Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Collaborative group work in education plays a critical role in fostering students’ cognitive reasoning and socio-emotional development. However, research has consistently reported gender-based disparities in group participation, particularly during open-ended inquiry tasks. Aims This study aims to explore how gender influences students’ participation patterns in science group work and to uncover the interactional structures that characterize these differences using Transition Network Analysis (TNA). Samples The study involved sixteen 10th-grade students working in mixed-gender groups, who participated in open-inquiry science lessons at a Finnish upper secondary school. Group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Methods A total of 1489 utterances were segmented from collaborative discussions during the planning phase of an open inquiry task. Each utterance was coded using the Student Interaction Discourse Moves framework. TNA was then employed to visualize and quantify the directional flow between discourse categories, with results disaggregated by gender. Results Across all interaction types, elaboration served as a central participation behavior. However, distinct patterns emerged across gendered interaction contexts: male–male interactions showed more frequent and sustained elaboration sequences, female–female interactions were more strongly characterized by questioning and agreement-based coordination, and mixed-gender interactions displayed the most diverse participation structure together with the strongest persistence of derailing. Conclusions Although both genders contributed meaningfully, they did so through distinct interactional pathways. TNA offers a novel methodological contribution by capturing the dynamic structure of group discourse. Findings highlight the need for educators to scaffold balanced participation and design group tasks that accommodate diverse engagement styles to support equity in collaborative learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: