Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes?

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

The analytic scheme for dialogue was based on work reported by Hennessy, Rojas-Drummond and colleagues (Hennessy et al., 2016).

“Video-recorded dialogue was analyzed using a scheme based on work reported by Hennessy, Rojas-Drummond and colleagues (Hennessy et al., 2016).”

• cites Hennessy et al., 2016 sourceSupported

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

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).”

• cites Richter & Tjosvold, 1980 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Clarke, Xu, & Wan, 2010 sourcePartly supported

  The Outlining the Study section describes student dialogue as an instructional strategy in mathematics, and section 4 discusses spoken mathematical fluency as a possible learning outcome. The paper does not establish positive effects on academic attainment in mathematics, science, or literacy. The attitudes claim is cited to Richter and Tjosvold, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Muhonen et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Studies that analyze teacher-student dialogue and assess outcomes with an approach concurring with the present one sometimes detect positive outcomes when theoretically productive forms are frequent, but they concern broader packages and do not allow effects of teacher-student dialogue to be isolated.

“Sometimes (not always), these studies detect positive outcomes when theoretically productive forms are frequent.However, concerned with broader 'packages' that include good task design and/or productive small-group dialogue amongst students, these studies do not allow the effects of teacher-student dialogue to be isolated.”

• cites Alexander et al., 2017Supported
• cites Osborne et al., 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ruthven et al., 2017Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

The mean rank order across scholars correlated .76 with the rank order predicted by the Ratios but only .23 with the rank order predicted by the absolute frequencies.

“The mean rank order across scholars correlated (Spearman rho) .76 with the rank order predicted by the Ratios but only .23 with the rank order predicted by the absolute frequencies.”

May combine two claims.

Three types of invitation (ELI, REI and OI), two types of statement (EL and RE), and UC were ubiquitous.

“By contrast, three types of invitation (ELI, REI and OI), two types of statement (EL and RE), and UC (often short replies to OI) were ubiquitous.”

May combine two claims.

With end-of-year PASS, two-level modeling revealed statistically significant main effects: positive relations between PASS scores and the frequency of Elaborated, the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio, and the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio.

“With end-of-year PASS, two-level modeling did, for the first time, reveal statistically significant main effects: there were positive relations between PASS scores and the frequency of Elaborated, the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio, and the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio (see Table 5).”

May combine two claims.

PreMaths (M), PreMaths (SD), PreRead (M), PrePASS and Group were all significantly related to at least one outcome variable.

“However, as Table 3 indicates PreMaths (M), PreMaths (SD), PreRead (M), PrePASS and Group were all significantly related to at least one outcome variable”

May combine two claims.

Two-level models revealed no statistically significant main effects of dialogue with either the science test or the reasoning test, and no significant interactions relating to science.

“Two-level models revealed no statistically significant main effects of dialogue with either the science test or the reasoning test, and no significant interactions relating to science.”

May combine two claims.

Three interactions were statistically significant with Mathematics, and two were statistically significant (or very close) with SPAG.

“However, as detailed in Table 5, three interactions were statistically significant with Mathematics, and two were statistically significant (or very close) with SPAG.”

May combine two claims.

The science test sampling reflects proportionally higher attrition than expected when 61% of the classes covered inheritance and evolution and therefore used the test, and also than was associated with the table's other cells.

“This reflects proportionally higher attrition than expected when 61% of the classes covered inheritance and evolution and therefore used the test, and also than was associated with the table's other cells.”

May combine two claims.

When student participation was limited, the frequencies of Elaborated and Querying were irrelevant, just as extensive participation had little impact unless the frequencies of Elaborated and Querying were high.

“When student participation was limited the frequencies of these variables were irrelevant, just as extensive participation had little impact unless the frequencies of Elaborated and Querying were high.”

May combine two claims.

The three variables derived from video ratings (Goals, Feedback, Relations) were never significantly related to student outcome, and nor was Trips.

“In the event, the three variables derived from video ratings (Goals, Feedback, Relations) were never significantly related to student outcome, and nor was Trips.”

