Patterns of Student Thinking Interaction in Group Discussion: The Effect of Explorative Interaction on Understanding Statistical Concepts

Syarifudin Syarifudin; Abd. Haris; Nurrahmah Nurrahmah

doi:10.31764/jtam.v9i2.30091

Patterns of Student Thinking Interaction in Group Discussion: The Effect of Explorative Interaction on Understanding Statistical Concepts

Syarifudin Syarifudin, Abd. Haris, Nurrahmah Nurrahmah

Abstract

This study aims to analyze patterns of students' thinking interaction during group discussions in statistics learning and examine their impact on conceptual understanding, particularly across different levels of academic ability. A qualitative approach was employed using discourse and interaction analysis. Data were collected through classroom observations, video/audio recordings, transcription of student discussions, students' written work, and in-depth interviews. These instruments enabled comprehensive documentation and triangulation of students' verbal and behavioral interactions. Twelve junior high school students were selected and categorized into high, medium, and low academic ability groups. Discourse structures were analyzed using the Sinclair & Coulthard model (to identify classroom discourse moves) and Mercer's framework (to detect exploratory and cumulative talk). Furthermore, interaction patterns were categorized using the ICAP model—which distinguishes passive, active, constructive, and interactive engagement—and Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (IPA), which classifies social-emotional and task-related behaviors in small groups. The findings revealed that groups with explorative interaction patterns demonstrated deeper conceptual understanding, facilitated by active questioning, argument construction, and peer clarification. In contrast, static interaction groups were characterized by passive reception and rote learning, while counterproductive groups showed fragmented participation and communication breakdowns. These results confirm the vital role of interaction quality in supporting conceptual development. The novelty of this study lies in its integration of discourse- and interaction-based frameworks to reveal how different thinking dynamics shape learning outcomes in heterogeneous academic groups. Practically, the study highlights the importance of scaffolding, open-ended questioning, and structured facilitation to promote argumentation-rich discussions. These strategies are essential for fostering critical thinking and improving students’ understanding of statistics concepts.

Keywords

Interaction thinking; Group discussion; Conceptual understanding; Discourse analysis; Interaction analysis.

Full Text:

DOWNLOAD [PDF]

References

Albano, G., Mollo, M., Polo, M., & Marsico, G. (2022). Dialogical interactions mediated by technology in mathematics education. Dialogic Pedagogy, 10(2022), DT22–DT40. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2022.517

Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching. Rethinking classroom talk . Cambridge: Dialogos UK Ltd.

Almås, H., Pinkow, F., & Giæver, F. (2023). Reimagining how to understand learning game experiences: a qualitative and exploratory case study. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00234-0

Amobi, F. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115–128. http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2005/32_1/amobi.pdf

Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9005-9

Aulia, R., Rohati, R., & Marlina, M. (2021). Students’ Self-Confidence and Their Mathematical Communication Skills in Solving Problems. Edumatika : Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(2), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.32939/ejrpm.v4i2.770

Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart People or Smart Contexts? Cognition, Ability, and Talent Development in an Age of Situated Approaches to Knowing and Learning Sasha A. Barab and Jonathan A. Plucker School of Education Indiana University Intelligence,. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3

Bishop, J. P. (2012). “She’s always been the smart one. I’ve always been the dumb one”: Identities in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(1), 34–74. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.1.0034

Campbell, T. G., King, S., & Zelkowski, J. (2022). Comparing Elementary Students’ Explanatory Language Across Oral and Written Modes. Elementary School Journal, 122(3), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1086/718077

Çebi, A., & Güyer, T. (2020). Students’ interaction patterns in different online learning activities and their relationship with motivation, self-regulated learning strategy and learning performance. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3975–3993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10151-1

Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students’ Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Dupont-Roc, J., & ... (2022). Processus d’interaction entre photons et atomes. Processus d’interaction …. https://doi.org/10.1051/978-2-7598-0291-3

Connor, M., Fletcher, I., & Salmon, P. (2009). The analysis of verbal interaction sequences in dyadic clinical communication: A review of methods. Patient Education and Counseling, 75(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.10.006

Davies, M. J., & Esling, S. (2020). The use of quality talk to foster critical thinking in a low socio-economic secondary geography classroom. … Journal of Language and Literacy, The. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.950007743950252

Dejarnette, A. F., & González, G. (2016). Thematic analysis of students ’ talk while solving a real-world problem in geometry ଝ , ଝଝ. Linguistics and Education, 35, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.05.002

Dillenbourg, P. (2007). What do you mean by collaborative learning? What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1(March), 1–19. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190240

