Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Originalartikel

Students’ differential participation in classroom discourse in primary schools: Who participates (not), and what are the consequences for student learning?

Published Online:November 26, 2019https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000251

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Eine aktive Beteiligung am Unterrichtsgespräch gilt als wichtiger Baustein schulischen Lernens und als Indikator für bildungsbezogene Partizipation. In der vorliegenden Studie wurden mittels Video-Kodierungen von Schüler-Lehrkraft-Interaktionen die individuelle Beteiligung von N = 628 Schülerinnen und Schülern im naturwissenschaftlichen Sachunterricht an Grundschulen erfasst (N = 893 verbale Beteiligungen und N = 1.740 weitere Meldungen). Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich Schülerinnen und Schüler mit erhöhten Risikomerkmalen für ungünstige schulische Leistungsentwicklungen seltener von sich aus am Unterricht beteiligten und dass Lehrkräfte diese Selektion durch ihr Aufrufverhalten nicht maßgeblich kompensierten. Zudem ging eine Unterrichtsbeteiligung mit höherem Lernerfolg einher. In diesen Prozessen zeigt sich zum einen ein differenzielles (ein für individuelle Schülerinnen und Schüler unterschiedliches) Unterrichtsangebot der Lehrkraft und zum anderen eine differenzielle Nutzung dieses Angebots durch die Schülerinnen und Schüler. Die Befunde können damit zur Erklärung von differenziellen Leistungsentwicklungen beitragen. Ein besonderes pädagogisches Augenmerk sollte deshalb auf jenen Kindern liegen, die nicht aktiv am Unterrichtsgespräch beteiligt sind.


Students’ differential participation in classroom discourse in primary schools: Who participates (not), and what are the consequences for student learning?

Abstract. The active involvement of students in classroom discourse is considered crucial for student learning. Additionally, participation can be seen as a relevant indicator of social integration. In the present study, we used video codings of individual student-teacher interactions to investigate students’ participation in elementary science classes (N = 628 students, N = 893 verbal contributions, and N = 1,740 further hand-raisings). Results show that students at-risk of school failure tend to participate less in classroom discourse and that teachers did not seem to substantially compensate this selection by differentially picking on students. Furthermore, students’ individual participation was related to their learning gains. We interpret these findings in terms of supply-use-models of instruction. Analyses show differences in how different students are treated by the teacher (differential supply) as well as differences in students’ use of a teacher’s instruction (differential use). These findings can contribute to a better understanding of students’ differential learning development. They also indicate that researchers and practitioners should pay special attention to those students who are not actively involved in classroom discourse.

