Cited by 275Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsScience Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions

Reznitskaya, Alina, Kuo, Li‐Jen, Clark, Ann‐Marie, Miller, Brian, Jadallah, May, Anderson, Richard C., Nguyen‐Jahiel, Kim·2009·Cambridge Journal of Education

Abstract

In this paper, we address the need to develop an empirically‐based understanding of the use of dialogue in teaching by discussing theory and research related to a pedagogical approach called collaborative reasoning (CR). CR is an instructional method designed to engage elementary school children in group discussions about controversial issues raised in their readings. CR is grounded in social learning and schema‐theoretic views of cognition, which are integrated to form a new model, called argument schema theory (AST). According to AST, students acquire generalizable knowledge of argumentation, or an argument schema, through participating in dialogic discussions with their peers. The article reviews empirical evidence from a variety of studies designed to evaluate the educational potential of dialogic interactions. The studies investigated group processes during CR discussions, individual student outcomes following participation in discussions, and the connections between the features of social interaction and individual student performance. We conclude that, despite its complexity, classroom dialogue can serve as a useful mechanism for promoting the development of individual argumentation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03057640802701952

Cites

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?

  • Texts about a controversy or unresolved issues, clear and relevant to primary students, can support their development of multiple viewpoints.

    “Many previous studies provided evidence that texts about a controversy or unresolved issues, which are clear and relevant to primary students, can support their development of multiple viewpoints; appropriate texts provide opportunities for students to weigh up evidence and formulate the 'best' or most reasonable solution or interpretation (Reznitskaya et al. 2009).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 75 · Cited by 275

Authors
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K.
Affiliations
  • Montclair State University (US)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
  • Appalachian State University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Reznitskaya, Alina
Venue
Cambridge Journal of Education
Published
2009-03
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
29-48
ISSN
  • 0305-764X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3577
OpenAlex
W2117707030
Cited by
275
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge Journal of Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
collaborative reasoning, dialogic discussion, group discussion, argumentation, social learning, schema theory, elementary school students, peer interaction

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