May combine two claims.

Reasoning scores tended to be higher when the frequency of Elaborated was low both in absolute terms and relative to Non-Dialogic contributions, and in both cases the effect of Referring Back was to ameliorate these differences.

“The absence of significant main effects notwithstanding, reasoning scores tended to be higher when the frequency of Elaborated was low both in absolute terms and relative to Non-Dialogic contributions, and in both cases the effect of Referring Back was to ameliorate these differences.”

May combine two claims.

With reasoning scores, the Elaborated x Refer Back interaction was statistically significant and the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Refer Back interaction approached significance.

“With reasoning scores, however, the Elaborated x Refer Back interaction was statistically significant and the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Refer Back interaction approached significance (see Table 5).”

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

Group work was not observed during eight of the 144 lessons.

“Group work was not observed during eight of the 144 lessons.”

May combine two claims.

Regression analyses indicated school effects were negligible: with eight dialogue variables, the proportion of variance covered by school effects was no more than 0.2%, and the mean proportion across all 11 variables was 1.20%, range=0.1% to 5%.

“Regression analyses indicated that school effects were negligible: with eight dialogue variables, the proportion of variance covered by school effects was no more than 0.2%, and the mean proportion across all 11 variables was 1.20%, range=0.1% to 5%.”

May combine two claims.

The latter two results were qualified through significant interactions with Querying, while the Querying x Reasoned interaction also came close to significance even though there was no significant main effect of Reasoned on PASS scores.

“However, the latter two results were qualified through significant interactions with Querying, while the Querying x Reasoned interaction also came close to significance even though there was no significant main effect of Reasoned on PASS scores.”

May combine two claims.

Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation were merely three dialogue variables in a set of 11, with the remaining eight also indicative of theoretically productive classroom dialogue; little supportive evidence was obtained for any of these eight.

“Furthermore, Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation were merely three dialogue variables in a set of 11, with the remaining eight also indicative of theoretically productive classroom dialogue.Little supportive evidence was obtained for any of these eight”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Four of these interactions involved Student Participation.

“Four of these interactions involved Student Participation”

May combine two claims.

All observed group work was collaborative in nature; peer tutoring was never observed.

“Importantly, all observed group work was collaborative in nature, i.e. students worked jointly without prescribed roles; peer tutoring was never observed.”

May combine two claims.

Principal components analysis provided modest grounds for combining Monitoring and Student Participation, but no grounds for combining Aims or Reflection with any other scale.

“As regards the other four dialogue-related scales, principal components analysis provided modest grounds for combining Monitoring and Student Participation, but no grounds for combining Aims or Reflection with any other scale.”

May combine two claims.

Two-level models revealed no statistically significant main effects of dialogue with any of the three SAT scores, and no significant interactions relating to Reading.

“Two-level models revealed no statistically significant main effects of dialogue with any of the three SAT scores, and no significant interactions relating to Reading.”

May combine two claims.

Following criteria, 18 potential confounds were eliminated, including all variables relating to participant demographics.

“Following these criteria, 18 potential confounds were eliminated (see Appendix, column headed 'Dialogue related'), including all variables relating to participant demographics.”

May combine two claims.

High levels of Elaborated or Reasoned relative to Non-Dialogic and high absolute levels of Reasoned were only productive when levels of Querying were low; when levels of Querying were high, these three variables made little difference.

“These interactions are depicted in Figure 3, where it is clear that high levels of Elaborated or Reasoned relative to Non-Dialogic and high absolute levels of Reasoned were only productive when levels of Querying were low.When levels of Querying were high, these three variables made little difference.”

May combine two claims.

The frequency of Elaborated dialogue was also positively associated with PASS scores, and unlike with other similarly associated variables the relation was not undermined through high frequency Querying.

“The frequency of Elaborated dialogue was also positively associated with PASS scores, and unlike with other similarly associated variables the relation was not undermined through high frequency Querying.”

May combine two claims.