Literatur

  • Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2016). Bildung in Deutschland 2016. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung und Migration. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Babad, E. (1993). Teachers’ differential behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 347 – 376. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A. et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133 – 180. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Black, L. (2004). Differential participation in whole-class discussions and the construction of marginalised identities. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5, 34 – 54. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5 – 31. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Blumberg, E. (2008). Multikriteriale Zielerreichung im naturwissenschaftsbezogenen Sachunterricht der Grundschule (Doktorarbeit). Universität Münster. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bohlmann, N. L. & Weinstein, R. S. (2013). Classroom context, teacher expectations, and cognitive level: Predicting children’s math ability judgments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 288 – 298. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Valtin, R., Voss, R. et al. (2005). IGLU. Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. Münster: Waxmann. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. Oxford, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365 – 374. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Carstens, B. A., Ciancio, D. J., Crabtree, K. E., Hart, L. A., Best, T. L., Trant, E. C. … & Williams, R. L. (2016). The effects of voluntary versus called-on participation on response rate in class discussion and performance on course exams. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2, 179 – 192. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chi, M. T. & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219 – 243. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cobb, J. A. (1972). Relationship of discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 74 – 80. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Corno, L. & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Hrsg.), Handbook of research on teaching (S. 605 – 629). New York: MacMillan. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Decristan, J., Hondrich, A. L., Büttner, G., Hertel, S., Klieme, E., Kunter, M. et al. (2015). Impact of additional guidance in science education on primary students’ conceptual understanding. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 358–370. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeCorte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249 – 266. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Denn, A. K., Lotz, M., Theurer, C. & Lipowsky, F. (2015). „Prima, Lisa. Richtig “und „Psst, Max. Hör auf zu stören!“ Eine quantitative Studie zu Unterschieden im Feedbackverhalten von Lehrkräften gegenüber Mädchen und Jungen im Mathematikunterricht des zweiten Schuljahres. GENDER–Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft, 7, 29 – 47. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dixon, J. K., Egendoerfer, L. A. & Clements, T. (2009). Do they really need to raise their hands? Challenging a traditional social norm in a second grade mathematics classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1067 – 1076. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Döring, N. & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Berlin: Springer. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Elben, C. E. & Lohaus, A. (2001). Marburger Sprachverständnistest für Kinder ab 5 Jahren. Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fauth, B. & Leuders, T. (2018). Kognitive Aktivierung im Unterricht. Stuttgart: Landesinstitut für Schulentwicklung Baden-Württemberg. Zugriff am 23.02.2019. Verfügbar unter: https://www.ls-bw.de/,Lde/Startseite/Service/Wirksamer+Unterricht First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fend, H. (1998). Qualität im Bildungswesen. Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen, Schulprofilen und Lehrerleistungen. Weinheim: Juventa. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fiedler, K., Walther, E., Freytag, P. & Plessner, H. (2002). Judgment biases in a simulated classroom – a cognitive-environmental approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 527 – 561. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Flieller, A., Jarlégan, A. & Tazouti, Y. (2016). Who benefits from dyadic teacher–student interactions in whole-class settings? The Journal of Educational Research, 109, 311 – 324. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M. & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1 – 4. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Glück, C. W. (2011). Wortschatz- und Wortfindungstest für 6- bis 10-Jährige: WWT 6 – 10. München: Elsevier, Urban & Fischer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gruber, H. & Stamouli, E. (2015). Intelligenz und Vorwissen. In E. WildJ. Möller (Hrsg.), Pädagogische Psychologie (S. 25 – 44). Heidelberg: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?. Child Development, 76, 949 – 967. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hardy, I., Hertel, S., Kunter, M., Klieme, E., Warwas, J., Büttner, G. & Lühken, A. (2011). Adaptive Lerngelegenheiten in der Grundschule: Merkmale, methodisch-didaktische Schwerpunktsetzungen und erforderliche Lehrerkompetenzen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57, 819–833. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K. & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of „floating and sinking“. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 307 – 326. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hasselhorn, M., Andresen, S., Becker, B., Betz, T., Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. & Schmid, J. (2014). Children at risk of poor educational outcomes: in search of a transdisciplinary theoretical framework. Child Indicators Research, 7, 1 – 14. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81 – 112. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Helmke, A. (2009). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hofer, M. (1997). Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion. In F. E. Weinert (Hrsg.), Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule (S. 213 – 252). Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ing, M., Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., Wong, J., Shin, N. & Fernandez, C. H. (2015). Student participation in elementary mathematics classrooms: the missing link between teacher practices and student achievement?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90, 341 – 356. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jurik, V., Gröschner, A. & Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls’ and boys’ verbal engagement in physics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 23, 33 – 42. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kobarg, M. & Seidel, T. (2007). Prozessorientierte Lernbegleitung – Videoanalysen im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35, 148 – 168. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K. & Klieme, E. (2007). Gleicher Unterricht – gleiche Chancen für alle? Die Verteilung von Schülerbeiträgen im Klassenunterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35, 125 – 147. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S. & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Erberber, E., Preuschoff, C. & Galia, J.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 international science report: Findings from Embedded Formative Assessment IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 430 – 445. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muthén & Muthén (2012 – 2017). Mplus (Version 8) [Computer software]. Abgerufen von https://www.statmodel.com First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Naumann, A., Hartig, J. & Hochweber, J. (2017). Absolute and relative measures of instructional sensitivity. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 42, 678 – 705. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., Chapin, S. & Harbaugh, A. G. (2017). The silent and the vocal: Participation and learning in whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 48, 5 – 13. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. (2015). Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching: A video-based study on mathematics teaching in German and Swiss classrooms. In L. ResnickL. AsterhanS. Clarke (Hrsg.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (S. 181 – 193). Washington, DC: AERA. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pauli, C. & Lipowsky, F. (2007). Mitmachen oder Zuhören? Mündliche Schülerinnen- und Schülerbeteiligung im Mathematikunterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35, 101 – 124. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petermann, F., Metz, D. & Fröhlich, L. P. (2010). SET 5 – 10. Sprachstandserhebungstest für Kinder im Alter zwischen 5 und 10 Jahren. Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pielmeier, M., Huber, S. & Seidel, T. (2018). Is teacher judgment accuracy of students’ characteristics beneficial for verbal teacher-student interactions in classroom? Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 255 – 266 . First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Resnick, L., Asterhan, C. & Clarke, S. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rjosk, C., Richter, D., Hochweber, J., Lüdtke, O., Klieme, E. & Stanat, P. (2014). Socioeconomic and language minority classroom composition and individual reading achievement: The mediating role of instructional quality. Learning and Instruction, 32, 63 – 72. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Teacher expectancy effects: A brief update 25 years after the pygmalion experiment. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 3 – 12. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 43 – 50. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sacher, W. (1995). Meldungen und Aufrufe im Unterrichtsgespräch. Augsburg: Wißner. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Seidel, T. (2014). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modelle in der Unterrichtspsychologie. Integration von Struktur-und Prozessparadigma. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60, 828 – 844. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tenenbaum, H. R. & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Do teachers hold different expectations for ethnic minority than for European-American children? A meta-nalysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253 – 273. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Turner, J. C. & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 1759 – 1785. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M. & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271 – 296. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wang, M.-T., Willett, J. B. & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race / ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 465 – 480. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1 – 28. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Weiß, R. H. (2006). CFT 20-R: Grundintelligenztest Skala 2-Revision. Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wells, G. & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379 – 428. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zhu, M., Urhahne, D. & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2018). The longitudinal effects of teacher judgement and different teacher treatment on students’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychology, 38, 648 – 668. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar