Systemic Practice and Action Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09645-z

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Empirical Action Research on Improving Student’s Classroom

Participation: The Case of Dilla University Computer
Engineering Students

Derara Duba Rufo1

Accepted: 21 April 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Learning is a means by which people develop and acquire knowledge, skills, values, and
attitudes. It creates the foundation for development and is critical in improving socio-
cultural, economic, technological, political, and environmental progress. Active classroom
participation for students is very important to achieve the learning goals (for a better
understanding of the students). At different times our country Ethiopia adopts a variety of
strategies to promote sustainable development, one of which is education policy. However,
our educational system has numerous challenges. Our students, for example, do not regard
learning as an essential tool that imparts knowledge to improve one’s life, but rather as
a means of fulfilling some criteria and obtaining credentials. In other words, they are not
actively engaged in the classroom. This study uses experimental action research to answer
how to promote classroom involvement among Dilla University computer engineering
students. As a result, this experimental action research found that before taking action,
classroom participation was extremely low, with only 14.65% of students participating in
the total number of students presented in the class per day; however, after developing the
action strategies and taking the action classroom participation was significantly increased,
with 56.85% of students participating in the total number of students in the classroom.
Finally, it is recommendable that by implementing the action strategies taken in this study,
it is possible to improve University students’ classroom participation.

Keywords Classroom participation · Student engagement · Active learning · Action

research

Derara Duba Rufo

derarad@du.edu.et
1
Computer Engineering, Dilla University, Dilla, SNNPR, Ethiopia

13
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Introduction

Education is extremely crucial for a country’s progress. Ethiopia is currently measuring the
impact of education on development in a variety of ways. To name a few, expanding uni-
versities to 45 nationwide, as well as different university colleges and technical vocational
schools, increasing university intake capacities each year, creating a university-industry
linkage, making university intake capacity much more for science and technology and less
for social science, which can support the country’s technological development, also intro-
ducing a university-industry linkage and, active learning methods will be introduced in all
Ethiopian universities. Dilla University (DU) also has adopted active learning approaches,
and we are currently putting them into practice. According to the Education Sector Develop-
ment Programme IV (ESDP IV) (Ababa 2010), it is necessary to focus on quality concerns
in general, as well as those inputs and processes that directly translate to improved student
learning and help transform the school into a true learning environment such as quality-
focused school supervision, internal school leadership, increased student participation, and
school-community partnerships. There is widespread agreement on the value of participa-
tion in university education, such as allowing students to become involved in their learning
and enjoy it. Other advantages of participation include increased student dedication as well
as improved comprehension and critical thinking. Furthermore, student involvement has
been demonstrated to promote active learning, enhance work habits, and develop special-
ized abilities, all of which are essential factors for professional success. As a result, we
need to promote student participation in the classroom by implementing various techniques.
Consequently, this action research will be proposed to improve the classroom participation
of Dilla University’s computer engineering students.
In all of our more than 45 universities, the Ministry of Education (MOE) promotes active
learning. To support active teaching and learning, the government has implemented a variety
of techniques, policies, and capacity-building initiatives. This aims to generate a paradigm
change in learning from a teacher-centered method, which has been used in the country for
many years, to a student-centered approach. The country’s dedication to implementing a
student-centered approach is exemplified by the recently accepted modularization strategy.
The higher diploma program (HDP) is another endeavor to improve capacity by support-
ing active teaching and learning approaches. However, such policies and programs may
not be effective if students in every class learning multiple courses do not actively partici-
pate in the teaching and learning process. Many studies have found that learners’ academic
performance and class involvement are decreasing across the country (Haile 2021). When
students were assigned group exercises, they did not complete them; instead, they waited for
their teacher to deliver a lecture. This caused learners to always wait for others rather than
attempting to complete tasks on their own. Low achiever learners are more likely to have
this difficulty than their active counterparts. This was what I observed and experienced in
computer engineering students at Dilla University. Consequently, this action research study
was aimed to increase the low level of classroom participation among Dilla University’s
computer engineering students.

