CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsCommunication in Education and HealthcareInnovative Teaching Methods

Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement

Open access
Sedova, Klara, Sedlacek, Martin, Svaricek, Roman, Majcik, Martin, Navratilova, Jana, Drexlerova, Anna, Kychler, Jakub, Salamounova, Zuzana·2019·Learning and Instruction
DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There have been efforts to investigate the link between classroom talk and student achievement for some time. However, studies considering individual student participation in classroom talk have thus far been rare. The research reported in this study was carried out on 639 ninth grade students at Czech middle schools. Observations took place in language arts lessons; talk time and the number of utterances with reasoning were recorded for each student. Achievement was measured using a standardized reading literacy test. The results confirmed a strong link between a given student's talk time and number of utterances featuring reasoning and that student's achievement. As for student talk time, a connection at the classroom level was also identified – students in talkative classrooms had better results. However, there was not a connection between utterances with reasoning and better results at the classroom level. A positive link between individual participation and achievement was observed in all students regardless of socio-economic background or gender.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 32 Czech ninth-grade language arts classes, students who talked more and produced more utterances with reasoning scored higher on a standardized reading literacy test, and this held regardless of gender or socio-economic background. Class-level talk time was also positively related to achievement, but class-level reasoning utterances were not.

Key findings

  • Individual talk time significantly predicted reading literacy scores (p < 0.01): an increase of ~100 s (1.7 min) of average talk time correlated with a 13.7 percentage-point higher test score in Model 1, rising to ~30 percentage points once interactions were included in Model 5.
  • Individual utterances with reasoning also predicted achievement: one extra argument per lesson corresponded to ~1.5 percentage points higher success rate (Model 1), rising to ~3 percentage points in Model 5.
  • At the class level, total student talk time was a significant predictor (p = 0.106, treated as significant given only 32 classes), but the class-level total of utterances with reasoning was not significant (p = 0.710 in Model 4).
  • The link between individual participation and achievement applied equally across gender and socio-economic background (interactions Time×Boy and Time×HISEI were non-significant); boys scored ~3 percentage points lower than girls, and a one-unit increase in parental HISEI corresponded to ~2 percentage points higher scores.
  • The zero model gave an intra-class correlation of 0.18 (18% of variance in test scores attributable to class); average test success was ~43.9%, average student talk time 11.45 s per lesson, and average 0.57 reasoning utterances; 46 students spoke for 0 s and only 42% produced at least one reasoning utterance.

Methods

  • Correlational observational design: 639 ninth-grade students (52% boys, 48% girls, ages 14–15) in 32 classes from 21 schools in three Czech districts; two language arts lessons (2 × 45 min) observed per class, 64 lessons total, in November–December 2017.
  • Talk time and utterances with reasoning (coded per Pimentel & McNeill's four-level scheme, counting only level-4 "thought and reasoning") were recorded in real time by two observers per lesson using a tablet application; achievement was measured by the Czech School Inspectorate's standardized reading literacy test (16 tasks, November 2017).
  • Multilevel (random coefficient) models with student- and class-level predictors, including HISEI socio-economic index and gender, plus tested interactions; model fit compared via BIC.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study is correlational, so causal direction cannot be established (achievement may predict talk rather than the reverse); quality of contributions was coded by a single coder in real time, which is error-prone; students talked and reasoned very little, so findings cannot show how the relationship works in a dialogue-rich environment; and the classes were relatively homogeneous in socio-economic background, so the "regardless of background" conclusion should be treated with caution.
  • Evident from the text: the small number of classes (32) falls short of the ~100 groups ideally required for multilevel models, which the authors acknowledge by relaxing the alpha threshold to 0.09–0.1 for the class-level talk-time predictor.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 23 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Individual student number of utterances with reasoning is positively associated with that student's achievement.

    “The results confirmed a strong link between a given student's talk time and number of utterances featuring reasoning and that student's achievement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Data from the two observed lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and the participation patterns of individual students.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct during the observed lessons.
    • Rests on an assumption: Minimizing invasive stimuli (two observers, no video) prevented teachers and students from changing their interaction behavior in response to the observers' presence.
  • Findingown data

    Classroom-level number of utterances with reasoning is not associated with student achievement.

    “However, there was not a connection between utterances with reasoning and better results at the classroom level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Data from the two observed lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and the participation patterns of individual students.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct during the observed lessons.
    • Rests on an assumption: Minimizing invasive stimuli (two observers, no video) prevented teachers and students from changing their interaction behavior in response to the observers' presence.
  • Findingown data

    The positive link between individual participation and achievement was observed in all students regardless of socio-economic background or gender.

