Whole-class discussions as a core element of teaching are one of the most common instructional features (i.e. Seidel & Prenzel, 2006; Böheim et al., 2020). Students’ oral participation in these situations are important for different reasons: active participation of students in class discourse leads to higher motivation, supports their learning processes, and improves their skills in communication and problem solving (e.g., Aziz et al., 2018). It also provides teachers with relevant insights into their students’ learning processes.

In order to improve students’ oral participation in classroom discussions and to balance out the predominantly written assessment of performance, the assessment of oral participation was introduced in Germany in the 1970s (Krüll, 2023). Since then, oral participation forms essentially the certificate grades students receive in various subjects. Depending on the federal state, oral participation can account for the majority of the certificate grade in so called oral subjects, in which no class tests or exams are written. In this context, students’ contributions in a teacher-led classroom discussion serve as key indicators for assessing the underlying oral competencies of the students (Krüll, 2023).

Against this background, however, the use of oral participation as an indicator of oral competencies is problematic. Not least because there are numerous non-performance-related factors preventing students from speaking up in class: For example, high shyness at the emotional level, a lack of interest in the subject at the motivational level, and/or a poor teacher-student relationship at the social level. The same applies to characteristics such as introversion or fear of speaking. Over- or under-challenged students could also reduce their willingness to participate actively in such activities. Therefore, oral participation faces the particular problem, that it does not necessarily allow conclusions about students' competencies. Beyond this assessment problem, the factors mentioned also mean that students with these characteristics miss important learning opportunities which in turn can lead to lower achievement.

Studies focusing on student oral participation have increased in recent years, but are still rare, especially those examining assessment related aspects (Krüll, 2023). Some of these studies investigate how indicators of student participation, such as hand-raising, are related to motivational concepts like student engagement and achievement (i. e. Böheim et al., 2020; Schnitzler et al., 2021; in a broader sense Decristan et al., 2023). Other studies focus on factors influencing oral participation (i.e. Decristan et al., 2023; Mundelsee & Reschke, 2025), but primarily with a focus on sociodemographic (gender, linguistic background), cognitive (basic cognitive skills, prior knowledge) or classroom (social relations) characteristics. A few studies examined classroom environmental or instructional features that might promote oral participation among quiet or particularly shy students (i.e. Morek et al., 2023; Mundelsee & Jurkowski, 2024). However, the extent to which psychosocial characteristics such as introversion, public speaking anxiety, or mastery/achievement goal orientations influence classroom participation has hardly been investigated so far. Initial results from a study surveyed secondary school students regarding their reported hand-raising behavior and their reasons for this in classroom discussions (Radtke & Krüll, 2025) show that introversion, language skills, and intrinsic motivation influence participation more than expectations of success, anxiety, or, above all, extrinsic motivation. In addition to this, the question arises to what extent subject-specific aspects of the learning situation (e.g. teacher-student relation) may play a role.

The following paper therefore explores two research questions:

1. To what extent do students differ in their hand-raising behavior (as an indicator of students' participation) between subjects?
2. What subject-specific factors cause students to raise their hands particularly frequently in one subject but rather rarely in another?

The study also uses the data from Radtke & Krüll (2025). In 2025, over 1,400 students in about 100 classes were surveyed which attended different secondary school types from the lowest to the highest track in NRW (e.g. Hauptschule, Realschule, Gesamtschule, Gymnasium). For the subject-specific criteria, students were first asked to indicate the subject in which they raise their hands most often, how often they raise their hands in that subject (four response options: “at least five times per lesson,” “every lesson, but less than five times,” “every week, but not every lesson,” and “less than once a week”) and what their last report grade was in that subject. Furthermore, they were asked to indicate how subject-specific aspects such as interest in the subject (Maag-Merki et al., 2015), feelings of boredom (single item), feeling over- or underchallenged (e.g., "I feel overchallenged in this subject.", Krannich et al., 2019), their self-assessed subject competences (e.g., "I think I'm good at this subject.", Aust et al., 2010), self-assessed processing speed (e.g., “Other students often know the right answer faster than I do”, Sacher, 1995), the teacher-student relationship, the relationship between students, or the sense of competition in the class (e.g., "In class, everyone views others as competitors.") are pronounced. Students rated their answers on a five-point Likert scale (1 = disagree (...) 3 = neither agree nor disagree (...) 5 = strongly agree). The same aspects were queried for the subject wherein the students participate the least. For most of the above constructs, proven instruments were used, but these had to be adapted for the purposes of this study. Additionally, new instruments had to be developed rsp. newly compiled from various sources. Reliability analyses, including factor analysis, show satisfactory fit parameters for the scales used.