13
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Related Works

In higher education, classroom participation has become an increasingly significant feature

of student engagement. Students in higher education today are from the millennial age and
are always looking for ways to interact (Koltz et al. 2021). As educators seek to discover
the right balance of tactics to increase classroom involvement, it’s critical to look at existing
research to learn more about what constitutes participation and the elements that influence
participation both directly and indirectly in the classroom.

Defining Students’ Participation

Students’ classroom participation is defined in different ways by different scholars “The

number of unsolicited responses volunteered” by Burchfield &Sappington (Burchfield and
Sappington 1999), “the extent of engagement in class discussion” by Weaver and Qi 2005
(Debele and Kelbisa 2017), and “any remarks or questions that students offered or raised
in class” by L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski (Mundelsee and Jurkowski 2021). Dancer and
Kamvounias (Dancer and Kamvounias 2005) split the total student engagement process
into five distinct categories: preparation, contribution to the discussion, group skills, com-
munication skills, and attendance. This definition is more holistic because it includes con-
versation quality as well as group respect, which Weaver and Qi (Weaver and Qi 2005)
discovered to be a direct predictor of in-class participation levels.

Factors Affecting Student Classroom Participation

University students’ classroom participation is determined by several factors. For instance,

according to Fritschner (Fritschner 2000), student participation in liberal arts and sciences
courses rises from basic to upper-division classes, and top students participate differently
than lower-level students. She notices that male students participate more frequently in
introductory and 200-level classes than female students. Females had slightly more interac-
tions per student in upper-level classes than males. Female students participate more than
male students, according to Howard et al. (Howard et al. 1996): 50.4% of females partici-
pated vs. 44% of males, and 32.2% of females versus 27.1% of males made two or more
remarks in the average class session.
However, the research findings on gender and classroom debate are mixed. While some
studies suggest that female engagement outnumbers male participation (Howard et al.
(Howard et al. 1996); Fritschner, (Fritschner 2000), others find that males are more likely
to participate in class discussion than females (Brooks 1982; Karp and Yoels 1976). Other
research has found no link between gender and classroom involvement (Ahmad 2021;
Bayram Özdemir et al. 2021; Boersma et al. 1981; Crombie et al. 2003).
Many factors can affect students’ classroom participation. Some are internal, while oth-
ers are external. Some students are also confident, aggressive, and energetic. Some students,
on the other hand, are shy and set aside. The fundamental cause of this discrepancy could be
gender-based socio-cultural values.

13
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Importance of Student Class Participation

When students are prepared for class and participate in discussions, they are more motivated,
learn better, become better critical thinkers, and have self-reported character improvements.
The more they participate, the less they memorize and the more they engage in higher levels
of thinking, such as interpretation, analysis, and synthesis. Students who participate increase
their communication abilities, group interactions, and democratic society functioning.

Research Methodology

Target Group The target groups of this action research are DU computer engineering stu-
dents which are 23 in number, out of these19 4 were males and females respectively. Com-
puter engineering students were selected because they are more benefited from the result of
the research and they are better suited for the action research project because at the move-
ment I am teaching them two different courses. The overall data and practice were carried
out in computer network security and software engineering subject sessions.

Action Research Approach

Many approaches have developed within the action research context. Whereas all action
researchers inquire about promoting change processes, different approaches inquire in dif-
ferent ways. For this study, the following approach is developed which is shown in Fig. 1.

Research Design

In most case studies, data is collected using a combination of quantitative (surveys and
questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews, focus groups, classroom observations, docu-
ment analysis) methods. The data were analyzed using a quantitative approach first, and

Fig. 1 proposed action research approach

13
Systemic Practice and Action Research

qualitative strategies were used to further investigate the meaning of the trends discovered
in the research. The overall research workflow is shown in Fig. 2.

Participants and Other Sources of data and Information

The study used both primary and secondary data. The primary data was collected through
observation and interviews with DU computer engineering students. Secondary data was
gathered from approved and accredited organizations’ published and unpublished materials,
such as department documents, journals, and so on. The primary sources of data for this
study were collected from computer engineering students of Dilla University.

Data Gathering Methods

To investigate this action research, online library databases for academic journal articles that
investigate student participation in the classroom were searched. Though communication
outside of the classroom is vital, the focus here was on communication within the class-
room. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected using questionaries and observations
from the class selected for this research.

Results and Discussions

Under this section, data analysis and interpretation, action strategies, results and reflection
(interpretation) on results were discussed.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Students’ classroom participation was minimal, according to data collected via question-
naires, interviews, and class observation. Students’ limited engagement in class was attrib-
uted to the instructor’s attitude, lack of confidence, lack of understanding of the instructor,
silence and shyness, seating arrangement, language barrier, socio-cultural background, and

Fig. 2 Overall research workflow

13
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

lack of active learning methods, according to the respondents. As a result, the selected case
study determined that student participation in the classroom was quite low. According to
our observations, students are very limited in classroom activities. The majority of students
struggled to express themselves, share their experiences, and produce new ideas, and others
were unable to understand the subject matter. Table 1 shows the factors that affect student
classroom participation.
According to Table 1, around 61% of students indicated limited participation in class
activities because of the difficulty to understand the instructor, as explained by the respon-
dents. This demonstrates that the majority of students are faced with difficulty to understand
the instructor easily. Similarly, respondents said that the lack of confidence, the seating
arrangement in the classroom (the way they sit interrupts their level of participation and
even feeling part of the class during the lesson), limited opportunity to talk during lecture
hours, and socio-cultural background (some families socialize their children as shyness and
silence are good personalities) account for 53%, 48%, 40%, and 26% of the factors that
affect students’ class performance, respectively.
Moreover, about 25% of students showed limited participation in classroom activities
caused by fear of the instructor’s face (they are afraid of the instructor because he/she might
be angry if they ask the wrong question or give the wrong answer) as explained by the
respondents.

The Effect of the Teaching Method of the Instructors

In terms of teaching methods, the information gathered from observation and interviews
with inactive students has a significant impact on students’ class involvement. Some stu-
dents blame their lack of participation on the lecturers’ teaching style. Even if the university
uses active teaching methods, some of the instructors are not following the instructions
exactly, as we learned from casual interactions. Class size, timetable, and other factors were
mentioned by instructors. The students stated that using active teaching approaches would
allow them to participate more actively in the classroom. The lecturing form of instruction
was also cited by the students as a barrier to their classroom participation.

Table 1 Questionaries ful- S/No. Reasons why students do not participate in Yes No
filled by students (factors that the class
affect student’s classroom
1 I don’t know the language very well 18% 82%
participation)
2 Lack of confidence 53% 47%
3 Socio-cultural background 26% 74%
4 The department in which we are currently 24% 76%
enrolled is not our choice.
5 The instructors don’t use active teaching 20% 80%
methods
6 I can’t easily understand what the teacher 61% 39%
is teaching
7 I do have not a good approach for the 26% 74%
Instructor
8 The instructor doesn’t allow me to talk 40% 60%
9 I fear the instructor’s face when he looks 25% 75%
at me
10 The seating arrangement is not suitable 48% 52%

13
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Level of Participation

According to student participation per day data analysis (see Table 2) out of a total number
of 23, on average, about 20 of which about 17 were male and 3 were female students were
attending the class per day. This data analysis showed out of the total number of students
who attend the class, about 3 students participated per day in the course of computer net-
work security and software engineering average; that means on average about 17 students
were inactive per day. Again, from this on average less than one female students were active
in classroom participation, and only about 3 male students participated per day. As shown
in Table 2 female students’ classroom participation was almost 12.5% of the total average
number of female students and male students’ classroom participation was also only about
15% of the total average number of male students in the classroom before the intervention.
Moreover, the overall participation of the class was about 14.65% of the total average num-
ber of students in the classroom per day, this indicated that the classroom participation was
too poor and a very small number of female students participated in the classroom per day.

