An investigation into participation in classroom dialogue in mainland China

Figures & data

Table

Coding scheme for participation in classroom dialogue
Student coding number	Participation frequency				Participation quality
	Specific participation forms				Standard level			Cognitive level
	TISC	TISNC	TNISC	TNISNC	Incorrect	Partially correct	Correct	Information statement	Reasoning

Table 1. Forms of classroom participation that are included in my study

	Teacher initiates	Teacher does not initiate
Student shows intention to respond and contributes	TISC: Teacher initiates a dialogue (e.g. ask a question), students are allowed to respond (answer questions, make comments or ask questions) when they intend to participate (e.g. raise hands)	TNISC: Teacher does not initiate a dialogue (e.g. ask a question), but students contribute (e.g. call out an answer)
Student shows intention to respond, but does not contribute	TISNC: Teacher initiates a dialogue, students are not selected to respond (answer questions, make comments or ask questions) when they intend to participate (e.g. raise hands)	TNISNC: Teacher does not initiate a dialogue (e.g. ask a question). Students show intention to participate (raise hands), but they are not allowed to contribute

Table 2. Coding categories for participation quality

	Coding dimension	Category	How to differentiate a category?
Participation quality	Standard level	Incorrect	Explicit correction—direct instruction (e.g. not right, think more carefully), sometimes followed by revised answers
		Partially correct	Evaluation and extended response (e.g. good, however, …)
		Correct	Affirmation—direct instruction (e.g. correct, right, excellent, yes, exactly)
	Cognitive level	Information statement	Recall predetermined information, either previously learned knowledge or daily experiences; referring back to prior contributions made by other students in the dialogue
			Describe an accessible or visible phenomenon—Example: “Temperature of solvent” [response to a question: “What affects the rate of dissolving?”] (Chin, 2006, p. 1323)
		Reasoning	Explain or justify behaviours or phenomenon; clarify how to reach a conclusion; illustrate thinking process, and usually respond to “why”—Examples: “It takes up space” [response to “Can you elaborate on why the volume will be less?”] (Chin, 2006, p. 1331)

Source: Standard level is adapted from Brophy and Good (1970) and Chin (2006).

Cognitive level is adapted from Chin (2006), Marsha and Webb (2012) and Pontefract and Hardman (2005).

Table 3. Participation scales in classroom dialogue: means and standard deviation (N = 170, using raw data)

Scale	M	SD
TISC	2.27	2.34
TISNC	.56	1.22
TNISC	2.12	3.94
TNISNC	.65	1.73
Incorrect	.27	.66
Partially correct	.79	1.09
Correct	1.37	1.84
Information statement	1.86	2.48
Reasoning	1.89	2.52

Table 4. Description of participation in each subject (N = 170, using raw data)

Scale	Chinese literacy		Physics		Mathematics
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
TISC	.95	1.03	.53	.88	.79	1.20
TISNC	.17	.62	.25	.65	.14	.54
TNISC	.73	1.80	.74	1.35	.65	1.48
TNISNC	.22	.98	.23	.66	.21	.67
Incorrect	.11	.48	.06	.26	.10	.30
Partially correct	.39	.68	.18	.43	.22	.50
Correct	.54	.79	.37	.76	.47	.90
Information statement	.88	1.31	.45	.90	.54	.87
Reasoning	.65	1.09	.55	.99	.69	1.11

Table 5. Spearman correlation coefficients between scales of participation (N = 170, using raw data)

Scales	TISC	TISNC	TNISC	TNISNC	Incorrect	Partially correct	Correct	Information statement	Reasoning
TISC	1
TISNC	.22**
TNISC	.33**	.59**
TNISNC	.32**	.31**	.55**
Incorrect	.47**	.14	.07	.06
Partially correct	.63**	.21*	.43**	.46**	.22**
Correct	.78**	.12*	.34**	.28**	.30**	.38**
Information statement	.80**	.24**	.49**	.41**	.27**	.64**	.64**
Reasoning	.86**	.20*	.44**	.38**	.30**	.58**	.74**	.70**

Table 6. Differences in participation based on gender, class and subjects (using transformed data)

	Mann–Whitney U-test based on gender (N = 170)			Kruskal–Wallis test based on class (N = 170)		Kruskal–Wallis test based on subjects (N = 170)
Scale	Z	Sig (2-tailed)	χ^2		Sig (2-tailed)	χ^2	Sig (2-tailed)
TISC	−1.04	.30	.11		.95	9.92	.09
TISNC	−.73	.46	3.52		.17	4.13	.13
TNISC	−.78	.44	5.92		.06	1.41	.49
TNISNC	−.78	.44	8.53		.06	.49	.78
Incorrect	−1.75	.08	.61		.74	2.29	.32
Partially correct	−1.28	.20	.54		.76	8.29	.07
Correct	−.49	.62	1.47		.48	7.07	.10
Information statement	−.65	.52	2.38		.31	9.64	.09
Reasoning	−1.32	.19	2.23		.33	1.97	.37
Participation frequency	−.13	.90	2.85		.24	2.08	.35
Participation quality	−.92	.36	.50		.78	.35	.11

Table 7. Difference in participation based on attainment (N = 170, using transformed data)

Participation scales	Score for Chinese literacy	Score for physics	Score for mathematics	Average score for Chinese literacy
TISC	.29^**	.25^**	.20^*	.28^**
TISNC	.25^**	.23^**	.17^*	.24^**
TNISC	.27^**	.24^**	.12	.23^**
TNISNC	.08	.09	.02	.06
Incorrect	.08	.09	.02	.06
Partially correct	.12	.13	.05	.11
Correct	.21^**	.21^**	.18	.23^**
Information statement	.14	.12	.15	.13
Reasoning	.30^**	.26^**	.21^**	.29^**
Participation frequency	.34^**	.32^**	.21^*	.32^**
Participation quality	.26^**	.25^**	.19^*	.26^**

^* p < .05.

^** p < .01.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315–1346.10.1080/09500690600621100

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teacher-child dyadic interaction: A manual for coding classroom behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 131–138.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marsha, I., & Webb, N. M. (2012). Characterizing mathematics classroom practice: Impact of observation and coding choices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31, 14–26.

 Google Scholar

Pontefract, C., & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41, 87–106.10.1080/03050060500073264

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar