Sociocultural theories of education posit that active student participation is a critical vehicle for cognitive development and the construction of collective knowledge (Howe et al., 2019). However, this pedagogical ideal frequently clashes with the reality of unequal participation patterns shaped by class, ethnicity, and particularly gender. Research consistently demonstrates that boys tend to dominate classroom discourse, often participating at rates double those of girls (Jurik et al., 2014; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). These disparities are frequently reinforced by teachers’ implicit biases and stereotypes, which can lead to differential expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies regarding student ability and behavior (Jussim & Harber, 2005).

To address these inequities, educators must navigate a profound tension between two competing educational goods: fostering student autonomy and ensuring equity (Levinson et al., 2022). On one hand, genuine participation is often defined by students initiating learning on their own terms, linking autonomy to intrinsic motivation (Cook-Sather, 2020). From this perspective, spontaneous, voluntary participation is viewed as the hallmark of engagement, and teacher interventions that force participation may be seen as coercive and undermining to student agency.

On the other hand, relying solely on voluntary participation often allows confident students to dominate while silencing others, thereby reinforcing social hierarchies (Reinholz & Shah, 2018). Consequently, scholars argue that structured interventions are necessary to promote equity. For instance, specific strategies such as cold-calling have been shown to close participation gaps (Dallimore et al., 2019), and teacher-assigned groups can prevent the gender segregation that typically arises from student-selected pairings (Kutnick & Blatchford, 2014). However, these interventions are not without cost, cold-calling can induce anxiety in shy students (Shi & Tan, 2020), and forced grouping can limit students' social autonomy.

This dilemma is further complicated by critical and feminist perspectives that challenge the assumption that vocal participation is always empowering. Silence may function as an agentive act of resistance or self-preservation rather than a sign of deficit (O'Connor et al., 2017). Thus, teachers are caught in a "dilemma management" process (Lampert, 1985), where they must constantly navigate the trade-offs between encouraging the voice of marginalized students and respecting their right to remain silent.

While the existing literature discusses these tensions in the abstract, there is a lack of research on how they manifest in the micro-politics of the classroom and in the daily experiences of teachers and students. To address this gap, this design-based linguistic ethnographic study investigates how Israeli elementary school teachers navigate the autonomy-equity dilemma. While situated in the Israeli context, these tensions between democratic choice and social justice imperatives represent a fundamental challenge facing educational systems worldwide as they strive for inclusion in diverse settings. The conceptual framework of this research is grounded in the view that pedagogical dilemmas are inherent tensions to be managed rather than problems to be solved (Lampert, 1985). This research explores the following questions:

1.  How is the equity-autonomy dilemma manifested in cold-calling and group composition?

2.  How do teachers conceptualize, justify, and navigate this dilemma in light of gendered classroom participation patterns?

3.  How do students experience and interpret cold-calling and teacher-assigned pairings?

By analyzing these dynamics, the study challenges the binary opposition of autonomy and equity, proposing that fostering authentic student agency may first require structured interventions to dismantle the gender norms that undermine authentic choice.

This study employed a design-based research (DBR) approach, combined with linguistic ethnographic methods (Rampton, 2006), to investigate how educators navigate the tension between promoting gender equity and respecting student autonomy. The research was conducted over the 2022-2023 school year in four secular state schools in central Israel, involving 12 female teachers and 329 students in grades 4-6. Data Collection relied on triangulating three primary sources to capture both pedagogical reasoning and in-situ practice. First, design team meetings were central to the process. 28 bi-weekly sessions (totaling 42.5 hours) were audio-recorded and transcribed. These meetings functioned as a collaborative space for teachers to externalize their internal arguments, moving beyond technical solutions to deliberate on conflicting educational goods. Second, classroom observations yielded 121 video-recorded lessons. From this extensive corpus, we selected a sub-sample of 44 lessons for in-depth analysis. This selection was driven by the identification of focal events, specific episodes where the autonomy-equity dilemma was interactionally salient, such as silence following a cold call or resistance to mixed-gender grouping. Third, perspectives were gathered through interviews: ten semi-structured teacher interviews and 60 student focus groups (n=229). Notably, the student groups were formed through a student-led nomination process to prioritize psychological safety and autonomy during data collection. Data Analysis was conducted in three phases. Phase one involved an inductive thematic analysis of meetings and interviews to map the "dilemma management" strategies and justifications used by participants. Phase two consisted of a micro-analysis of classroom interactions within the selected focal events. Using linguistic ethnographic tools, we analyzed lexical choices, grammatical structures (e.g., commands versus invitations), and nonverbal cues (e.g., posture, gaze) to understand how gendered identities and resistance were performed moment by moment. Finally, the findings were synthesized through the theoretical lens of voice as a multidimensional construct. This involved evaluating interactions based on four conditions: the opportunity to speak, the expression of one's own ideas, the ability to do so on one's own terms, and the condition of being heeded by others. This rigorous, multi-layered approach allowed the study to move beyond binary evaluations of teaching practices.