Actions Taken/Intervention

It is already identified that there are so many students who are not active participants in
the class. Thus, there is a need to take an action depending on the data analysis result. To
improve students’ participation in class, so many action strategies were taken. The action
taken depends on the output of Table 1. The result of each question in Table 1 contributes
to the action taken as per their tendency of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. As a result, immediate action
is required. Many action strategies were implemented to promote student participation in
class. The following are some of the action strategies taken:

1. Planning

Table 2 shows student participation detail before the intervention (before taking action)
Days The total number of stu- The number of students The number of students Re-
dents attending the class who participated not participated mark
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Absent
Day 1 17 4 21 5 0 5 12 4 16 2
Day 2 15 3 18 3 1 4 12 2 14 5
Day 3 18 2 20 4 0 4 14 2 16 3
Day 4 13 3 16 1 0 1 12 3 15 7
Day 5 17 2 19 2 1 3 15 1 16 4
Day 6 18 4 22 3 2 5 15 2 17 1
Day 7 16 3 19 2 0 2 14 3 17 4
Day 8 14 4 18 2 0 2 12 4 16 5
Day 9 19 3 22 2 0 2 17 3 20 1
Day 10 19 4 23 1 0 1 18 4 22 0
average 17 3 20 3 0 3 14 3 17 3
%tage 87.37 80.00 94.29 15.06 12.50 14.65 84.94 14.74 88.95 16.84
N.B: The total numbers of students were 23 out of this number 19 were male and 4 also female, during
data analysis when computing the average of students, the fractional part of the average is rounded up or
down (shifting the fraction < = 0.4 to the lower number and fraction > = 0.5 to the upper number) because of
logic “no person counts less than 1”

13
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

 ssign students some responsibility for enhancing overall involvement in a discussion

A
course. Tell students the aims of classroom involvement on the first day of class and
invite them to come up with a list of criteria to help the class achieve this goal. They
will usually come up with good recommendations such as avoiding interrupting others
when they are speaking and criticizing ideas rather than the person.
2. Encouraging students to say whatever comes to mind without fear.
3. Explaining the hard topic concepts in simple English as well as reexplaining with some
common local working languages like Amharic.
4. To reduce the problem of lack of confidence promote students’ sense of being them-
selves by recommending they to don’t compare themselves with those high-level
students.
5. Giving more time and opportunity to students to speak whatever comes to their mind
without any fear.
6. Asking questions from simple to complex because:

● By answering simple questions students build self-confidence to actively participate in

the classroom.
● Simple questions encourage student thinking and activate memory and opinions.
● Simple questions build the ground for students to argue more about complex questions.
● By answering simple questions, students build confidence and increase the possibility
they will attempt harder questions.
● When they answer a complex question, they become more interested in actively partici-
pating in the class.

7. Leave enough time for students, this is because:

● The opportunity for students to critical thinking and answer the correct answers
increases.
● The time and correctness of student responses increase.
● Students get enough time to think about the question and to supply an answer.
● The frequency of the number of I don’t know and no answer responses decrease.
● The number of volunteered, correct answers increase.

8. Depending on the extent of the difficulty, the students’ seating arrangements were
adjusted. This was accomplished by placing their one to five seats in such a way that
they could rotate every few days.
9. Developing positive ties between students and teachers, as well as advising them to
think of their instructors as fathers and brothers. This relationship helps to bridge the
distance between students and instructors.
10. Break-up lectures: Students will follow the instructor for about 15 to 30 min only.
Breaking up lectures with games, interactive questions, and other ways to keep students
interested will not only enhance classroom participation but will also stimulate and
focus students’ attention.
11. Request new hands or people to speak, and ask students for their opinions. Learn stu-
dents’ names and address them by their first names, ask students meaningful questions,
and ultimately, govern the students who are computer engineering participants.