    “A positive link between individual participation and achievement was observed in all students regardless of socio-economic background or gender.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Data from the two observed lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and the participation patterns of individual students.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct during the observed lessons.
    • Rests on an assumption: Minimizing invasive stimuli (two observers, no video) prevented teachers and students from changing their interaction behavior in response to the observers' presence.
  • Findingown data

    Individual student talk time is positively associated with that student's achievement.

    “The results confirmed a strong link between a given student's talk time and number of utterances featuring reasoning and that student's achievement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Data from the two observed lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and the participation patterns of individual students.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct during the observed lessons.
    • Rests on an assumption: Minimizing invasive stimuli (two observers, no video) prevented teachers and students from changing their interaction behavior in response to the observers' presence.
  • Findingown data

    An increase in parent status by one unit corresponds to an average increase in test scores of nearly 2 percentage points.

    “an increase in parent status by one unit appeared to correspond to an average increase in test scores of nearly 2 percentage points.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSI reading literacy test is a valid measure of student achievement.
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Teachers perceive the presence of a video camera in a lesson very negatively, and there is a significant increase in the likelihood that they will refuse to participate in research.

    “We know from previous field studies (e.g., Sedova et al., 2014;Sedova et al., 2016;Sedova et al., 2017) that teachers perceive the presence of a video camera in a lesson very negatively and there is a significant increase in the likelihood that they will refuse to participate in the research.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sedova et al., 2014 source
    • cites Sedova et al., 2016 source

      Section 4.4 (Data; page unavailable) says that participants felt a threat of being evaluated during videotaping, which supports some discomfort. It does not say teachers viewed the camera very negatively or that videotaping significantly increased refusals to participate; it reports that consent was obtained and no participant withdrew. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Sedova et al., 2017 source

      The available copy’s abstract describes interviews with eight teachers about emotions during a development program, but does not address reactions to a classroom camera or refusal to participate. Searches for video-camera reactions and research participation returned only the abstract and references, not a passage supporting the claim; the article body is absent from the available copy. (LLM, conf=0.67)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Classroom-level student talk time is positively associated with student achievement; students in talkative classrooms had better results.

    “As for student talk time, a connection at the classroom level was also identified -students in talkative classrooms had better results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Data from the two observed lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and the participation patterns of individual students.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct during the observed lessons.
    • Rests on an assumption: Minimizing invasive stimuli (two observers, no video) prevented teachers and students from changing their interaction behavior in response to the observers' presence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On average, each student spoke for 11 s in one lesson and made 0.5 utterances with reasoning.

    “The classroom discourse indicators revealed that they spoke relatively little in the monitored lessons -on average, each student spoke for 11 s in one lesson and made 0.5 utterances with reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two observed language arts lessons are representative of the students' usual classroom talk.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Our data indicate that teaching in these classrooms was rather traditional, with a small proportion of student talk.

    “Our data indicate that teaching in these classrooms was rather traditional, with a small proportion of student talk.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two observed language arts lessons are representative of the students' usual classroom talk.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Students in the sample had average test scores of approximately 44% (SD=15.36).

    “Students in our sample had average test scores of approximately 44% (Standard Dev.= 15.36).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSI reading literacy test is a valid measure of student achievement.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average occupational status of the class turned out to be statistically insignificant and did not contribute to explaining the variance in academic achievement.

    “The second aggregate variable-the average occupational status of the class-turned out to be statistically insignificant.It therefore did not contribute to explaining the variance in academic achievement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSI reading literacy test is a valid measure of student achievement.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The average success rate on the reading literacy test when eliminating all factors was estimated at approximately 43%.

    “Using this model, the average success rate on the reading literacy test when eliminating all factors was estimated at approximately 43%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSI reading literacy test is a valid measure of student achievement.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the sample, 46 students spoke for 0 s, and those students had average test scores of approximately 41% (SD=15.12).

    “In our sample, 46 students spoke for 0 s.Those students had average test scores of approximately 41% (Standard Dev.= 15.12).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSI reading literacy test is a valid measure of student achievement.
    • Rests on an assumption: The two observed language arts lessons are representative of the students' usual classroom talk.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    There is relatively wide agreement in the scientific community that there is a relationship among talking, thinking, and learning.

    “There is relatively wide agreement in the scientific community that there is a relationship among talking, thinking, and learning (Resnick, Asterhan, & Clarke, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Resnick, Asterhan, & Clarke, 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Including only students who attended both lessons did not result in significant data loss (up to 4%).

    “This procedure did not result in a significant data loss (up to 4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Murphy et al. reported that the use of non-standardized tests designed by researchers is one of the weaknesses of studies investigating the impact of classroom discourse on student achievement.

