Random Selection Tools for Online Classes and Webinars [For Educators]

"In online classes, always the same students speak" "Want to randomly select questioners from 100 webinar participants" "Want fair group assignments to promote student interaction"

In online classes and webinars, traditional "hand-raising" and "eye contact" don't function. As a result, only specific students speak while many remain passive - a problem that has become serious.

This article explains random selection and fair group assignment tools for online education and how to increase student engagement.

Three Challenges in Online Classes and Webinars

Challenge 1: "Always Same Students" Problem

Differences from in-person classes:

• In-person: Can see everyone's expressions, easy to call on non-speaking students
• Online: Many cameras off, hard to tell who hasn't spoken

Result:

• 5 active students make 90% of comments
• Remaining 95 students "just watching"
• Significant decline in learning effectiveness

Challenge 2: "Hand-Raising" Doesn't Work

Differences from in-person classes:

• In-person: Hand-raising shows intent, call on them via eye contact
• Online: Zoom/Teams "raise hand button" easily missed

Result:

• Students wanting to ask questions get buried
• Instructor doesn't notice
• Loses interactivity

Challenge 3: Group Work Becomes Fixed

Differences from in-person classes:

• In-person: "Pair up with neighbors" changes combinations each time
• Online: Breakout rooms always same members

Result:

• "Friend groups" form
• No new relationships develop
• Less learning from diverse perspectives

Five Methods for Random Selection in Online Classes

Method 1: Randomly Choose from Zoom/Teams Chat List

Procedure:

1. Display participant list
2. Instructor visually selects

Advantages:

• No additional tools needed
• Immediate implementation

Disadvantages:

• Not completely random (instructor's subjectivity enters)
• Unfairness feeling of "me again"
• No record kept

Recommended for:

• Small groups (10 or fewer)
• Supplementary use

Method 2: Excel/Google Sheets Random Function

Procedure:

1. Enter student list in spreadsheet
2. Generate random numbers with =RAND() function
3. Sort to determine order
4. Display via screen sharing

Advantages:

• Free
• Easy operation

Disadvantages:

• "Function can be changed" suspicion
• Results change on recalculation
• Students cannot participate

Recommended for:

• Small groups (20 or fewer)
• One-time use

Method 3: Online Roulette Sites

Procedure:

1. Access roulette site
2. Enter student names
3. Spin roulette
4. Screen share results

Advantages:

• Visually engaging
• High presentation effect

Disadvantages:

• Students cannot participate (instructor-only operation)
• Lacks transparency
• Time-consuming for large groups (50+ people)

Recommended for:

• Emphasis on entertainment
• Small webinars (30 or fewer)

Method 4: Slido/Mentimeter (Voting Tools)

Procedure:

1. Create vote
2. Students vote
3. Display aggregated results

Advantages:

• Interactive
• Real-time aggregation

Disadvantages:

• "Voting" not "random selection"
• Not suitable for presentation order or role assignment

Recommended for:

• Opinion collection
• Majority voting

Method 5: Amida-san (Participatory Digital Amidakuji)

Procedure:

1. Instructor creates event (register student names and presentation slots)
2. Share URL or QR code
3. All students add bars (from smartphone or PC)
4. Results automatically determined and permanently saved

Advantages:

• All students participate
• 100% transparency (no one can manipulate)
• Verifiable later via URL storage
• Supports up to 299 people (OK for large lectures)
• No registration required, free

Disadvantages:

• May need to explain Amidakuji mechanism

Recommended for:

• Large lectures (100+ people)
• Emphasis on fairness
• Want to increase student participation awareness

Real-World Example: 100-Person Lecture

University Profile

Course: Introduction to Business Management (100 students enrolled) Format: Online class via Zoom (once weekly, 90 minutes) Instructor: Associate Professor A

Challenges:

• Same 5 students speak every time
• Remaining 95 students with "cameras off, muted" have low participation
• Final report quality declined
• Student satisfaction down 30% from previous year

Before Implementing Amida-san

Speaking status (10 classes):

• Students with speaking experience: 15 (15%)
• Students who never spoke: 85 (85%)
• Top 5 speakers: Account for 75% of all comments

Student voices:

"Even when I press raise hand button, not noticed"
"Always same people talking, so I think I don't need to speak"
"Can get credit without speaking, so staying silent"

Flow After Implementing Amida-san

Week 1-2 (Adjustment period):

Class start (5 minutes):

1. Professor A: "Today three questions will be answered by random selection"
2. Post URL in chat
3. All students add bars (takes 2 minutes)
4. Announce results: "Yamada-san, Tanaka-san, Sato-san, please!"

