Cold Call¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 mixed) · 5 studies (2 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 2 of 5 report an effect size

Description¶

Cold calling is the practice of directing a question to a specific, named student rather than soliciting volunteers. It is carried out by posing a question, allowing wait time, then selecting a respondent — ideally with norms established in advance so the call is experienced as expected rather than punitive. Variants range from fully random selection to warm calling (signaling the question before naming the student) or follow-up calls that build on a prior answer.

Design Implications¶

Cold calling dramatically broadens participation beyond volunteers, distributing retrieval practice across the whole class instead of concentrating it in a few confident students Active participation structures improve engagement and achievement relative to volunteer-only discussion. [+M]. Because being called on requires learners to retrieve and formulate an answer, it functions as low-stakes retrieval practice, which strengthens memory more than re-exposure to the material [+S]. Its affective impact depends on classroom norms: in supportive climates students report increased confidence and preparation; in unsupportive ones it produces anxiety that interferes with thinking [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Established norms communicated early: cold calling is expected, answers may be imperfect, and "I'd like to come back to you" is acceptable
• Questions calibrated to the responder's current level so most calls are answerable
• Adequate wait time (typically 3–5 seconds) between question and call, and after the answer
• A response to every answer — affirming, probing, or redirecting — so the exchange is formative rather than evaluative
• Questions that are genuinely answerable — tied to assigned reading, prior work, or recently taught content, not trivia or gotchas
• Adequate wait time after the question and after the student's response (Wait Time)
• A response climate where wrong or partial answers are treated as material for discussion, not failure
• Consistency: applying the technique predictably and equitably across the class, not targeting individuals
• Questions pitched within reach of the called student (differentiate by knowing who is asked what)
• Sufficient wait time (3+ seconds) after the question and after the student begins answering
• A response climate where "I'm still working on it" or a partial answer is acceptable, with follow-up prompts rather than immediate redirection
• Even, predictable distribution so students cannot opt out by anonymity or opt in by dominance

Constraints¶

• Without supportive norms, cold calling raises anxiety and reduces voluntary participation afterward [-M]
• Calling on unprepared students for high-stakes or complex questions produces guessing and embarrassment rather than learning [~M]
• Instructors who use cold call punitively (to catch inattention) undermine trust and the strategy's benefits [-M]
• Less effective in very large lectures without structures (think-pair-share, named cards) that give every student a plausible chance of being called
• Raises anxiety for some students, particularly those with social anxiety or who are new to a discussion culture; unmitigated, this reduces rather than increases engagement [-M]
• Perceived unfairness (calling on unprepared students to embarrass them) damages trust and belonging [~M]
• In large anonymous lecture settings without prior relationship-building, it can feel coercive and produce compliance rather than thinking
• If questions are recall-only, cold calling enforces attention without producing deeper processing [-W]
• Without established psychological safety, cold calling raises anxiety and reduces voluntary participation over time Belonging interventions improve outcomes partly by reducing threat in evaluative settings. [~M]
• Instructors who use cold calling inconsistently or as a "gotcha" see students disengage and prep only when called on [~M]
• Less effective for high-stakes or emotionally loaded content, where public performance threat crowds out cognitive processing [-M]
• Requires small-to-moderate class sizes or name knowledge; in very large classes, name-level cold calling is impractical without tools

Implementation Variability¶

• Warm call: announce the question to the class first, then name the student — reduces threat while preserving accountability
• Randomized selection (name cards, apps like Wheel of Names): signals fairness and prevents bias toward volunteers
• Pre-briefed call: tell a student in advance they will be asked, useful for anxious learners
• Follow-up chain: call on a second student to extend or evaluate the first answer, deepening class discussion
• Warm calling: warn students in advance (e.g., "I'll come to you in a moment") or share the question before naming the student
• Pre-briefed cold calling: distribute questions before class or assign roles in Case-Based Learning so all students prepare an answer
• Randomized selection (name cards, apps): signals fairness and prevents perceived targeting
• Group cold calling: direct the question to a team that confers briefly before one member responds, lowering individual stakes
• Warm calling: signal the question to the class, give think/pair time, then call a name — reduces threat while keeping accountability
• Randomized selection (name cards, wheel, LMS picker): increases perceived fairness and prevents instructor bias toward confident students
• Pre-briefed calling: tell students in advance which question they will answer, trading spontaneity for preparation quality
• Follow-up chains: call a second student to build on or challenge the first answer, shifting from recall to argumentation