    “Murphy et al. (2009) reported that the use of non-standardized tests designed by researchers is one of the weaknesses of a number of studies investigating the impact of classroom discourse on student achievement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Murphy et al. (2009) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Using standardized reading literacy tests conducted and evaluated by the Czech School Inspectorate addresses the shortcoming of non-standardized researcher-designed tests and helps ensure the validity and reliability of the assessment.

    “The decision to use tests conducted and evaluated by the CSI in this study addresses this shortcoming and should help to ensure the validity and reliability of the assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Murphy et al. (2009) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The variability of results in prior research may be explained by variation in observed classroom talk characteristics and by different ways of measuring student outcomes.

    “To a certain extent, the variability of the results may be explained by the variation in observed classroom talk characteristics (for example, teacher's authentic questions, open discussion time, conceptual press, student explanation, quality of feedback) as well as by the different ways used to measure student outcomes (e.g., writing assignments, comprehension tests, grades).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    O'Connor et al. claimed that both silent and vocal students benefited from being in a classroom where talk-intensive instruction had been established, regardless of whether they verbally participated.

    “Hence, the authors claimed that both silent and vocal students benefited from being in a classroom where talk-intensive instruction had been established, and it did not matter whether they verbally participated in the given lesson.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Connor et al. (2017) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Students differ not only in the frequency of their participation but also in the quality of their contributions.

    “Black (2004) argues that there are differences among students not only in the frequency of their participation but also in the quality of their contributions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Black (2004)

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Previous large-scale correlational studies measured classroom discourse characteristics at the whole-class level and linked them to aggregate class performance, obscuring distinctions among individual students.

    “The measurement of classroom discourse characteristics in these studies was related to the whole class: for example, the total time of student talk, the total amount of open discussion in a class, or the total number of authentic questions asked by the teacher.These indicators were then linked to the aggregate performance of the whole class on tests.This obscures the distinctions among individual”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Socio-economic background and gender are believed to affect student achievement.

    “We also included socio-economic background and gender as contextual variables since these characteristics are believed to affect student achievement (e.g., Bodovski, Jeon, & Byun, 2017;Pfeffer, 2008;Parker et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bodovski, Jeon, & Byun, 2017 source
    • cites Pfeffer, 2008 source
    • cites Parker et al., 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Talk time coders practiced real-time coding until differences among observers in talk time measured for individual students were minimal.

    “Then they practiced real-time coding of one video recording until we were certain that the differences among observers in talk time measured for individual students were minimal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Training of coders for utterances with reasoning was completed only when agreement among all coders reached 90%.

    “The training was finished when agreement among all coders reached 90%; this took about 43 h per one coder responsible for coding utterances with reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The randomness of the first-level variables in all cases proved to be statistically insignificant.

    “The randomness of the first-level variables in all cases proved to be statistically insignificant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Multilevel models enable testing whether the constants and slopes of the function symbolizing influence differ in different groups.

    “Multilevel models, also referred to as random coefficient models, enable testing whether the constants and slopes of the function symbolizing influence (the regression coefficient) differ in different groups (see Hox, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hox, 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Teaching in Czech schools is still very traditional and not much student-oriented.

    “Teaching in Czech schools is still very traditional and not much student-oriented (Sedova et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sedova et al., 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In light of our findings, we can anticipate that such a situation creates unequal learning opportunities in terms of the potential link between participation in classroom talk and student learning gains.

    “In light of our findings, we can anticipate that such a situation creates unequal learning opportunities in terms of the potential link between participation in classroom talk and student learning gains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results indicated that the relationship between frequency and quality of student talk and student achievement existed and was strong.

    “Our results indicated that this relationship existed and was strong.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The impact of individual talk time on student achievement was the same for girls and boys and for groups of students with different socio-economic backgrounds.

    “The impact of individual talk time on student achievement was the same for girls and boys and especially for groups of students with different socio-economic backgrounds.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All coders were thoroughly trained.

    “All coders were thoroughly trained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    This study can be viewed as a contribution toward supporting the stance that talk-intensive pedagogies are based on correct premises.

    “This study can be therefore viewed as a contribution toward supporting the stance that talk-intensive pedagogies are based on correct premises.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The quality of talk was a significant predictor of student achievement in reading literacy; its impact seemed to be connected to the individual performance of each student.

    “Our data in this respect supported the conclusion that the quality of talk was a significant predictor of student achievement in reading literacy; its impact seemed to be connected to the individual performance of each student.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The reading literacy test tasks covered all areas of reading literacy operationalized in accordance with the curriculum for the grades concerned.

    “The tasks covered all areas of reading literacy that were operationalized in accordance with the curriculum for the grades concerned.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A number of studies have reported that students participate unevenly in class.