The rarity of CI and RC detected during the reliability checks was confirmed with the full sample, and the frequency of SC was also extremely low.

“As the table shows, the rarity of CI and RC detected during the reliability checks was confirmed with the full sample, and the frequency of SC was also extremely low.”

May combine two claims.

Neither Elaborated nor Referring Back exerted marked influences on reasoning scores in any case.

“especially when as is clear from Figure 2's vertical axes, neither Elaborated nor Referring Back exerted marked influences in any case.”

May combine two claims.

PreRead (M) predicted the frequencies of Elaborated and Reasoned, the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio, and the ratings for Reflection (ßs=-.25 to .49, ps=.037 to <.001).

“b) PreRead (M) predicted the frequencies of Elaborated and Reasoned, the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio, and the ratings for Reflection (ßs=-.25 to .49,ps=.037 to <.001);”

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

PreMaths (M) was significantly related to Reading SAT (t(72.40)=5.68, p<.001).

“| PreMaths (M) | Reading SAT | t(72.40)=5.68, p<.001 |”

May combine two claims.

PreMaths (M) predicted the frequencies of Elaborated and Querying, the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio, and the ratings for Monitoring (ßs=.12 to -.46, ps=.046 to .002).

“a) PreMaths (M) predicted the frequencies of Elaborated and Querying, the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio, and the ratings for Monitoring (ßs=.12 to -.46, ps=.046 to .002);”

May combine two claims.

The relation between scores on the reasoning test and Elaborated dialogue (and the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic ratio) tended to be negative, though the values did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance.

“while the values did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, the relation between scores on the reasoning test and Elaborated dialogue (and the Elaborated/Non-Dialogic ratio) tended to be negative.”

May combine two claims.

Both the Reasoned variable and the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio were associated with adequate mean frequencies and wide ranges across classrooms.

“As Table 2 indicates, both the Reasoned variable and the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio were associated with adequate mean frequencies and wide ranges across classrooms.”

May combine two claims.

Quality of collaborative group work (Group) predicted the frequency of Elaborated and the ratings for Student Participation (respective ßs=.23 and .31, ps=.045 and .002).

“h) Quality of collaborative group work (Group) predicted the frequency of Elaborated and the ratings for Student Participation (respective ßs=.23 and .31,ps=.045 and .002);”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Classes with above-average Elaborated+Querying and above-average Student Participation had the highest estimated marginal mean Mathematics SAT (107.68), significantly higher than the other three categories (Bonferroni p<.05).

“>Average EL+Q | 107.68a | 108.71a | 106.10a”

May combine two claims.

The Monitoring and Refection scales produced usable ratings, which were never associated with statistically significant effects, and these scales were regarded as addressing meta-cognition.

“It is true that the Monitoring and Refection scales produced usable ratings (which were never associated with statistically significant effects), and these scales were regarded as addressing meta-cognition.”

May combine two claims.

There was no sample attrition for the reasoning test; all 72 classes took the reasoning test.

“Here, there was no sample attrition for the students in all 72 classes took the reasoning test”

May combine two claims.

The study's sample was demographically diverse but restricted to England.

“Cultural differences might also be considered for although the study's sample was demographically diverse, it was nevertheless restricted to England.”

May combine two claims.

The Talk Rules scale was seen as the major index and ratings using this scale were too consistently low (and potentially unreliable) to be taken further.

“However, it was the Talk Rules scale that was seen as the major index and ratings using this scale were too consistently low (and potentially unreliable) to be taken further.”

May combine two claims.

Neither the Reasoned variable nor its frequency relative to Non-Dialogic was positively related to SAT scores or to scores on the science test.

“Indeed, neither variable was positively related to SAT scores or to scores on the science test.”

May combine two claims.

Students found the science test difficult, with a sample mean score of only 13.99 out of a possible 33.

“and no doubt reflecting this the students found the test difficult, with a sample mean score of only 13.99 out of a possible 33.”

May combine two claims.