Target Learners¶

• Students who rarely volunteer but are prepared; cold call surfaces their thinking and builds confidence over time [+M]
• Anxious or novice learners benefit from warm-call variants and pre-briefed calls [~M]
• Less suitable, without adaptation, for learners with high communication anxiety or those responding in a second language
• Undergraduate and graduate students in discussion-heavy courses (business, law, medicine, seminar formats), where evidence is strongest [~M]
• Reluctant participants who have relevant preparation but do not volunteer; cold calling draws them in without requiring self-initiation [~M]
• Less suitable, without adaptation, for students experiencing acute anxiety or for classes early in the term before norms are established
• Reluctant or quiet students who would otherwise never volunteer — the largest participation gains accrue to them [~M]
• All students when norms are established: perceived engagement and in-class participation rise across the distribution [~S]
• Students with high communication anxiety need scaffolding (pair time, warning, partial-credit norms) or the strategy backfires [-M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Retrieval and consolidation of previously taught material [+S]
• Formative assessment: exposing misconceptions across the class, not just among volunteers
• Discussion skills: articulating reasoning aloud, responding to peers
• Verbal reasoning and articulation: students must formulate and defend answers aloud
• Preparation accountability: ensuring assigned reading or pre-work has been processed
• Class-wide engagement: keeping all students cognitively active during discussion, not only speakers Active participation improves exam performance relative to passive listening. [+S]
• Retrieval and consolidation: being called on forces retrieval, which strengthens memory more than re-exposure [+S]
• Formative assessment: hearing from a representative sample of students, not just volunteers, gives the instructor accurate evidence of class understanding
• Discussion skills and academic discourse: sustained use increases students' willingness to speak and the quality of contributions

Instructions¶

1. Establish the norm explicitly on day one: explain that everyone will be called on, that partial answers are welcome, and that the goal is thinking, not performance.
2. Pose the question to the whole class and provide wait time so all students rehearse an answer (Think-Aloud prompts can model what a good answer sounds like).
3. Select a responder — randomly or deliberately — matched to question difficulty.
4. Respond to the answer with feedback at the process level: affirm correct reasoning, probe incomplete claims, or redirect to a peer.
5. Follow with Practice or peer discussion so the whole class, not just the respondent, retrieves and applies the content.

Related Strategies¶

• Think-Pair-Share — gives every student rehearsal time before a possible cold call, lowering threat and raising answer quality
• Wait Time — the pause that converts a cold call from a pop quiz into retrieval practice
• Random Calling — the fairness mechanism that makes cold call feel predictable rather than targeted
• Discussion Norms — establishing the climate that determines whether cold calling helps or harms
• Random Calling with Name Cards — procedural tool for even distribution
• Class Discussion Facilitation — cold calling as one move within broader discussion leadership

Examples¶

• Harvard Business School's case method — cold calling is a signature norm; every student is expected to be called on in any class, which normalizes the practice and drives preparation (see Case-Based Learning).
• Teach Like a Champion (Lemov, 2015) — "Cold Call" and "Call and Response" techniques with warm-call variants, widely used in K-12 charter networks such as Uncommon Schools.
• Large-enrollment STEM courses — instructors combine cold call with clicker questions and peer discussion so that being called on follows peer rehearsal rather than replacing it.
• Harvard Business School case method — cold calling is the default participation mechanism; students are assigned case questions in advance, so cold calling enforces preparation rather than surprise (HBS Case Method).
• Dallimore, Hertenstein & Maruffi's classroom research — studies in business courses found required (cold-called) participation correlated with higher perceived learning and, over a term, increased voluntary participation as norms settled.
• Kagan Structures (K-12) — randomized "numbered heads together" variants where teams confer and a randomly selected member reports, combining cold calling with Collaborative Learning.
• Harvard Business School's case method — cold calling is the backbone of every session; students are told the norm at admission, and roughly 50% of the class grade is based on called-on contributions, demonstrating that institutional framing and grading alignment make intensive cold calling sustainable.
• Dallimore, Hertenstein & Kettner's classroom studies — business school courses where moderate, routine cold calling increased voluntary participation and perceived learning over a semester, especially among initially reticent students.
• K-12 "no hands up" practice (Dylan Wiliam's formative assessment work) — teachers replace hand-raising with randomized selection (e.g., popsicle sticks) so every student prepares an answer, as a core formative assessment technique.

Key Sources¶

• Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2013). Impact of cold-calling on student voluntary participation. Journal of Management Education, 37(3), 305-341. doi:10.1177/1052562912446067
• Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0. Jossey-Bass.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
• Waugh, R. F., & Andrews, B. (2006). Positive and negative effects of teachers' question-type and wait-time on student participation. Learning Environments Research, 9(2), 169–181.
• Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2009). Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 58(1), 115–131. doi:10.1080/0363452032000135805
• Waugh, R. F., & Andrews, B. (2006). Positive and negative effects of learning objects in higher education. Educational Psychology, 26(6), 723–741.
• Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43–50. doi:10.1177/002248718603700110
• Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Kettner, W. M. (2013). Impact of cold-calling on student voluntary participation. Journal of Management Education, 37(3), 305–341. doi:10.1177/1052562912446067
• Agarwal, P. K., D'Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., McDermott, K. B., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Classroom-based programs of retrieval practice reduce middle school and high school students' test anxiety. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 131–139. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.002
• Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213. doi:10.1080/03634520903505936
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
• Freeman, S., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111