IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0361205.html

How unequal is unequal? Turn-taking simulation for benchmarking participation and opportunity inequality in small-group collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Liru Hu
  • Jiajun Wu
  • Feng Yu
  • Deliang Wang
  • Song An
  • Ying Zhang

Abstract

Participation equity is essential for ensuring that students gain cognitive and social benefits from collaborative learning, yet there is a lack of quantitative benchmarks for interpreting participation and opportunity distributions in small-group collaboration. This study focuses on two turn-based analytical dimensions of participation equity: participation equality, measured by students’ shares of speaking turns, and opportunity equality, measured by students’ shares of addressed opportunities. Using the standard deviation of these rates, the study establishes preliminary, context-specific simulation-based reference values for identifying departures from an idealized triadic turn-taking baseline. The empirical dataset included 117 fourth-grade primary school students from two classes in mainland China, who worked in heterogeneous triads on mathematical and reading tasks. Using agent-based modeling and Monte Carlo simulation, the study estimated local turn-taking parameters from empirical data, generated reference distributions under an ideal-equity baseline, and conducted sensitivity analyses to examine model stability. Results support the internal stability of the model and provide turn-count-specific reference values for interpreting participation and opportunity inequality. The findings offer preliminary reference values for interpreting participation and opportunity distributions in collaborative learning and highlight the importance of turn count when evaluating structural patterns of participation and opportunity in triadic classroom dialogue. These reference values describe structural participation patterns rather than collaboration quality and require recalibration and independent validation before application in other educational settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Liru Hu & Jiajun Wu & Feng Yu & Deliang Wang & Song An & Ying Zhang, 2026. "How unequal is unequal? Turn-taking simulation for benchmarking participation and opportunity inequality in small-group collaboration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-27, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0361205
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0361205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361205
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361205&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0361205?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0361205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.