PreMaths (SD) predicted the frequency of Querying and the ratings for Reflection (respective ßs=.29 and .25, ps=.005 and .032).

“c) PreMaths (SD) predicted the frequency of Querying and the ratings for Reflection (respective ßs=.29 and .25,ps=.005 and .032).”

May combine two claims.

Neither the absolute frequency of the study's Reasoned variable, nor its frequency relative to Non-Dialogic, was associated with scores on the reasoning test.

“Neither the absolute frequency of the study's Reasoned variable, nor its frequency relative to Non-Dialogic, was associated with scores on the reasoning test.”

May combine two claims.

The Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Refer Back interaction with Mathematics SAT did not reflect a positive impact of ratio; ratio operated differently depending on the frequency of Referring Back but had no net benefits.

“However, this did not reflect a positive impact of ratio.Rather, ratio operated differently depending on the frequency of Referring Back but had no net benefits.”

May combine two claims.

Goal clarity (Goals) predicted the frequencies of Querying, Referring Back and Referring Widely and the ratings for Aims and Monitoring (ßs=-.13 to .58, ps=.032 to <.001).

“d) Goal clarity (Goals) predicted the frequencies of Querying, Referring Back and Referring Widely and the ratings for Aims and Monitoring (ßs=-.13 to .58,ps=.032 to <.001);”

May combine two claims.

With end-of-year PASS, the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio was positively associated with scores (as to a non-significant extent was the Reasoned variable), but the benefits in both cases were eliminated in contexts of high frequency Querying.

“With end-of-year PASS, the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio was positively associated with scores (as to a non-significant extent was the Reasoned variable), but the benefits in both cases were eliminated in contexts of high frequency Querying.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Classes with above-average Elaborated+Querying and above-average Student Participation had the highest estimated marginal mean SPAG SAT (108.71), significantly higher than the other three categories (Bonferroni p<.05).

“>Average EL+Q | 107.68a | 108.71a | 106.10a”

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

Group was significantly related to Mathematics SAT (t(59.08)=2.60, p=.012).

“| Group | Mathematics SAT | t(59.08)=2.60, p=.012 |”

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

Group was significantly related to SPAG SAT (t(68.50)=2.33, p=.023).

“| Group | SPAG SAT | t(68.50)=2.33, p=.023 |”

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

PrePASS was significantly related to SPAG SAT (t(71.29)=2.04, p=.045).

“| PrePASS | SPAG SAT | t(71.29)=2.04, p=.045 |”

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

PrePASS was significantly related to Mathematics SAT (t(62.30)=2.98, p=.004).

“| PrePASS | Mathematics SAT | t(62.30)=2.98, p=.004 |”

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

PreMaths (SD) was significantly related to Mathematics SAT (t(60.07)=-2.41, p=.019).

“| PreMaths (SD) | Mathematics SAT | t(60.07)=-2.41, p=.019 |”

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

Group was significantly related to End-of-year PASS (t(71.65)=-2.31, p=.024).

“| Group | End-of-year PASS | t(71.65)=-2.31, p=.024 |”

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

Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Refer Back was related to Reasoning (t(71.67)=1.97, p=.052).

“| Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Refer Back Reasoning | t(71.67)=1.97, p=.052 | |”

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

PreRead (M) was significantly related to Mathematics SAT (t(58.12)=2.73, p=.008).

“| PreRead (M) | Mathematics SAT | t(58.12)=2.73, p=.008 |”

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

PrePASS was related to Science (t(47.48)=1.98, p=.053).

“| PrePASS | Science | t(47.48)=1.98, p=.053 |”

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

Group was significantly related to Reasoning (t(72.88)=2.53, p=.014).

“| Group | Reasoning | t(72.88)=2.53, p=.014 |”

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

Reasoned x Querying was related to End-of-Year PASS (t(71.51)=-1.79, p=.077).

“| Reasoned x Querying | End-of-Year PASS | t(71.51)=-1.79, p=.077 |”

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

PreRead (M) was related to End-of-year PASS (t(71.57)=1.98, p=.051).