Through the analysis of classroom micro-politics, specifically regarding cold-calling and teacher-assigned groups, we identified three distinct approaches to managing this dilemma. First, we observed an equity-focused approach aligned with Isaiah Berlin’s (2002) concept of "positive liberty." Teachers holding this view regarded intervention as a moral imperative necessary to liberate students from gendered socialization, acting as a "lifeline" for those socialized into silence. Conversely, we found an autonomy-focused approach rooted in Berlin’s "negative liberty". Proponents of this view prioritized protecting student dignity, arguing that forced participation acts as coercion that threatens psychological safety and transforms the classroom into a space of anxiety. Between these poles, we documented a pragmatic "third way". Teachers employing this approach utilized relational strategies such as "opening the door" or privately asking for permission to navigate the frontier between inclusion and the right to refuse. However, our analysis also suggests that these pedagogical moves were rarely gender-neutral. Teachers frequently operated under the archetype of the "shy girl" needing empowerment, while often overlooking how boys' resistance to mixed groups was driven by active peer policing of masculinity rather than genuine individual preference. Without acknowledging these dynamics, teachers often inadvertently protected false autonomy, where student choices were constrained by rigid norms (e.g., ritualistic self-segregation) echoing Hjelmér’s (2020) findings that non-intervention often serves to reproduce gendered stereotypes. Consequently, they implemented superficial equity based on mere quantitative turn-taking. Ultimately, we conclude that the prevailing view of equity and autonomy as competing trade-offs is flawed. Instead, we propose reconceptualizing them as interdependent. We argue that structured teacher intervention is not the opposite of student agency but often a necessary precondition for it. To foster authentic student choice, educators must actively disrupt the gendered structures that limit it.

Berlin, I. (2002). Two concepts of liberty. In H. Hardy (Ed.), Liberty (2nd ed., pp. 166–217). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019924989X.003.0004 Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Student voice across contexts: Fostering student agency in today’s schools. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1705091 Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2019). Leveling the playing field: How cold-calling affects class discussion gender equity. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(2), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n2p14 Hjelmér, C. (2020). Free play, free choices?–Influence and construction of gender in preschools in different local contexts. Education Inquiry, 11(2), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1724585 Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730 Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2014). Predicting students' cognitive learning activity and intrinsic learning motivation: How powerful are teacher statements, student profiles, and gender? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.01.005 Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3 Kutnick, P., & Blatchford, P. (2014). Effective group work in primary school classrooms: The SPRinG approach. Springer. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.55.2.56142234616x4352 Levinson, M., Geron, T., & Brighouse, H. (2022). Conceptions of educational equity. AERA Open, 8, 23328584221121344. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221121344 O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., Chapin, S., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2017). The silent and the vocal: Participation and learning in whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 48, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.003 Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge University Press. Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(2), 140–177. https://doi.org/10.5951/JRESEMATHEDUC.49.2.0140 Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. Simon & Schuster. Shi, M., & Tan, C. Y. (2020). Beyond oral participation: A typology of student engagement in classroom discussions. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 55(1), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00166-0