Cited by 566Reading and Literacy DevelopmentInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsInnovative Teaching Methods

Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.

Murphy, P. Karen, Wilkinson, Ian A. G., Soter, Anna O., Hennessey, Maeghan N., Alexander, John F.·2009·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

The role of classroom discussions in comprehension and learning has been the focus of investigations since the early 1960s. Despite this long history, no syntheses have quantitatively reviewed the vast body of literature on classroom discussions for their effects on students’ comprehension and learning. This comprehensive meta-analysis of empirical studies was conducted to examine evidence of the effects of classroom discussion on measures of teacher and student talk and on individual student comprehension and critical-thinking and reasoning outcomes. Results revealed that several discussion approaches produced strong increases in the amount of student talk and concomitant reductions in teacher talk, as well as substantial improvements in text comprehension. Few approaches to discussion were effective at increasing students’ literal or inferential comprehension and critical thinking and reasoning. Effects were moderated by study design, the nature of the outcome measure, and student academic ability. While the range of ages of participants in the reviewed studies was large, a majority of studies were conducted with students in 4th through 6th grades. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0015576

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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.”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2009-08
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
740-764
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2107984553
Cited by
566
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
FWCI
26.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Institute for Education Sciences (R305G020075)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
Keywords
classroom discussion, text comprehension, student discourse, teacher discourse, critical thinking, reasoning, inferential comprehension, literal comprehension, discussion strategies, student ability, elementary school 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