13
Systemic Practice and Action Research

12. Providing suitable advice to students who were fearful of various factors, based on the
concerns that caused them to remain inactive.
13. Raise opinion questions to students. Learn students’ names and address them by their
first names, ask meaningful questions to students, and finally, control the students who
are over-participants in computer engineering students. Then after, more priority is
given to inactive students to promote their participation.
14. Also tried to use pleasant remarks like “thank you very much, keep it up.“ Since these
expressions were very useful to build student participation interest.

Reflection on Action Taken `

The outcomes of the observation are displayed in Table 3 after implementing the above
actions in the classroom. On average, out of a total of 23, around 21 students (18 males and
3 females) attended class each day. On average, 12 students each day participated in the
computer network security course and software course from the total number of students
who attend the class; this means that 9 students were inactive on any given day. About 2
female students were active in classroom engagement per day, whereas 10 male students did
as well. Table 3 shows that following the action taken, about 66.67% of female students par-
ticipated, among the total average number of female students in the classroom, while about
54.92% of male students participated among the total average number of male students in
the classroom. In general, 56.85% of the total average number of students in the classroom
per day participated in the class.
As a result, one can deduce that by implementing these action procedures, our students’
class participation was significantly improved, with female students’ engagement increasing
significantly after the action is taken. However, more research and activity are required to
make a significant impact on student involvement in the classroom.

Table 3 shows the result of the action taken

Days The total number of stu- The number of students The number of students Re-
dents attending the class who participated not participated mark
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Absent
Day 1 16 3 19 8 2 10 8 1 9 4
Day 2 19 4 23 7 3 10 12 1 13 0
Day 3 15 3 18 9 2 11 6 1 7 5
Day 4 17 4 21 5 1 6 12 3 15 2
Day 5 18 3 21 14 2 16 4 1 5 2
Day 6 19 4 23 11 3 14 8 1 9 0
Day 7 18 3 21 13 3 16 5 0 5 2
average 18 3 21 10 2 12 8 1 9 2
%tage 91.73 85.71 90.68 54.92 66.67 56.85 45.08 33.33 43.15 9.32
N.B: The total numbers of students were 23 out of this number 19 were male and 4 also female, during
data analysis when computing the average of students, the fractional part of the average is rounded up or
down (shifting the fraction < = 0.4 to the lower number and fraction > = 0.5 to the upper number) because of
logic “no person counts less than 1”

13
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Conclusion and Recommendation

Conclusions

There is common agreement on the value of participation in university education, such as

allowing students to become involved in their learning and enjoy it. Other advantages of
engagement include increased student commitment as well as improved comprehension
and critical thinking. Furthermore, student involvement has been demonstrated to promote
active learning, enhance work habits, and develop specialized abilities, all of which are
essential factors for professional success. While there are certain exceptions to this rule of
learning in the tertiary environment, this rule of learning applies to all levels of teaching and
learning. Furthermore, reciprocity is a hallmark of excellent contact, particularly in daily
communication, which improves learning, according to the authors. In a variety of teaching-
learning environments, this emerges as a common requirement for the active participation
of students in the classroom.
The hybrid research design approach; the combination of quantitative (surveys and ques-
tionnaires) and qualitative (interviews, focus groups, classroom observations, document
analysis) methods is used for this study. The primary data was collected through observa-
tion and interviews with DU computer engineering students. Secondary data was gathered
from approved and accredited organizations published and unpublished materials, such as
department documents, journals, and so on. The data were analyzed using a quantitative
approach first, and qualitative strategies were used to further investigate the meaning of
the trends discovered in the research. Students’ classroom participation was low, accord-
ing to the data collected. Students’ limited engagement in the classroom was attributed to
the instructor’s attitude, lack of confidence, lack of understanding of the instructor, silence
and shyness, seating arrangement, language barrier, socio-cultural background, and lack
of active learning methods, according to the respondents. The consecutive students’ class-
room participation was recorded as a case study for 10 days. As a result, the selected case
study determined that student participation in the classroom was quite low. About 14 action
strategies were taken by considering the identified factors that affect students’ classroom
participation which is listed in Table 1 for the next 7 days to improve students’ classroom
participation.
Finally, experimental action research was used to find a strategy that would promote
student classroom engagement. The data was taken before and after the intervention, and
each was evaluated individually by the researcher. The findings before strategy intervention
were: overall class participation was about 14% of the total average number of students in
the classroom per day, indicating that classroom participation was too low and that female
students’ participation in the classroom is almost negligible. After intervention/action was
taken, about 66.67% of female students participated, among the total average number of
female students in the classroom, while about 54.92% of male students participated among
the total average number of male students in the classroom. Generally, about 56.85% of the
total average number of students in the classroom per day participated in the class. From
this, it is concluded that by implementing the above-taken action strategies, the student’s
classroom participation was improved, with female students’ engagement increasing signifi-
cantly following the taken actions.

