At its core, the Teaching Academy Book Club provides space for faculty to step back from the daily demands of academic life, explore new perspectives on teaching, and learn from one another’s experiences. It was created to support reflective, student-centered teaching while building meaningful connections among faculty across campuses, disciplines, and career stages. Through shared reading, discussion, and opportunities for practical application, the program invites participants to engage deeply with ideas that can strengthen their teaching and enrich student learning.
The reflections that follow capture some of the many ways participants experienced the Book Club. While each faculty member brought their own disciplinary background, teaching context, and goals to the conversations, common themes emerged: renewed energy for teaching, thoughtful reflection on classroom practices, and appreciation for the opportunity to connect with colleagues across the university. These stories remind us that professional growth often happens not only through new ideas, but also through the relationships, conversations, and sense of community that develop when educators come together to learn from one another.
Reflections
Rethinking Attendance and Participation Through an Equity Lens
AY 2025-2026
When the Teaching Academy Book Club read and discussed Feldman’s (2018) Grading for Equity, one critique stayed with me well beyond the meetings themselves. Traditional attendance and participation points, commonly viewed as harmless or even supportive, can reproduce inequities. Feldman argues that these systems often reward compliance rather than learning and privilege students whose lives allow for consistent presence and visible participation. I found his argument persuasive, even as I continued to navigate institutional expectations to include attendance or participation points, particularly in large enrollment courses.
The Book Club conversations prompted me to revisit my participation practices with greater clarity. I had been experimenting with alternatives for several semesters, but hearing colleagues articulate similar tensions helped me better understand what I was trying to accomplish and why.
I now use a flexible, multimodal participation system in classes of 65 to 70 students, where the scale of the room limits sustained whole-class discussion. The goal is to prioritize students’ thinking rather than their physical presence. On any given day, students may participate verbally or in writing. At the start of class, I distribute a 3×5 notecard, which students turn in before leaving.
Participation is capped at 50 points, earned in increments of five points per class day, and must be completed by the end of Week 10. Students can reach the full total even if they miss several class meetings. After Week 10, the course shifts toward individual project consultations and final exam preparation, so opportunities for class-wide participation decline. Students are informed of this structure at the beginning of the semester.
Students who contribute verbally write their name and indicate “verbal” on the card. Students who participate in writing may respond to a discussion prompt, ask a question, or reflect on material or real-world applications introduced that day. They may not copy slide content. I am explicit that I want their thinking. The cards capture reactions, questions, tentative ideas, and moments of uncertainty that often do not surface in a large-group setting. For quieter students, this creates a consistent way to engage with course material without competing for limited speaking time.
During office hours, I review the cards, enter points, and respond selectively through Canvas. While responding to every student is not feasible, I reply regularly to questions and to comments that open up further thinking. I have observed that students who receive written feedback often become more comfortable interacting with me later, even if that interaction remains informal or brief.
Reviewing the cards has also produced an instructional benefit I did not initially anticipate. Seeing students’ thinking in near real time allows me to identify patterns of confusion or misunderstanding and address them in subsequent classes.
Some students do not reach the full participation total, most often due to chronic absence. In those cases, the system makes disengagement visible early enough for me to reach out and clarify expectations while there is still time for students to recover points.
This approach has not resolved every challenge associated with participation, and no system can. It has, however, allowed me to align participation grading with student reflection and output, consistent with Feldman’s (2018) recommendations. Students earn credit for engaging with ideas rather than for occupying a seat. The flexibility acknowledges the realities of students’ lives without requiring explanation or justification. Reflecting on this practice through the Teaching Academy Book Club underscored the importance of having a community of colleagues willing to examine everyday pedagogical routines critically. Those conversations helped me situate a practical classroom strategy within a broader commitment to equitable learning at WSU.