“| PreRead (M) | End-of-year PASS | t(71.57)=1.98, p=.051 |”

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

In studies by Anderson et al. and Fung and Howe, report quality was strongly predicted by the frequency of reasoned differences of opinion during group discussion.

“Report quality was strongly predicted by the frequency of reasoned differences of opinion during group discussion.”

• cites Anderson et al.Not matched

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

• cites Fung and HoweNot matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The five themes are indisputably prominent within the literature, endorsed by many researchers from many countries.

“Nevertheless, despite the heterogeneity, the five themes are indisputably prominent within the literature, endorsed by many researchers from many countries.”

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

Numerous proposals about classroom verbal interaction recur as five themes: open questions, elaboration of previous contributions, reasoned discussion of competing viewpoints, linkage and coordination across contributions, and meta-cognitive engagement with dialogue.

“Numerous proposals have been made about the characteristics that verbal interaction in classrooms should display in order to optimize student outcomes, but amongst these proposals five themes recur.”

• cites Alexander, 2008Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mercer & Littleton, 2007Not matched

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

• cites Wells & Arauz, 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Prior attainment and attitudes, student demographics, and further aspects of classroom practice were considered in analyses as potential confounders of dialogue-outcome relations.

“Prior attainment and attitudes were considered in analyses as were other factors, e.g.student demographics and further aspects of classroom practice, that might confound interpretation of dialogue-outcome relations.”

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

Small-group research provides compelling evidence that expression and reasoned discussion of differences of opinion supports both academic attainment and general reasoning.

“This research provides compelling evidence for the third of the above themes: the expression and reasoned discussion of differences of opinion has been shown repeatedly to support both academic attainment and general reasoning”

• cites Anderson, Howe, Soden, Halliday, & Low, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Fung & Howe, 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Howe et al., 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The relevance of theoretically productive dialogue features has been most convincingly examined in relation to small-group interaction among students, and little is known about their applicability to teacher-student dialogue.

“To date however, the relevance of such features has been most convincingly examined in relation to small-group interaction amongst students; little is known about applicability to teacher-student dialogue.”

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

The Teacher Questionnaire addressed 19 potential confounds and focused on the frequency with which specified practices occurred.

“this questionnaire addressed 19 potential confounds, and focused upon the frequency with which specified practices occurred.”

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

There is a pressing need for research that is both more extensive and more penetrating.

“There is a pressing need for research that is both more extensive and more penetrating, and it was this need that motivated the study reported here.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

SATs taken during May 2016 were more challenging than previously, but difficulty levels were constant across the study's two years.

“In accordance with UK Government policy, the SATs taken during May 2016 (i.e. the study's first year) were more challenging than previously, but difficulty levels were constant across the study's two years.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Science knowledge and understanding were assessed via a specially prepared test designed with primary science specialist teachers and restricted to Year 6 statutory curriculum material.

“knowledge and understanding in science were assessed via a specially prepared test.The test was designed in collaboration with primary science specialist teachers, was restricted to material that the statutory curriculum specifies for Year 6”

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

To optimize power, the study targeted generalized, longer-term outcomes directly and assessed students individually some months after recordings.

“To optimize the present study's power, it seemed preferable to target generalized, longer-term outcomes directly, and therefore assess the students individually some months after the classroom recordings.”

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

Pauli and Reusser (2015) report positive associations between mathematics attainment and 'co-constructive talk', which includes explanation and justification.

“Pauli and Reusser (2015) report positive associations between attainment in mathematics and what they term 'co-constructive talk', which includes explanation and justification.”

• cites Pauli and Reusser (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

In small-group activity among students, two themes have been strongly endorsed, meaning that in that context patterns of dialogue do seem to matter.

“the fact remains that two themes have been strongly endorsed in the context of small-group activity amongst students, meaning that in this particular context patterns of dialogue do seem to matter.”