13
Systemic Practice and Action Research

Strategy Recommendation

The study findings showed that implementing the above strategies listed in Sect. 3.7 had a
significant influence on improving DU computer engineering students’ classroom participa-
tion. Depending on the action taken it is advisable that the responsible body can conduct the
above-mentioned strategies for long-term enhancement of student classroom participation,
based on university experience and policy results.

Funding not applicable.

Data Availability Data sharing does not apply to this article as all data collected and analyzed during this
study were included in Tables 1 and 2, and Table 3.

Declarations

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were by the ethical stan-
dards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its
later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest I declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References
Ababa A (2010) Education Sector Development Program IV. ESDP IV)
Ahmad C (2021) Causes of students’ reluctance to participate in classroom discussions. ASEAN J Sci Eng
Educ 1(1):47–62
Bayram Özdemir S, Özdemir M, Boersma K (2021) How does adolescents’ openness to diversity change
over time? The role of majority-minority friendship, friends’ views, and classroom social context. J
Youth Adolesc 50(1):75–88
Boersma PD, Gay D, Jones RA, Morrison L, Remick H (1981) Sex differences in college student-teacher
interactions: fact or fantasy? Sex Roles 7(8):775–784
Brooks VR (1982) Sex differences in student dominance behavior in female and male professors’ classrooms.
Sex Roles 8(7):683–690
Burchfield CM, Sappington J (1999) Participation in classroom discussion. Teaching of Psychology
Crombie G, Pyke SW, Silverthorn N, Jones A, Piccinin S (2003) Students’ perceptions of their classroom
participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. J High Educ 74(1):51–76
Dancer D, Kamvounias P (2005) Student involvement in assessment: a project designed to assess class par-
ticipation fairly and reliably. Assess Evaluation High Educ 30(4):445–454
Debele ET, Kelbisa EM (2017) The role of active learning methods for classroom participation: the case of
first-year students of sociology in Samara University. IOSR J Humanit Social Sci 22(7):13
Fritschner LM (2000) Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and students differ on the meaning
of student participation. J High Educ 71(3):342–362
Haile M (2021) Teachers’ perceptions of Junior secondary education and student academic performance in
Central Ethiopia. Walden University]
Howard JR, Short LB, Clark SM (1996) Students’ participation in the mixed-age college classroom.Teaching
Sociology,8–24
Karp DA, Yoels WC (1976) The college classroom: some observations on the meanings of student participa-
tion. Sociology & Social Research
Koltz R, Smith A, Tarabochia D, Wathen C (2021) A pedagogical framework for counselor educators work-
ing with millennial students
Mundelsee L, Jurkowski S (2021) Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration on students’ in-class
participation. Learn Individual Differences 88:102015

13
 Systemic Practice and Action Research

Weaver RR, Qi J (2005) Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. J High
Educ 76(5):570–601

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a
publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manu-
script version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

13