Cited by 11Educator Training and Historical PedagogyLinguistics and Education ResearchScience Education and Pedagogy

Dialogic teaching of controversial issues: discursive moves to enact two-sided discussions

Shi, Yuchen, Zhang, Zihong, Cao, Shu, Liu, Qunying·2024·Language and Education

Abstract

Dialogic teaching – in which teachers and students address controversial issues – has become increasingly common in school education to promote civic participation in deliberative democracy. This study addresses this question: when leading whole-class discussions on controversial issues, what discursive moves could teachers adopt to enact two-sided discussions that address conflicting perspectives? The present study analyzed data from an intervention study promoting dialogic teaching of controversial issues in the Morality and Law subject in fourth-grade (9- to 10-year-olds) elementary classrooms in China. We identified and analyzed episodes from transcripts of video-recorded classroom interactions in which the teachers employed a variety of discursive moves to encourage students to consider, negotiate, and debate opposing positions. Our analyses revealed that the teachers did not directly instruct students to consider opposing perspectives but guided their exchange of multiple perspectives. The teachers also partnered with students in the knowledge construction process by directly questioning, countering, or critiquing students’ arguments. Implications for encouraging teachers’ spontaneity and improvisation during dialogic teaching, as well as for using challenging, controversial topics to promote two-sided whole-class discussions, are addressed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09500782.2023.2240292

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shi, Y., Zhang, Z., Cao, S., & Liu, Q.
Affiliations
  • East China Normal University (CN)
  • Institute of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
Corresponding author
Liu, Qunying
Venue
Language and Education
Published
2023-07-31
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
303-319
ISSN
  • 0950-0782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-7581
OpenAlex
W4385446203
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language and Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Educator Training and Historical Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
dialogic teaching, controversial issues, discursive moves, whole-class discussion, deliberative democracy, citizen participation, conflicting perspectives, teacher questioning, teacher-student relationship, elementary school, fourth grade, knowledge construction, teacher improvisation

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