Graphic by Rielle Reyes ’27/The Choate News
By Francesca Howard ’26
As a Gold Key Ambassador at Choate, I’ve toured countless families through the halls of our Humanities building. Each time, I make it a point to stop outside a classroom and gesture towards the iconic oval Harkness table sitting proudly at its heart.
The premise of the Harkness pedagogy is quite straightforward: students sit around a table and discuss topics freely, without the need to raise their hands. The teacher acts more as a facilitator than a lecturer, letting students pilot their learning and making the classroom more participatory. While the Harkness method is not utilized in every classroom every day, it is incorporated into often unpopular “graded discussions.” In these infamous conversations, students are assessed on their ability to converse amongst themselves articulately, thoughtfully, and productively. Talking about how this method revolutionizes our Choate classroom discussions and promotes an equal exchange of ideas is built into the tour guide script.
But, when I’m sitting at that same Harkness table as a student, the reality is often quite different. It’s time to set the record straight: the Harkness method rarely matches the exaggerated sales pitch aimed toward prospective families because it fundamentally misunderstands how students interact. It is important to acknowledge that each teacher adapts the Harkness method to their preferences and instruction styles. In this sense, most in-class discussions blend the Socratic and Harkness methods. Nevertheless, broader issues with the Harkness method precipitate into Choate classrooms and must be addressed.
More often than not, the Harkness method stifles participation in classroom discussions. In a typical Harkness discussion, it becomes apparent that while all students are indeed equal, some are, to paraphrase George Orwell’s Animal Farm, more equal than others. Ironically, while the Harkness method aims to democratize the space, it ends up privileging a particular type of student: the quick, the bold, and the articulate. Conversations are dominated by a self-selecting few, turning the classroom into an oligarchy.
Meanwhile, more reticent students struggle to interject or find their voice amidst the extroverted students’ rapid-fire exchange. They wait for a gap that never comes. Whenever they muster the courage to speak, the discussion has already moved on. Or if they do decide to interpose, they are interrupted before they can finish their thought.
Traditional classrooms where students raise their hands and teachers moderate who speak provide a level of order that helps all students know when and how they might contribute. On the other hand, the Harkness method takes away that comfort, replacing it with an anxiety-inducing pressure to perform rather than learn.
Furthermore, teachers will often draw “conversation webs” to track student participation. These visual representations of student contributions are a constant reminder of each student’s involvement in the discussion, exacerbating the need to perform. To validate their presence and relevance to the table, students feel compelled to make highly articulate remarks, even at the expense of interrupting or restating others’ ideas.
As someone who typically engages in discussions under the Harkness method, even I find it lacking. There is a redundancy in hashing out ideas with the same few classmates day after day. To be frank, it’s boring and frustrating. One of the great things about going to a school like Choate is being around a diverse group of students with a wide range of ideas.
However, this diversity is not accurately reflected in Harkness classroom settings. It’s not even that these dominant voices are more insightful or their ideas more valid; it’s simply because the Harkness method tends to value quick wit over substantive dialogue.
While there is merit to having a classroom setting that prepares students for real world conversations, we should combine Harkness techniques with traditional learning methods to maximize their effectiveness.
My English teacher, Mr. Joe Lampe, has successfully done this in our classroom. First, he integrates reflective pauses and journaling sessions into discussions. By allowing brief interludes for students to gather their thoughts and formulate responses, Mr. Lampe encourages more thoughtful and substantive dialogue. Then, we move to small group discussions that ensure everyone’s ideas are heard. Finally, we transition to a larger discussion with designated times for students to speak, thus enhancing both the depth and the quality of dialogue.
Although teachers like Mr. Lampe have already endeavored to make these changes, they must be expanded to all Harkness-centered courses and used regularly to encourage participation.
If Choate genuinely cares about inclusive education and practical learning, the Administration must acknowledge that students contribute to discussions in different ways. We should aim for a classroom where every student feels valued and confident enough to share their thoughts. That’s the kind of learning environment we should be selling on school tours, and more importantly, it’s the kind we should strive to create every day.