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

In the event, the reasoning test and PASS were completed in all 72 classrooms (1778 and 1784 students), while the science test was completed in 44 classrooms (1103 students).

“In the event, the reasoning test and PASS were completed in all 72 classrooms (respectively 1778 and 1784 students, while the science test was completed in 44 classrooms (1103 students).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A major function of initial visit data was identification and assessment of factors that might confound interpretation of relations between theoretically productive dialogue and student outcomes.

“a major function of the data collected during the initial visits was the identification and assessment of factors that might confound interpretation of relations between theoretically productive dialogue and student outcomes.”

May combine two claims.

Small-group activity is far from mainstream in classroom teaching, being at best a minority enterprise and virtually unknown in some cultures.

“The trouble is that the context is far from mainstream as regards classroom teaching, being at best a minority enterprise but virtually unknown in some cultures (Howe, 2010).”

• cites Howe, 2010Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

This suggested naturally occurring variation with some features at least, whose relation to student outcomes might be examined without intervention.

“This suggested naturally occurring variation with some features at least, whose relation to student outcomes might be examined without intervention.”

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

Steps were taken to identify relevant confounds and take their influence into account.

“Accordingly, steps were taken to identify relevant confounds, and to take their influence into account.”

May combine two claims.

Pilot data indicated excellent scale properties for the reasoning test (Cronbach's alpha across all test items = .98; two mean square out-fit scores just above 2.00 on Rasch analysis, but otherwise all below).

“Once more, pilot data indicated excellent scale properties (Cronbach's alpha across all test items=.98;two mean square out-fit scores just above 2.00 on Rasch analysis, but otherwise all below).”

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

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).”

• cites Muhonen et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites O'Connor et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites van der Veen et al., 2017Not matched

  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).

The relevance of reference back in natural settings is questionable.

“However, the relevance of reference back in natural settings is questionable (Howe et al., 2007).”

• cites Howe et al., 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Two lessons per class were included, always covering different subjects from mathematics, science and literacy, with selection randomized when three had been recorded.

“only two lessons per class were included in the study, even when three were recorded.These two lessons always covered different subjects from mathematics, science and literacy, with selection of lessons otherwise randomized when three had been recorded.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

The naturalistic approach has the merit of authenticity in addressing existing practices rather than artificially imposed practices, and the drawback of potentially having to discount features not widely used.

“Certainly, this approach would have the merit of authenticity in that it would address existing practices rather than practices as artificially and possibly temporarily imposed.It would have the drawback of potentially having to discount features that were not widely used”

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

The prevailing dialogue in classrooms is between teachers and students, and at present the impact of teacher-student dialogue on student outcomes requires further study.

“The prevailing dialogue in classrooms is between teachers and students, albeit between teachers and individual students, small groups or the whole class, and at present the impact of teacher-student dialogue on student outcomes requires further study.”

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

General reasoning was assessed via a specially designed test because few published reasoning tests are suitable for the study's age group.

“while there are many published tests of reasoning, few are suitable for the study's age group, so once more a specially designed test was employed (Ahmed, Howe, Major, Hennessy, Mercer, & Warwick, Forthcoming).”

• cites Ahmed, Howe, Major, Hennessy, Mercer, & Warwick, ForthcomingNot matched

  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.

Mercer and colleagues' Thinking Together programme supports the fifth theme, with awareness of good practice achieved through negotiation and display of ground rules integral to their positive findings.

“While obtaining parallel results with their extended Thinking Together programme, Mercer and colleagues also support the fifth theme: integral to their positive findings was the awareness of good practice achieved through negotiation and display of such 'ground rules' as 'We give reasons to explain our ideas' and 'If we disagree, we ask why'.”

• cites Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mercer & Sams, 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The first theme (open vs. closed questions) has not featured prominently in small-group research, and there is little evidence relating to the second theme (building on and elaborating).

“Perhaps unsurprisingly, the first theme (open vs. closed questions) has not featured prominently in small-group research, and there is also little evidence at present relating to the second theme, i.e. building on and elaborating (but see Rojas-Drummond et al., 2010).”

