In this BELMAS blog, Omar Mizel invites readers to reconsider the assumption that participation is most visible when students speak. Drawing on a classroom encounter in East Jerusalem, the post reflects on how silence can be misread as disengagement, when it may instead signal attentiveness, reflection, respect, or culturally different ways of learning. It asks what universities might overlook when they reward only particular forms of participation, and argues that inclusive leadership requires a broader understanding of recognition, belonging, and student engagement.
If you have any comments or thoughts about this blog and the points it raises, then do share on social media using the hashtag #BELMASblog or contact the BELMAS Blog editorial team by emailing: blog@belmas.org.uk
A visiting lecturer once left a classroom in East Jerusalem visibly frustrated. “They did not react at all,” he remarked afterwards. From his perspective, the lesson had failed. No one interrupted him, challenged his ideas, or volunteered an answer, and the classroom remained almost completely silent.
Yet I had experienced the same class differently. The students listened attentively, took notes, and followed the discussion carefully. Several approached the lecturer afterwards to ask thoughtful questions and continue the conversation. What appeared to be disengagement was, in fact, a different form of engagement.
That moment has stayed with me because it highlights a challenge facing many universities today. As campuses become increasingly diverse, educational leaders encounter students whose ways of participating do not always match institutional expectations. The challenge is not simply how to increase participation, but how to recognise it when it takes unfamiliar forms.
The Participation We Expect
Most educators carry assumptions about what an engaged student looks like. We often associate engagement with speaking confidently, asking questions, contributing to discussions, and expressing opinions openly. When students behave in these ways, we feel reassured that learning is taking place. (Zwiers and Crawford, 2023)
However, these expectations are shaped by particular educational traditions and are not universally shared. In many Western universities, participation is closely linked to verbal interaction and debate. While these practices have clear value, they are not the only ways students demonstrate engagement. (Wang and Kruk, 2024) This raises an important question: when we evaluate participation, are we assessing learning itself, or familiarity with a particular academic culture?
Learning to Listen Differently
Over more than four decades of teaching in England, Germany, Israel, and East Jerusalem, I have learned that participation does not always sound the same. I remember asking a group of Arab students to volunteer an answer during a classroom discussion. Rather than immediately raising their hands, they looked quietly at one another before one student pointed to a classmate and said, “He will do it.”
At first, I interpreted this as hesitation. Later, I realised that I had misunderstood what was happening. For those students, speaking publicly involved responsibility, modesty, representation, and respect for the group. They were participating, but in a way that differed from my expectations.
Experiences like this remind us that misunderstandings often arise not because students fail to engage, but because institutions fail to recognise unfamiliar forms of engagement.
What Institutions Reward
Bourdieu (1977) argued that educational institutions reward particular forms of cultural capital. Some students arrive at university already familiar with the unwritten rules of academic life and appear naturally engaged. Others may be equally capable but express themselves differently.
As a result, universities can unintentionally privilege certain communication styles over others. Students whose behaviour aligns with institutional expectations are often viewed as engaged, while others may be judged less positively despite demonstrating similar commitment to learning. This is not only a pedagogical issue; it is also a leadership issue because institutional assumptions influence how participation is recognised and rewarded.
Silence, Recognition, and Belonging
Research on multicultural classrooms suggests that silence is often misunderstood. Students may remain silent because they are translating ideas, reflecting before speaking, or adapting to unfamiliar expectations. Although silence can sometimes indicate uncertainty, it can also reflect concentration, careful listening, and intellectual engagement.
Students are more likely to participate when they feel respected and valued as legitimate members of a learning community. When their ways of participating are repeatedly misunderstood, they may gradually withdraw. Participation, therefore, is not only about speaking; it is also about belonging. (Honneth, 2001).
A Leadership Question
Educational leaders frequently hear concerns about quiet classrooms. (Corum, 2025). The immediate response is often to ask how students can be encouraged to speak more. A more useful question may be whether silence is being interpreted correctly in the first place.
Leadership shapes the assumptions that underpin teaching evaluation, staff development, and student engagement policies. If those assumptions recognise only one form of participation, universities risk overlooking talented students whose approaches to learning differ from dominant norms. Inclusive leadership is therefore not simply about widening access. It is also about widening recognition.
Looking Beyond Silence
This is not an argument for silent classrooms. Discussion and debate remain essential elements of higher education. However, genuinely inclusive universities must recognise that meaningful participation can take different forms.
The quiet classroom in East Jerusalem taught me a lesson that has remained with me throughout my career: silence is not always the absence of engagement. Sometimes it reflects a different cultural understanding of engagement.
Perhaps educational leaders should stop asking why some students remain silent and begin asking a different question. The answer may reveal as much about our institutions as it does about our students.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
Honneth, A. (2001). Recognition or redistribution?. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2-3), 43-55.
Wang, S., Moskal, M., & Schweisfurth, M. (2022). The social practice of silence in intercultural classrooms at a UK university. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(4), 600–617.
Wang, Y., & Kruk, M. (2024). Modeling the interaction between teacher credibility, teacher confirmation, and English major students’ academic engagement: A sequential mixed-methods approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14(2), 235–265.
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2023). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Routledge.
