Based on the above it appears that both talk and listening in classroom dialogue can facilitate learning. Yet at the individual level different forms of participation in classroom dialogue favour students variously. Which kinds of students are more suited to learning by talking? Which kinds of students are more likely to learn well through attentive listening? Few studies have previously connected individual characteristics, classroom participation and learning outcomes, together. Induction from the literature implies that thinking style might be a factor that moderates the relationship between participation in classroom dialogue and learning outcomes. This hypothesis has been verified by the results attained
from this study’s moderation regression analysis. Students’ thinking styles affect whether and how they benefit from participation in classroom dialogue. Although the effects were generally weak, the findings provide a new possibility for studying the relationship between classroom dialogue and learning.
For students characterized with the Liberal-Group style, contributing high-quality talk in classroom dialogue appears to add to their mathematics achievement, while spending a long time listening tends to bring them adverse effects on mathematics and physics learning. In Section 4.5, it was found that students characterized with a Liberal-Group style preferred to participate in classroom dialogue through talk, and they were not likely to be silent participants. When these students were allowed to learn using their preferred method they had a greater chance of learning well in mathematics. This was probably because contributing high-quality talk brought their thinking superiority into full play. By contrast, acting as silent participants is not to their liking; however, teachers may provide limited chances for students to talk, and thus they have to keep silent even though some may want to express ideas, for example those featuring in the Liberal Group. Intentions to explore creative ideas are then suppressed, unique and independent thoughts cannot be demonstrated and argued, and the wish to think critically through discussion cannot be achieved, all of which are especially necessary in mathematics and science. Students may thereby lose chances to learn and thus it is understandable that they will perform poorly in mathematics and physics subjects if they spend a long time listening.
Students characterized by an Internal-Group style seemed less likely to achieve high mathematics scores when they made too much frequent contributions that displayed high levels of accuracy and cognition complexity. Referring to the findings in Section 4.5, students dominated by the Internal- Group style prefer to be attentive listeners in class rather than talking actively. This implies that this kind of student may be suited to learning through listening. However, if for some reason they contribute a significant amount of high-quality talk, this may have an adverse effect on their mathematics performance. Students dominated by the Internal-Group style prefer to think and learn individually, and a relatively longer time is needed for them to reflect on information and transfer the exterior knowledge into their own understanding. With a short time given for preparation in class they may have to sacrifice the time for taking notes and gaining deep understanding, and a chance to learn from others’ talk, if they strive to contribute proper answers or show their thoughts in front of the class. This may be a reasonable justification for the negative effect of the Internal-Group style on the relationship between quality of talk and mathematics achievement.
For students who had a high tendency towards the Global-Group style, listening attentively in classroom dialogue would add to their mathematics scores when they perceived themselves as having attained the desired level of achievement. A possible explanation may be that students characterized
with this kind of style were found to dislike listening to teachers’ course delivery and other students’ talking, and could easily be distracted from concentrating on the course content. I referred in Section 5.6 to the fact that this might prevent them from achieving good academic scores, due to the special circumstances of Gaokao in China. This is especially true with respect to mathematics subjects, because of the complex formulae and algorithms. If, however, students characterized with the Global- Group style could listen carefully to course content, and try to memorize and think during the process of listening, it is likely that they found themselves as having better learning achievement, which would then increase their mathematics scores.
The implication of the above findings is that student preference as regards learning methods should be expected. At the individual level both vocal and silent participants are likely to achieve good learning outcomes. The traditional approach of judging silent students as less capable is inappropriate, and talkative students should not be favoured over silent ones. Talking and listening are different forms of participating in classroom dialogue, and they may bring diverse learning effects for each individual participant. What matters is helping more students to understand their individual characteristics, for instance, their thinking style, and to develop different strategies, either talking or listening, to maximize their use of classroom dialogue in order to learn.