• cites Rojas-Drummond et al., 2010Not checked — no full text of the source

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

Howe and Abedin (2013) conclude that many studies of teacher-student dialogue are concerned with effectiveness, but the modal approach is to analyze sampled dialogue qualitatively for compliance with models of effective practice whose appropriateness is presumed rather than tested, so student outcomes have seldom been assessed.

“reviewing them, Howe and Abedin (2013) conclude that many are concerned with effectiveness.”

• Also stated in: § Previous Research · plain

  “the modal approach according to Howe and Abedin is to analyze sampled dialogue qualitatively for compliance with models of effective practice, whose appropriateness is presumed rather than tested.”

• Also stated in: § Previous Research · plain

  “For that reason, student outcomes have seldom been assessed, let alone used in evaluation.”

• cites Howe and Abedin (2013) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Some features of theoretically productive dialogue have proved more accessible than others, and teachers vary over their adoption even when features are accessible in principle.

“Some features have proved more accessible than others, and even when features have emerged as accessible in principle teachers vary over their adoption.”

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

The institution's Ethics Committee granted approval, and teachers and parents provided consent for participation.

“After the institution's Ethics Committee had granted approval, the teachers were emailed comprehensive information about the study together with forms: a) for themselves to sign and return indicating willingness to participate throughout; b) for parents to sign and return indicating willingness for their child to participate in all (listed) aspects that went beyond routine teaching and assessment.”

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

Each student completed either the NFER reading test or the NFER mathematics test, divided at random within each class.

“Each student was asked to complete the NFER reading test or the NFER mathematics test (not both, to minimize demand).The two tests were divided at random within each class, usually through alternating tests across adjacently seated students (with the additional advantage of minimizing copying).”

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

Caution is already being advocated around the use of randomized controlled approaches in classroom research.

“Recognizing such difficulties, caution is already being advocated around the use of randomized controlled approaches in classroom research (e.g.Ginsburg & Smith, 2016).”

• cites Ginsburg & Smith, 2016Not matched

  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).

Researchers achieved 81% agreement over independent ratings during training.

“had achieved 81% agreement over their independent ratings during training.”

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

Nystrand and colleagues highlight potential relevance to literacy attainment of open questions and high student contribution.

“Nystrand and colleagues (e.g.Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003;Nystrand, 2006) highlight the potential relevance to literacy attainment of the first of the above themes, i.e. that relating to open questions, and also of the crosscutting theme of high student contribution.”

• cites Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Nystrand, 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Two researchers independently coded 12 lessons before transcript/video-based coding began, and a further eight lessons before moving to video-only coding (9952 turns in total).

“To check reliability, two researchers independently coded 12 lessons before transcript/video-based coding began, and a further eight lessons before moving to video-only coding (9952 turns in total).”

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

Aspects of theoretically productive teacher-student dialogue will already be embedded in some classrooms, and the extent of embedding will vary across classrooms.

“the message (from previous control groups) was that aspects of theoretically productive teacher-student dialogue will already be embedded in the practices of some classrooms and (from previous intervention groups) that the extent of embedding will vary across classrooms.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

There was no reason to anticipate lack of comparability due to associations between dialogic practices and time of recording.

“there was no reason to anticipate lack of comparability due to associations between dialogic practices and time of recording.”

May combine two claims.

Apparent progress during dialogue does not necessarily generalize to other contexts or relate to longer-term growth.

“However, such progress does not necessarily generalize to other contexts or relate to longer-term growth (e.g.Howe, 2009;Howe & Zachariou, 2017).”

• cites Howe, 2009Not matched

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

• cites Howe & Zachariou, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Around 150 associates of student outcome were identified primarily from meta-analyses such as Hattie (2009), and 32 factors were assessed as potential confounds.

“Referring primarily to meta-analyses such as Hattie (2009), around 150 associates of student outcome were identified.”

• Also stated in: § Initial visits. · plain

  “However, a priori exclusion seemed inappropriate with the 32 factors listed in the left-hand column of the Appendix, so all of these factors were assessed.”

