Say you have a class T and a method m. m represents an operation that is applicable to many types, including T. In good OO practice, the only information m needs about the types it operates on is precisely that part of the types’ nature that makes m applicable to them. So you create an abstraction representing that nature, and define m according to it. In turn, classes like T conform to that abstraction.
If the abstraction is an interface, we implement that interface. If the abstraction is a class, we inherit that class. Both of these mechanisms will work, they are a standard solution to the problem. But even though the use of an abstraction reduces the coupling between T and m, it still exists. If you want an existing class to be usable with m you have to modify its type and implementation. That class would now be aware of m.
Type classes are an alternate abstraction used to define m without altering the types that m operates on. Instead of specifying that T must have some type, the type class mechanism merely states that there must exist some code somewhere that m can rely on in order to operate on T. This code, which does not necessarily exist at T, is the abstraction that m depends on, but that T need not be aware of.
The classic example would be sorting objects, where a sorting method requires some way to compare the objects it must sort. Using the standard solution, you would create an abstraction like Comparable, and make m require the objects it sorts to have that type. In Java we have
public static <T extends Comparable<? super T>> void sort(List<T> list)
In the type class approach, however, the abstraction is separate from the type of the objects to be sorted. Instead, it requires that some code, a Comparator, be accessible to the sorting method. In Java,
public static <T> void sort(List<T> list, Comparator<? super T> c)
or in a Scala example, where the type class is Ordering
def sorted[B >: A](implicit ord: Ordering[B]): List[A]
I’ve shown examples of the type class mechanism for Java and Scala. What makes type classes even more effective in Scala is that the Ordering[B] parameter need not be passed explicitly. This remedies the two problems that the java type class solution has. First, users of the sort operation should not have to worry about passing the Comparator, it is an implementation detail. Second, in Scala it is possible to vary the Ordering implementation to be used just by bringing in a different Ordering object into scope, without having to modify any of the call sites.
 It could be said that the type class approach by definition requires transparent passing of type class instances, so the Java code would not really qualify as an example