forced the entire class to engage with the discussion. There was no space for indifference, you had to have an opinion.

The discussions generated from this were so interesting that if you hadn’t done the reading for that week you were left kicking yourself because you lacked the familiarity with the reading to be able to participate fully. a bunch of us, not having read enough to decisively refute the people we were arguing with, vowed to be more prepared next time. And this is how this man managed to make everyone both read and participate.

In addition to being comfortable with silence, be comfortable with tangents. Give your students a little time where it seems like they’re going off topic, to see if there’s a reason they’re going where they’re going, something you can tie back to the original thing.

If the silence really goes on, consider the possibility that the way you phrased your question made little sense to people not inside your mind. Try to rephrase. Even if it comes out more awkwardly, often it will stimulate something. Though I don’t know, that may be pity.

I’m sympathetic to your position, but at the end of the day I think all my students benefit from a good discussion environment, and frankly so do I, as it makes my job easier and far more pleasant. But beyond that, many of them may well be (very young) adults, but they’re adults who have often been socialized into passive learning. If I can jolt them out of it with something this simple, it’s worth it to me.

The keys are: 1) everyone gets assigned to a cluster; it’s usually people sitting next to each other. 2) they get their assignment in advance. This lets them focus and pay attention. 3) each group contributes. It’s fun to play with the makeup of the clusters. Boys/girls. Upper/Lower classmen. Whatever. It works beautifully with a strong moderator.

I have done this in a medical residency where no one wants to answer because they’re intimidated. The clusters were 1) more info, 2) diagnosis, and 3) recommendations. Sometimes the clusters were defined as 1) students, 2) interns, 3) junior/senior residents. The latter got the harder part (recommendations). It’s quite fun. Even the quiet participate, because everyone is talking during the initial challenge.

Do you actually collect papers that students have written in five minutes during class and read through them?

If the point is to create incentives for them to actually think and write something during the five minutes my reaction is ‘there adults furfuk’s sake.’ That sounds like too much baby sitting to me. If they don’t take the opportunity then to think of something to say on their own steam well…. Or is there some other benefit I am missing.

Then, rather than let the question just sit there, tell the students to write an answer, and give them five minutes. Let them use their books, and make sure not to frame it as a quiz, but collecte them at least occasionally and grade them on a credit/no credit basis (but dole out praise for really smart answers sparingly). Then, once the five minutes is up, begin the discussion. No one can credibly claim they’ve got nothing to say, since they’ve got a half-page in front of them that must say something.