    “A number of studies have reported that students participate unevenly in class (for example Jurik et al., 2013;Clarke, 2015;Helgevold, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jurik et al., 2013 source
    • cites Clarke, 2015 source
    • cites Helgevold, 2016 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The classroom talk in the sample has relatively traditional features - it is dominated by teacher talk, with only a small number of elaborate student utterances containing arguments.

    “These general data indicate that the classroom talk in the sample has relatively traditional features -it is dominated by teacher talk, with only a small number of elaborate student utterances containing arguments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two observed language arts lessons are representative of the students' usual classroom talk.
31 of 31

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Data from the two observed lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and the participation patterns of individual students.

    “We believe that data from these two lessons represent the nature of classroom talk in the given class and also participation patterns of individual students.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct during the observed lessons.

    “We therefore assume that both teachers and students behaved in a way similar to their usual conduct.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Minimizing invasive stimuli (two observers, no video) prevented teachers and students from changing their interaction behavior in response to the observers' presence.

    “By minimizing invasive stimuli, we also sought to reduce the possibility that teachers and students would change their interaction behavior in response to our presence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the Czech curriculum, developing reading literacy is mostly concentrated in the language arts.

    “In Czech curriculum, developing reading literacy is mostly concentrated in the language arts, which is the subject where we carried out the observation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The CSI reading literacy test is a valid measure of student achievement.

    “We used the results of individual students on reading literacy tests designed and evaluated by the CSI as an indicator of student achievement.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two observed language arts lessons are representative of the students' usual classroom talk.

    “In all of these classes, researchers conducted structured classroom talk observations in two different language arts lessons (2 × 45 min).”
    “Teachers were instructed to teach the lessons in their usual way.”
6 of 6

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?

  • Class-level behavioral engagement was an insignificant factor.

    “Class-level behavioral engagement turned out to be an insignificant factor.”

    From How vocal and silent forms of participation in combination relate to student achievement (2023) · cites this paper as Sedova et al., 2019

    The Results section (page unavailable) treats class-level talk time—the amount of time students actively participated in talk—as a significant predictor of achievement, not an insignificant one. The paper reports that a different class-level measure, utterances with reasoning, was not significant; that does not support the unqualified claim about class-level behavioral engagement. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Class-level talk time had little impact on achievement score.

    “Class-level talk time had little impact on achievement score.”

    From How vocal and silent forms of participation in combination relate to student achievement (2023) · cites this paper as Sedova et al., 2019

    Table 2 reports a modest class-level talk-time coefficient (0.018 score points per second in Model 4), which lends some support to “little impact.” But the Results section says aggregate talk time predicted achievement and confirms its significance in Model 5; the paper’s description of a “negligible” effect refers to an interaction, not class-level talk time itself. Pages are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Students who intensely verbally participate in class achieve better results than their less vocal schoolmates.

    “Some studies have indicated that students who intensely verbally participate in class achieve better results than their less vocal schoolmates”

    From How vocal and silent forms of participation in combination relate to student achievement (2023) · cites this paper as Sedova et al., 2019

  • How long a student spoke and how many utterances with argument that student contributed were linked to the student's individual test results.

    “The analysis showed a link between how long a particular student spoke and how many utterances with argument that student contributed with the student's individual test results.”

    From How vocal and silent forms of participation in combination relate to student achievement (2023) · cites this paper as Sedova et al., 2019

  • Individual student talk matters, and vocal participation contributes more than silent participation.

    “Individual student talk matters (see Ing et al., 2015;Larrain et al., 2019;Sedova et al., 2019;Webb et al., 2014), and vocal participation contributes more than silent participation.”

    From How vocal and silent forms of participation in combination relate to student achievement (2023) · cites this paper as Sedova et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Class-level talk time is called significant despite exceeding the stated threshold

    Major

    Model 4 reports p = 0.106 for class-level talk time. This exceeds even the paper's proposed relaxed significance threshold of 0.09-0.1, so the stated confirmation of a significant class-level effect does not follow.

  • Nonsignificant interactions are presented despite a claim to exclude them

    Minor

    The paper says it presents only significant interactions, but Table 2 includes a Time*Boy interaction with p = 0.430.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., Svaricek, R., Majcik, M., Navratilova, J., Drexlerova, A., Kychler, J., & Salamounova, Z.
Affiliations
Masaryk University (CZ)
ORCID
Drexlerova, Anna
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
63
Pages
101217
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217
OpenAlex
W2951212200
Semantic Scholar
0798bd15e894a6ff1f34c456038a0bedcf199972
Cited by
146
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2
FWCI
22.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Grantová Agentura České Republiky
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
Keywords
classroom discourse, academic performance, talk time, language arts instruction, reading literacy, ninth grade students, socioeconomic background, gender differences

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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