I have tried grading in-class contribution/participation, but nothing I did motivated students to participate in a class of 50+ students. I just had 60% of students with zeroes, which my department did not accept, so they told me to change my grading policy mid-semester. I also had a few students come to office hours in tears because they felt too anxious to speak up in class. I do think that taking contribution into account for grading is great for seminar classes; as a grad student, though, I'm only given lecture-heavy courses. I design my own syllabi, but when I proposed a participation-based Intro to Sociology class, the professors just laughed and said no.

I have wondered about oral exams. I nearly flunked the one I had as an undergrad—I could not handle the pressure of my professor staring me down like that—but it does feel more straightforward. I will have to give that one some thought.

I recently taught a few upper-level sociology courses, and I used essays to try to get students to engage in critical thinking (e.g., analyzing and applying theories). It took an inordinate amount of time and energy grade these compared to a more traditional exam, but I felt it was worth it.

With this, though... I'm concerned that a decently motivated student could take ChatGPT output, modify it in places where they feel comfortable in doing so, and bypass gaining the writing and analytical skills that I try to teach. I would love to incorporate this into an assignment, and I've got a few ideas how, but I'm still worried about how educators will assess the "higher" forms of cognition.