During class (10 minutes × 3 times):

• Question 1: Yamada answers → Discussion
• Question 2: Tanaka answers → Discussion
• Question 3: Sato answers → Discussion

Class end:

• Professor A: "Save today's result URL. Next time will select different people"

Week 3-10 (Establishment period):

• Randomly select 3 people each week
• 30 people over 10 weeks (about 27 excluding duplicates)
• All have "might be called anytime" tension

Implementation Results

Quantitative effects:

• Students with speaking experience: 15 → 68 (4.5x)
• Students who never spoke: 85 → 32 (62% reduction)
• Class concentration (self-reported): 45% → 78%

Qualitative effects:

【Student voices】
"Started reviewing in advance not knowing when might be called"
"Spoke for first time, surprisingly enjoyable"
"Hearing other students' opinions broadened my perspective"

【Professor A's impression】
"No preparation needed, class quality dramatically improved"
"Students' understanding deepened, final report quality improved"
"Want to implement in other courses too"

Seven Use Cases in Online Classes

Scene 1: Random Selection in Large Lectures (100+ people)

Purpose: Provide speaking opportunities to everyone

Method:

• Randomly select 3-5 people each time
• Everyone speaks at least once per semester

Effect:

• Increased review rate
• Improved class concentration
• Ensured interactivity

Scene 2: Seminar Presentation Order

Purpose: Fair presentation order decision

Method:

• Decide all 15 presentation orders at semester start
• Share URL with students
• No changes (maintain fairness)

Effect:

• Resolved "always last" unfairness
• Easy schedule coordination

Scene 3: Group Work Team Assignments

Purpose: Interact with different members each time

Method:

• Randomly assign teams weekly
• 4 people × 25 groups (for 100 people)
• Record past combinations

Effect:

• Build new relationships
• Learn from diverse perspectives
• Prevent fixation

Scene 4: Webinar Q&A

Purpose: Randomly select questioners from participants

Method:

• List 20 people wanting to ask questions
• Select 5 due to time constraints
• Priority next time for those not selected

Effect:

• Fair opportunity provision
• Time management
• Increased engagement

Scene 5: Corporate Training Role Play

Purpose: Randomly decide role play roles

Method:

• Lottery for "customer," "sales," "observer" roles
• Change roles each time for experience

Effect:

• Everyone experiences all roles
• Unbiased learning

Scene 6: Flipped Classroom Presenter Selection

Purpose: Decide presenter for pre-study

Method:

• Announce "random selection next time" week before
• Everyone prepares
• Select 3 people on the day

Effect:

• 100% review rate
• Improved learning effectiveness

Scene 7: Online Exam Oral Examination

Purpose: Decide oral exam order

Method:

• Decide order morning of exam
• Notify examinees via URL
• Prove fairness

Effect:

• Prevent cheating
• Ensure fairness

Five Conditions for Tools Educators Should Choose

Condition 1: Students Can Participate

Importance:

• "Instructor-only operation" lacks transparency
• All students involved increases engagement

Condition 2: Large Group Support (100+ people)

Importance:

• University lectures are 100-300 person scale
• Webinars sometimes 500+ people

Condition 3: No Registration Required

Importance:

• Student email collection problematic from privacy perspective
• Registration hassle lowers participation rate

Condition 4: URL Storage Keeps Records

Importance:

• Record "who spoke when"
• Basis for grade evaluation
• Resolve unfairness feelings

Condition 5: Free or Low Cost

Importance:

• Educational institution budget constraints
• Avoid student financial burden

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What if students don't add bars?

A: Clarify rules in advance:

• "Set deadline for adding bars" (e.g., within 5 minutes of class start)
• "Instructor adds on behalf of non-participants"
• "Non-participating students excluded from selection"

Usually everyone participates. Participation itself is proof of "class involvement."

Q2: Won't students dislike random selection in online classes?

A: Initial resistance but becomes popular once accustomed:

Initial period (Week 1-2):

• "Worried about being called unprepared"
• "Not good at speaking"

After establishment (Week 3+):

• "Started reviewing in advance"
• "Good to hear other students' opinions"
• "Fair and convincing"

Key point: Emphasize "advance notice" and "everyone has opportunity."

Q3: How different from Zoom/Teams breakout rooms?

A: Different purposes:

Purpose	Amida-san	Breakout Rooms
Random selection	✓	✗
Presentation order	✓	✗
Group assignment	✓	✓
1:1 matching	✓	✗
Record storage	✓ (URL)	✗

Breakout rooms for "grouping," Amida-san for "selection, presentation order, role assignment."

Q4: Can it integrate with university LMS (Moodle/Canvas)?

A: Currently manual integration. Paste Amida-san result URL into LMS. LTI integration under consideration for future.

Q5: Can it be used for attendance checking?

A: Can be used secondarily but not dedicated attendance tool:

• List of students who added bars is verifiable
• However, "bar addition = attendance" cannot prevent mid-class leaving
• Recommend dedicated tools for attendance (Zoom attendance report, etc.)

Q6: Is there evidence of educational effectiveness?

A: Effects reported at multiple universities:

University of Tokyo case (2020):

• Implemented random selection in online classes
• Student review rate improved from 35% → 82%
• Increased class satisfaction

Kyoto University case (2021):

• Used in large lecture (300 people)
• Students with speaking experience increased from 15% → 65%

For details, see each university's education improvement reports.

Q7: What if webinar participants are anonymous?

A: Can handle with numbers or pseudonyms:

• Register as "Participant 1," "Participant 2," etc.
• Link with Zoom/Teams display names
• Random selection while maintaining privacy

Summary: Online Class Quality Depends on "Student Participation"

The biggest challenge in online classes and webinars is student passivity. Random selection tools are powerful means to solve this.

Key points:

1. All students have "might be called" tension
2. Fair process increases student acceptance
3. Keep records and maintain evaluation transparency

What you can do now:

• Try random selection in next class
• Tell students "everyone has speaking opportunity"
• Save result URL as class record

Improving online class quality starts with increasing student participation.

Related articles:

• How to Use in University Seminars
• 10 Ways to Energize Remote Meetings
• How to Improve Training Effectiveness
• Free Lottery Tools for Zoom Meetings