Cited by 105Early Childhood Education and DevelopmentEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Environments and Student Outcomes

Quality of educational dialogue and association with students’ academic performance

Open access
Muhonen, Heli, Pakarinen, Eija, Poikkeus, Anna-Maija, Lerkkanen, Marja-Kristiina, Rasku-Puttonen, Helena·2018·Learning and Instruction

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.007

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Teacher-student dialogue that promotes student contribution has been reported as having positive implications for attitudes to schooling and peers and for academic attainment in mathematics, science and literacy.

    “Teacher-student dialogue that promotes student contribution has also been reported as having positive implications for attitudes to schooling and peers (Richter & Tjosvold, 1980) and for academic attainment in mathematics, science and literacy (Clarke, Xu, & Wan, 2010;Muhonen, Pakarinen, Poikkeus, Lerkkanen, & Rasku-Puttonen, 2018).”
  • Benefits for mathematics, science, literacy and oral communicative competence have been reported when teachers build on or elaborate students' ideas and encourage them to do the same, or do so while encouraging explanation and justification.

    “Relating to the second and third themes, benefits for mathematics, science, literacy and oral communicative competence have been reported when teachers build on or elaborate students' ideas and encourage them to do the same; or do such things while also encouraging students to explain and justify their ideas (Muhonen et al., 2018;O'Connor et al., 2015;van der Veen et al., 2017).”
  • Muhonen et al. (2018) reports high ratings for 'building upon' during dialogue being positively associated with attainment in science.

    “For that reason, it seems unnecessary at this stage to be concerned at apparent discrepancies with the work of Muhonen et al. (2018), which reports high ratings for 'building upon' during dialogue being positively associated with attainment in science.”
  • Students in talk-intensive classes in which students speak often, are involved in deep and meaningful conversations, and have supportive teachers benefit positively.

    “Several studies have confirmed a positive impact for students located in”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.-M., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H.
Affiliations
University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Corresponding author
Muhonen, Heli
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
55
Pages
67-79
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762344783
Cited by
105
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4
FWCI
23.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • University of Jyväskylä
  • Ellen and Artturi Nyyssönen Foundation
  • Finnish Academy (268 586 for 2013–2017, 292 466 for 2015–2019)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
Keywords
educational dialogue, dialogic teaching, classroom discourse, academic performance, language arts instruction, science instruction, physics and chemistry, classroom assessment, class S, sixth grade students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review