I want to be upfront about something before this goes any further: this post is, at least in part, personal catharsis. It is me needing to write something down because writing things down is how I process them, and this particular thing has been building for a while. This is a practitioner and a doctoral student writing from the middle of an experience that is frustrating him, and deciding to be honest about it. That said, it is not just venting. My dissertation is focused on this exact territory: Introverted Voices in Higher Education: How Extroversion Bias Shapes Students' Experiences of Inclusion.
So in a way, what I am writing about here is also my research area. The fact that I needed to write this post at all is, I think, part of the story I am eventually going to tell in a much longer document with a lot more citations. The classroom, as it is currently designed in most institutions, was not built for introverts. It was built for people who process by talking. People who feel energized by group work. I am not one of those people, and neither are a significant portion of the students sitting in classrooms and online courses right now. I think about learning for a living and I want to be clear about something: I am tired. Not from the work. From the relentless assumption that collaboration is synonymous with engagement, that talking is the same thing as thinking, and that if you are not visibly performing in a group or social setting, you are not learning or contributing.
I want to start with the thing I am actually writing this about, because without it the rest of this stays abstract. Since starting my doctoral program, every class session has involved group work. Every one. The format is synchronous online, which means we are all in a Microsoft Teams room together for a set number of hours each class. And every session, without exception, we get dropped into breakout rooms. We get assigned discussion tasks. We get told to collaborate. There is almost no individual quiet time. No space to write first, think first, organize first. Just... groups. Constantly.
I keep waiting for a session that starts differently. One that opens with ten - twenty minutes of quiet individual working time before we talk. One that gives me a chance to figure out what I actually think before I am asked to defend it in front of classmates. It has not happened yet. Here is the thing about how I process. I write to think. I need to get something onto a page before I know what I actually believe about it. When I am pulled into a group discussion before that process has had a chance to start, I am not bringing my thinking to the table. I have developed ideas about learning and design and pedagogy that I genuinely want to engage with at this level. But the format keeps putting me in a position where I cannot access or synthesize those ideas, because the conditions for my thinking are not being created. That is what I mean when I say I am tired.
There is a version of active learning that is genuinely transformative. I believe in it. I have built courses around it. Constructivism, the idea that learners build meaning through experience rather than passive reception, is foundational to how I approach teaching and learning. But somewhere along the way, active learning seemingly got flattened into a single interpretation: get students talking to each other. Put them in groups. Have them share out. In online modalities, send them to breakout rooms and give them five minutes to answer a question they just heard for the first time. Introverts do not process best in real-time social performance contexts. We think deeply. We think alone first. We form better ideas when we have time to reflect before we speak. The research on this is not particularly controversial. What is controversial, apparently, is letting it change anything about how we design instruction. Because here we are, in 2026, and the default is still: group activity. Every. Single. Class.
Part of what makes this so hard to push back on is how the conversation gets framed. Extroverted participation is legible. It shows up in ways instructors can see: verbal contributions, group energy, visible activity in the breakout room. Introverted engagement is largely invisible to someone who is not looking for it. The student who is sitting quietly, turning an idea over, synthesizing what they just heard against what they already know... that student looks, from the outside, like someone who is not engaged. So instructors design to surface engagement, and the tools they reach for are the ones that privilege extroverted learners. Synchronous breakout rooms. Live think-pair-share exercises. Group processing before individual processing. These are not inherently bad tools. They can be excellent, in the right context. But when they become the default for every session, something important gets communicated to a whole category of learners: the way you naturally process is not what we designed for. You and your needs are not accounted for, you are not the target demographic.
This is an equity issue. I want to be careful not to reduce introversion to a simple personality category, because the reality is more layered than that. Introversion intersects with cultural background. In many cultures, speaking up in a group before an elder or authority figure is not disengagement. It is respect. Introverted processing styles also overlap with certain neurodivergent profiles. And social anxiety, which is distinct from introversion but often looks similar from the outside, makes the just-speak-up expectation actively harmful for some students. When we design learning environments that privilege one processing style above all others, we are not being neutral. We are making a choice about whose natural way of engaging with ideas is legitimate, and whose is a "deficit" to be managed. That framing should bother us a lot more than it seems to. There is a term for systemic design that advantages one group's natural tendencies over another's: bias! We talk a lot in higher education about inclusive learning environments. But introversion bias tends to slide right past all of that because it does not fit neatly into the categories we have been trained to notice. It is still bias.
I am not arguing against collaboration. I am arguing against the unexamined assumption that collaboration must be synchronous, verbal, and constant in order to count. There is a whole range of learning structures that honor introverted processing while still building community, developing critical thinking, and meeting the goals that group work is supposed to address. Asynchronous discussion, done well, is one of them. Written reflection before group processing is another. Solo ideation before pair or group sharing, what design thinking calls diverge-before-converge, gives introverts time to actually form ideas before being asked to share them. Even something as simple as five minutes of individual working time at the start of a session before anyone talks changes the dynamic entirely. Multimodal participation options, where students can contribute through writing or recorded response rather than exclusively through live verbal performance, open the room to more kinds of thinkers. These are not accommodations, it's just simply inclusive instructional design.
Here is what does not always make it into the academic framing: it is tiring. Not just cognitively but emotionally. Every group activity before I have had time to think, every breakout room I enter already behind, every session where the only recognized form of participation is performing on demand... those add up. They communicate something. They say: You are welcome here, but you will need to adapt. And students adapt. They do. Introverts have been adapting to extrovert-normed environments their entire lives. We get good at it. But getting good at something and finding it natural are not the same thing, and the cost of that adaptation is real even when it is invisible. I think about the students who quietly concluded that they were not good at school because they never thrived in these environments. The students who read their own discomfort as a personal failing rather than exclusion; who dropped a course, or stopped contributing, or quietly checked out, not because they lacked intellectual capacity, but because the environment kept signaling that their natural mode of engagement was the wrong one.
The quiet irony of all this is that introverts are, almost by definition, less likely to raise the issue out loud. We are less likely to push back in the moment, to corner an instructor after class, to write the course evaluation comment that says too much group work. We adapt and absorb and get through it and go home and decompress and do not say much. Which means the feedback loops that might actually change instructional design rarely capture this experience in a way that registers. So the design stays. The next cohort comes through. The pattern repeats. I am writing this because I needed to write it. Because putting it on a page is how I process things, and this is a thing that needed processing. But I am also writing it because I suspect there are other learners in synchronous programs right now who are having the same experience and have not named it yet. Who are sitting in the classroom or their online breakout rooms wondering why they feel behind before the discussion even starts. Who are going home after class sessions feeling drained in a way that does not match how interested they actually are in the material. Your experience is not a personal failing. The exhaustion is a reasonable response to a real structural problem. You are not less engaged. You are not less capable. You are being asked, repeatedly and often invisibly, to learn in a mode that was not designed for you.
👊🎤
Tags
Learning Design