CONDICIONES GENERALES DEL EQUIPAMIENTO ELECTROMECANICO

The purpose of conducting qualitative analysis was to provide a supplementary understanding of the results obtained from the quantitative analyses; namely, how students perceive the relationship between thinking style, participation in classroom dialogue and learning outcomes. In particular, the intention was to demonstrate the mechanisms and processes involved in students’ thinking styles affecting how they benefit from classroom participation. This purpose has been generally fulfilled.

The interviewees selected were involved in classroom dialogue in diverse ways, with some talking frequently while others were rather quiet. Various methods of participation were adopted, nevertheless students’ intentions were the same in that most or all of them expressed a willingness to learn well. They viewed a particular method of participation, either talk or remaining attentively silent, as more beneficial to their learning, for example by increasing memorization, deepening understanding or promoting critical thinking. They also expressed a strong sense of self-control about their learning process, and were free to learn using their preferred methods. This generally endowed them with a satisfactory and comfortable learning experience, which they felt was helpful for their learning achievement.

All interviewees believed that individual characteristics played an essential role in affecting their class participation and the learning outcomes they achieved through particular methods of classroom

involvement. It was deduced from their statements that each individual’s thinking styles did affect his/her choice of either talk or silence in classroom dialogue, and how they benefitted from this particular selection. However, the students themselves seemed to be less aware of this effect. A possible reason for this is that thinking style was a rather novel concept to these Chinese high school students and many of the interviewees indicated that they had never heard of it before. They generally had a rather vague self-awareness of their thinking styles: the specific characteristics they featured, and strengths and weaknesses of their thinking methods.

Given that thinking styles have been proved to be influential in class performance, it seems necessary to introduce teachers and high school students to the definition of thinking styles, and to help them learn about their typical ways of thinking. Schools and teachers could arrange a lesson to introduce students to the definition and function of thinking styles. With a better understanding of how they tend to think, each individual student could strategically approach suitable methods, namely listening or talking, to be involved in classroom dialogue in a lesson. This might give them a greater possibility of being high achievers and maximizing their potential. Additionally, awareness of weaknesses in thinking styles might lead students to intentionally make improvements in their thinking and learning by making use of classroom dialogue. For example, a student showing weak judicial thinking could try to make more verbal contributions as this process would force them to think critically and give explanations for their answers. Classroom dialogue could therefore be made use of more effectively, promoting academic achievement and cognitive ability.

The implication for research is that individual characteristics and academic performance are both necessary when studying participation in classroom dialogue. They both play important roles in determining whether or not students participate and how they are involved through talking or listening. Their participation behaviours in turn affect their actual learning achievement, and partially shape their individual characteristics, such as thinking styles. Individual characteristics, participation in classroom dialogue and learning outcomes form a stable triangular relationship. There may be a bias if scholars relate classroom dialogue only to individual characteristics or learning outcomes, while not view these three parts as a whole. In the future, more students should explore how different individual characteristics besides thinking style affect the learning outcomes students achieve from participation in classroom dialogue.

5.9

Model adjustment and discussion

Before collecting data, I drafted a model attempting to manipulate the relationship between thinking style, participation in classroom dialogue and learning outcomes. Results achieved in my data allowed me to return to the model and adjust it in the light of my specific findings. Regarding the first pair of

relationships, participation in classroom dialogue, including talking and listening, was found to affect students’ learning achievement. Apart from this, quantitative findings suggested that prior achievement may influence students’ participatory behaviours in turn. Analysis of interview transcripts provided me with the knowledge that motivation to achieve good learning outcomes caused students to become involved in dialogue in a particular way. Thus the double-arrow line connecting classroom participation to learning outcomes is kept. Secondly, thinking style proved to be one of the individual characteristics that affected whether and how students involved in classroom dialogue, as hypothesized. In the revised model following, I also kept the double-arrow line connecting classroom dialogue to thinking style, indicating that the relationship might also work the other way around. My findings suggested that students might transform from being talkative to remaining silent and tending to work alone in a less interactive classroom environment, where most class time was used for course delivery with teachers being unlikely to invite dialogue. Involvement in classroom dialogue through a particular habitual way and constantly over a long time may change or shape their thinking styles. This in a way supports the proposal that styles are malleable, and are adaptable to a certain environment. Thirdly, there was no significant relationship found between thinking style and learning outcomes in my study, and thus the line connecting these two variables is removed. Finally, the hypothesized moderation effect of thinking style on the main relationship was supported.

Participation in classroom dialogue Talk Learning outcomes Thinking style Academic achievement Key cognitive abilities Attentive silence/Listening