Donnelly, R., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2011). Towards productive reflective practice in microteaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.593709

Freeman, B., Higgins, K. N., & Horney, M. (2020). How Students Communicate Mathematical Ideas: An Examination of Multimodal Writing Using Digital Technologies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(4), 281–313. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6178

Fyfe, E. R., Matz, L. E., Hunt, K. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2019). Mathematical thinking in children with developmental language disorder: The roles of pattern skills and verbal working memory. Journal of Communication Disorders, 77, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.11.001

Gätje, O., & Jurkowski, S. (2021). When students interlink ideas in peer learning: Linguistic characteristics of transactivity in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Educational Research Open. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374021000352

Gillies, R. M. (2019). Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 97(July), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.014

González, G., & DeJarnette, A. F. (2015). Teachers’ and students’ negotiation moves when teachers scaffold group work. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.987058

Hedeen, T. (2003). The reverse Jigsaw: A process of cooperative learning and discussion. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211330

Hennessy, S., Kershner, R., Calcagni, E., & ... (2021). Supporting practitioner‐led inquiry into classroom dialogue with a research‐informed professional learning resource: A design‐based approach. Review of …. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3269

Henning, J. (2007). The art of discussion-based teaching: Opening up conversation in the classroom. Routledge.

Heron, M., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Hatch, R. J. (2023). Patterns of talk in Foundation Year small group interaction: making the case for educational dialogue. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(4), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2138286

Hung, Y. T., & Mao, C. J. (2023). Curriculum Reflections and Practice From the Perspective of Critical Pedagogy: Taking Three Mandarin Teachers of a Professional Learning Community as an Example. Journal of Research in Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202306_68(2).0006

i Torrens, A. M. (2021). Collaborative group work: an educational approach for enhancing each and every student’s learning process. ddd.uab.cat. https://ddd.uab.cat/record/244154

Joannidis, M., Forni, L. G., Klein, S. J., Honore, P. M., & ... (2020). Lung–kidney interactions in critically ill patients: consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 21 Workgroup. Intensive Care …. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05869-7

Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., & Grabowski, Ł. (2021). Formulaicity in constrained communication: An intermodal approach. Monografias de Traduccion e Interpretacion (MonTI), 13, 148–183. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2021.13.05

Kamid, Rusdi, M., Fitaloka, O., Basuki, F. R., & Anwar, K. (2020). Mathematical communication skills based on cognitive styles and gender. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(4), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20497

Karousiou, C., Vrikki, M., & Evagorou, M. (2022). Teachers’ positioning and sense of professionalism over the implementation of cultural literacy as a dialogic and argumentative practice. Professional Development in …. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2022.2095661

Kim, M. (2020). Teacher Scaffolding Strategies to Transform Whole-classroom Talk Into Collective Inquiry in Elementary Science Classrooms. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true%5C&profile=ehost%5C&scope=site%5C&authtype=crawler%5C&jrnl=00024805%5C&AN=146097767%5C&h=j9jN9WPf4jx2%2BnFPmCOTv548kMFclioNl39yP%2F868CIOws3NU3OyZL%2FsXgnujhzICSvPvZXWjpPd1Nxirxj9bQ%3D%3D%5C&crl=c

Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800363908

Kosko, K. W., & Zimmerman, B. S. (2019). Emergence of argument in children’s mathematical writing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 19(1), 82–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417712065

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389

Lestari, O. D., & Anggraini, H. W. (2022). THE USE OF GOOGLE DOCS AS AN ONLINE COLLABORATIVE WRITING MEDIA. Sriwijaya University.

Li, L., & Yang, S. (2021). Exploring the Influence of Teacher-Student Interaction on University Students’ Self-Efficacy in the Flipped Classroom. Journal of Education and Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1290544

Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge.

Mavrikis, M., Rummel, N., Wiedmann, M., Loibl, K., & Holmes, W. (2022). Combining exploratory learning with structured practice educational technologies to foster both conceptual and procedural fractions knowledge. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10104-0

Memiş, E. K., & Akkaş, B. N. Ç. (2020). Developing critical thinking skills in the thinking-discussion-writing cycle: the argumentation-based inquiry approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09635-z

Mercer, N. (2021). It’s Only Words: Why Classroom Talk is Important. tc.columbia.edu. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/centers/lansi/LANSI-talk-NMercer.pdf

Minarti, E. D., & Wahyudin, W. (2019). How influential the mathematical disposition of mathematical communication skills is? (the evaluation of middle school students). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1402(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/7/077086

Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (2020). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. books.google.com. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en%5C&lr=%5C&id=LAoHEAAAQBAJ%5C&oi=fnd%5C&pg=PP1%5C&dq=interaction%5C&ots=S7cqRvBs8B%5C&sig=_wvrZgzbcV6N-ByMrd_SPzDsKpo

Phan, H. P. (2011). Deep processing strategies and critical thinking: Developmental trajectories using latent growth analyses. Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003739382

Pierce, K. M., & Gilles, C. (2021). Talking about books: Scaffolding deep discussions. The Reading Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1957

Plebe, A., & Grasso, G. (2019). The Unbearable Shallow Understanding of Deep Learning. In Minds and Machines (Vol. 29, Issue 4). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09512-8

Resnick, B., Galik, E., Paudel, A., & ... (2021). Reliability and validity testing of the quantified quality of interaction scale (QUIS). Journal of Nursing …. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjnm/early/2021/04/16/JNM-D-19-00101.abstract

Roden, D. M., Harrington, R. A., Poppas, A., & Russo, A. M. (2020). Considerations for drug interactions on QTc in exploratory COVID-19 treatment. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521

Ronfeldt, D., & Arquilla, J. (2020). The continuing promise of the noosphere and noopolitik: 20 years after. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429465543-52

Russell, L., & Jarvis, C. (2019). Student withdrawal, retention and their sense of belonging; their experience in their words. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 4(3 Special Issue), 494–525. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2019.3.3

Sarimsakov, A., Muradov, R., & ... (2020). Modeling of the Process of Interaction of the Saw Cylinder with the Raw Material in the Process of Ginning. TEST Engineering and …. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akramjon-Sarimsakov/publication/348309424_Modeling_Of_the_Process_of_Interaction_of_the_Saw_Cylinder_with_the_Raw_Material_In_The_Process_Of_Ginning/links/5ff73fed45851553a02adb7e/Modeling-Of-the-Process-of-Interaction

Schroedler, T. (2021). What is multilingualism? Towards an inclusive understanding. Preparing Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788926119

Shehab, S., & Mercier, E. (2020). Exploring the Relationship Between the Types of Interactions and Progress on a Task during Collaborative Problem Solving. repository.isls.org. https://repository.isls.org/handle/1/6326

Siegle, D. (2022). Understanding underachievement. In Introduction to gifted education (pp. 301–322). Routledge.

Slavin, R. E. (2008). Cooperative learning, success for all, and evidence-based reform in education. Éducation et Didactique, 2(2), 149–157.

Sudarwo, R., & Adiansha, A. A. (2022). Brain-Based Learning Vs Problem Based Learning: Mathematical Complex Thinking Skills in terms of Student Creativity? International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 5(4), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v5i4.231

Syarifudin;, Irawan, E. B., Sulandra, I. M., As’ari, A. R., & Subanji; (2018). Thinking Interaction of Student in Solving Open- Ended Problems. 01(2), 160–172.

Syarifudin, Purwanto, Irawan, E. B., Sulandra, I. M., & Fikriyah, U. (2019). Student verbal interaction in geometry problem-solving through cognitive activities. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12311a

Taar, J., & Palojoki, P. (2021). Interthinking for learning 21st century skills in home economics education. Learning, Culture and Social …. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/interthinking-for-learning-21st-century-skills-in-home-economics-

Tohidian, I., & Nodooshan, S. G. (2021). Teachers’ engagement within educational policies and decisions improves classroom practice: The case of Iranian ELT school teachers. Improving Schools. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480220906625

Tulviste, P. (2019). Classroom Education and the Development of Units of Verbal Thinking: Interpreting the Results of Comparative Experimental Studies of People Who Did or Did Not Attend School. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 56(3–4), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2019.1620068

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Visser, M. W., Pittens, C. A. C. M., de Vries, R., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2023). Community Involvement in Course-Based Higher Education Activities: Exploring Its Definition, Guiding Principles, and Strategies—A Narrative Review. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 27(3), 59–80. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/2711

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, C., Li, J., Li, H., Xia, Y., Wang, X., Xie, Y., & Wu, J. (2022). Learning from errors? The impact of erroneous example elaboration on learning outcomes of medical statistics in Chinese medical students. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03460-1

Wilson, B. M., Pollock, P. H., & Hamann, K. (2007). Does active learning enhance learner outcomes? Evidence from discussion participation in online classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701338304

Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an online discussion environment. Computers and Education, 84, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/jtam.v9i2.30091