糖心传媒

Culture plays a significant role in how participation, voice, and authority are understood in classrooms. In culturally diverse learning environments, expectations about who should speak, when it is appropriate to question authority, and what respectful behaviour looks like can vary widely. 

Yet these differences are not simply variations in practice; they are shaped by power. In many contemporary educational contexts, particularly those influenced by Western pedagogical traditions, speaking up, sharing ideas confidently, and questioning perspectives are treated as primary indicators of student agency. In this framing, voice becomes visible, audible, and often immediate. 

However, this understanding is not culturally neutral. It privileges forms of participation associated with verbal confidence and, often, extraversion. As a result, other culturally grounded ways of engaging, such as listening attentively, reflecting before speaking, or waiting to be invited into discussion, can be overlooked or misinterpreted. When this happens, silence is no longer seen as a different expression of agency, but as its absence.

What Schools Mean by 鈥淪tudent Voice鈥�

Across many education systems, student voice is commonly defined through visibility and verbal expression. Students are encouraged to speak often, share ideas confidently, and contribute actively to discussion. These practices are frequently framed as empowering and are closely linked to ideas of agency and participation. 

However, scholars have long argued that such understandings are shaped by dominant cultural norms. Poonoosamy (2018), for example, suggests that concepts such as international-mindedness may reflect 鈥淎merican or European mindedness鈥� (p. 17). In practice, this means that behaviours aligned with Western educational values: expressing opinions openly, questioning authority, and speaking frequently are often recognized as markers of engagement and capability. 

This creates a narrow and culturally specific definition of participation. Students who are comfortable speaking quickly and assertively are more likely to be seen as confident and agentic. In contrast, students who engage through observation, reflection, or selective participation may be less visible within classroom interactions. 

Importantly, this is not a matter of ability or willingness. Rather, it reflects how different cultural traditions shape communication. In many contexts, thoughtful silence, careful listening, and measured responses are valued as signs of respect and intellectual engagement. When these forms of participation are not recognized, students鈥� engagement can be misunderstood. 

Culture, Silence, and Misinterpretation 

Imagine a classroom discussion where a young student confidently says, 鈥淐hildren shouldn鈥檛 question adults. It鈥檚 more respectful to stay quiet.鈥� A few students quickly respond, eager to share their opinions. Others sit still, eyes focused, listening carefully but saying nothing. The teacher scans the room, noticing who has spoken and who has not, and begins to form assumptions about who is engaged. In this moment, silence risks being misread, even though it may reflect attentiveness, respect, or thoughtful processing. Such a moment reveals how deeply cultural expectations shape children鈥檚 understanding of participation. 

What may be interpreted in some contexts as disengagement can, in others, reflect attentiveness, discipline, and respect. Silence, in this sense, is not passive. It is often intentional and culturally meaningful. 

At the same time, in classrooms where verbal participation is prioritized, these forms of engagement can be misread. When educators rely primarily on who speaks, how often, and how confidently as indicators of understanding, quieter students may be perceived as less capable or less engaged. In practice, this can look like a student who listens attentively throughout a lesson but is overlooked during discussions or not called on because they have not volunteered to speak. Over time, patterns like these can shape how participation and ability are perceived. From my own positioning, I experience this tension directly. As a first-generation Canadian with Ghanaian heritage, I have been shaped by both Western and Ghanaian cultural expectations. In Western educational contexts, speaking up and sharing ideas are encouraged as signs of confidence. In Ghanaian cultural contexts, listening carefully, waiting to be invited to speak, and showing restraint are often understood as respectful and appropriate. 

These ways of engaging are not contradictory; they coexist. Yet when one is privileged over the other, participation becomes unevenly recognized. 

Power: Whose Voice Counts? 

Participation in classrooms is not only about communication styles; it is also about power. 

When particular forms of expression are treated as the standard for engagement, students who already embody those forms are more likely to be recognized, affirmed, and given opportunities to lead. Their voices align with what the system understands as 鈥済ood participation.鈥� 

In contrast, students whose cultural backgrounds emphasize reflection, humility, or deference to authority may be less visible within classroom interactions. Their silence is rarely interpreted as thoughtful or intentional. Instead, it can be read as a lack of confidence or understanding. 

Over time, this dynamic shapes how students are perceived not only by teachers, but also by their peers. What appears to be confidence may reflect familiarity with dominant norms, while quieter forms of engagement remain undervalued. 

These patterns highlight how power operates subtly in classrooms. Here, power is not only about authority held by the teacher, but about the norms and expectations that shape which forms of participation are recognized and valued. It is not only about who speaks, but about whose ways of speaking are recognized as legitimate. 

The Consequences of Misrecognition

When students repeatedly experience their ways of participating as misunderstood, the impact can extend beyond individual classroom moments. 

A student who begins as quiet but attentive may gradually withdraw if their engagement is consistently overlooked. Over time, the message they receive is not simply that they should speak more, but that their current ways of participating are insufficient. 

This has implications for identity and belonging. Students may begin to question whether their perspectives matter or whether they fit within the learning environment. What begins as a difference in communication style can become a question of self-worth. 

Misreading silence can also shape learning trajectories. When thoughtful observation or careful listening are interpreted as lack of ability, students may be underestimated or excluded from opportunities to contribute meaningfully. For example, a student who consistently listens and understands the lesson may not be selected to share ideas during discussions or may be overlooked for leadership roles because they do not speak as often. 

For educators, these moments highlight an important responsibility. Teaching is not only about facilitating learning, but also about ensuring that students feel recognized, capable, and able to participate in ways that reflect who they are. 

Implications for Practice 

Moving from understanding these patterns to responding to them, if classrooms are to become more equitable, educators must move beyond narrow definitions of participation. 

Voice is not limited to verbal expression. Silence, when culturally informed and intentional, can represent a meaningful form of communication. Listening, observing, reflecting, and contributing in different ways are all forms of engagement. 

Rather than asking, 鈥淲hy is this student not speaking?鈥� educators might instead ask: 

What is this student communicating? 

How do they demonstrate understanding? 

What conditions make participation feel safe and possible? 

Creating more inclusive classrooms may involve designing multiple pathways for participation, through written reflection, small-group dialogue, one-to-one conversations, or other forms of contribution that recognize diverse communication styles. 

Ultimately, there is no single way to demonstrate agency. Participation is shaped by culture, identity, safety, and power. The responsibility of educators is not to require students to conform to one definition of voice, but to create learning environments expansive enough to recognize multiple ways of being present, thinking, and contributing.

This blog post is based on Gifty Kwaofio鈥檚 runner-up submission for the 糖心传媒 Student Writing Award

References 

Nyamekye, E., Zengulaaru, J., Addae, I., Mutawakil, A.-R., & Ntiakoh, G. B. (2025). Culture,   Critical Pedagogy, and Critical Thinking among 鈥楥hildren鈥� in Ghana: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Childhood Constructions in Ghanaian Proverbs. Journal of Asian and African Studies (Leiden), 60(5), 3257鈥�3272.  

Poonoosamy, M. (2018). Third culture kids鈥� sense of international mindedness鈥�: Case studies of students in two International Baccalaureate schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 17(3), 207鈥�227.  

Image Credits

1. Classroom discussion stock photograph from Canva. 
2. “” by  is licensed under . 

---