While in the subject they speak up the most about 80% of the students say they raise their hands at least five times every lesson (51%) or every lesson (but less than five time) (33%), in the subject they participate the least nearly each a third of the students’ answers correspond to the alternatives “less than once a week” (28%), “every week (not every lesson)” (35%), and “every lesson” (31%). The subjects with the highest number of hand-raising are mathematics (24%), English (22%), German (11%). These subjects are also those which are least likely for hand-raising (math 16%, English 16%, German 11%), followed by less frequently taught subjects such as physics (9%) or music (6%). T-tests with subject-specific characteristics as independent variables and reported frequency in the subject with the highest vs. lowest reported rate as dependent variable show significant differences in terms of subject competence, subject interest, boredom, over-/underchallenge, processing speed, and teacher-student relationship (effect sizes between d = 1.25 and .55). The largest effect is on processing speed. Linear regressions will also be calculated to examine which of the variables predict the frequency of student hand raising and to what extent. These initial findings can be discussed in terms of practical implications: In order to allow slower-thinking students to participate in class, teachers could consider routines that give students more time to think before calling on the first students. In addition, teachers should focus on promoting motivation, as the results confirm the findings of Böheim et al. (2020) saying that aspects of subject and topic interest have a significant influence on oral participation. Furthermore, teachers should establish a positive error culture in class discourse in which wrong answers are conveyed/communicated as learning opportunities, so that beliefs about one’s own ability significantly less often prevent students from hand-raising.

Aust, K., Watermann, R. & Grube, D. (2010). Selbstkonzeptentwicklung und der Einfluss von Zielorientierungen nach dem Übergang in die weiterführende Schule. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24, 95-109. Aziz, F., Quraishi, U., & Kazi, A. S. (2018). Factors behind Classroom Participation of Secondary School Students. (A Gender Based Analysis). Universal Journal of Education Research, 6, 211–217. Böheim, R., Urdan, T., Nogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2020). Student hand-raising as an indicator of behavioral engagement and its role in classroom learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101894. Böheim, R., Urdan, T., Nogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2020). Exploring student hand-raising across two school subjects using mixed methods: An investigation of an everyday classroom behavior from a motivational perspective. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101250 Decristan, J., Jansen, N. C., & Fauth, B. (2023). Student participation in whole-class discourse: individual conditions and consequences for student learning in primary and secondary school. Learning & Instruction, 86, 101748 Krannich, M.,Goetz, T., Lipnevich, A., Bieg, M., Roos, A.-L., Becker, E. S. & Morger, V. (2019). Being over- or underchallenged in class. Effects on students‘ career aspirations via academic self-concept and boredom. Learning and Individual Differences 69, 206-218. Krüll, C. (2023). Wie erfassen und bewerten Lehrkräfte mündliche Mitarbeit? Hildesheim: OLMS. Maag-Merki, K., Klieme, E., Holmeier, M., Jäger, D. J., Oerke, B., & Appius, S. (2015). Fachinteresse - Schüler. In: Längsschnittstudie Zentralabitur - Fragebogenerhebung Vorerhebung [Skalenkollektion: Version 1.0]. Datenerhebung 2008. Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsdatenzentrum Bildung am DIPF. Mundelsee, L., & Jurkowski, S. (2025). Opening the gateway to oral participation: Exploring facilitative contextual factors in the association between student shyness and hand raising. American Educational Research Journal, 62, 53-91. Mundelsee, L., & Reschke, K. (2025). Classroom interactions: The role of students’ gender, classroom subject, and social relations for student hand raising, teacher calls, and student talk time. International Journal of Educational Research, 133, 102711. Radtke, H., & Krüll, C. (2025). Warum sind stille Schüler*innen still? Vortrag auf der AEPF, Duisbug-Essen. Sacher, W. (1995). Meldungen und Aufrufe im Unterrichtsgespräch. Augsburg: Wißner. Schnitzler, K., Holzberger, D., & Seidel, T. (2021). All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 627-652. Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16, 228–240.