• cites Hattie (2009)Not matched

  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.

The science and reasoning tests were the only outcome measures designed specifically for the study and therefore not tried-and-tested.

“As regards extraneous factors, one possible source lies with the tests themselves, for the science and reasoning tests were the only outcome measures to be designed specifically for the study and therefore not tried-and-tested.”

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

When the positive effects of Elaborated and Querying depend upon high levels of student participation, the results also endorse the crosscutting theme, that all participants should contribute fully, not merely teachers.

“and when the positive effects of Elaborated and Querying depend upon high levels of student participation, the results also endorse the crosscutting theme, i.e. that all participants should contribute fully, not merely teachers.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.

May combine two claims.

High levels of Elaborated and Querying together with high Student Participation proved productive because they created conditions where students could watch themselves think, and it was this that triggered growth.

“Perhaps then, this is why high levels of Elaborated and Querying together with high Student Participation proved productive.They created conditions where students could 'watch themselves think', and it was this that triggered growth.”

May combine two claims.

Cronbach's alpha across the averages was very high (.90), so it seemed reasonable to use the mean rating across the 2 (lessons) x 10 (scales) as the quality index for each classroom.

“As Cronbach's alpha across these averages was very high (.90), it seemed reasonable to use the mean rating across the 2 (lessons) x 10 (scales) as the quality index for each classroom.”

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

Cronbach's alpha across all PASS items was .93.

“Cronbach's alpha across all items was .93.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

A thorough approach was taken towards assessing potentially confounding variables, with such variables considered as appropriate in the analyses.

“A thorough approach was taken towards assessing potentially confounding variables, with such variables considered as appropriate in the analyses.”

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

The results are also consistent with the second theme, that participants should make extended contributions, elaborating and building on previous contributions from themselves and others.

“Via the inclusion of Elaborated, the results are also selfevidently consistent with the second theme, i.e. that participants should make extended contributions, elaborating and building on previous contributions from themselves and others.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.

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

For Bakhtin, struggling with another's discourse was regarded as the key to ideological consciousness, and through this, greater understanding within those who struggle.

“In Bakhtin (1981, p.348), struggling with another's discourse was regarded as the key to 'ideological consciousness', and through this, greater understanding within those who struggle.”

• cites Bakhtin (1981, p.348)Not matched

  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), S4 (based).

In terms of content, the science test maps onto the prescribed Year 6 curriculum.

“and in terms of content, the science test maps onto the prescribed Year 6 curriculum.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The involvement of Querying resonates with the third theme's stipulation that differences be acknowledged and probed.

“The involvement of Querying resonates with the third theme's stipulation that differences be acknowledged and probed”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.

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

10% of scripts from all classes were subject to quality checks, with fewer marking errors detected than one per 500 answers.

“Nevertheless, 10% of scripts from all classes were subject to quality checks, with fewer marking errors detected than one per 500 answers.”

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

With no subjective element to the multiple-choice items in the science test or any items in the reasoning test and PASS, formal reliability checks were unnecessary.

“With no subjective element to the multiple-choice items in the science test or any items in the reasoning test and PASS, formal reliability checks were unnecessary.”

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

Piaget saw value in juxtaposition because it allows each individual to see himself in the eyes of others and thus acquire the habit of watching himself think.

“Amongst classic theorists, Piaget (1959, p.137) saw value in juxtaposition because it allows each individual to see 'himself in the eyes of others and thus acquire the habit of watching himself think'.”

• cites Piaget (1959, p.137)Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Both the science and reasoning tests have emerged as psychometrically robust.

“However, the tests have both emerged as psychometrically robust”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the literature, juxtaposition in dialogue of one's own ideas with those of others is depicted as initiating reflective comparison and appraisal, and through this, insight and learning.

“Within the literature, the juxtaposition in dialogue of own ideas with those of others has been depicted repeatedly as initiating reflective comparison and appraisal, and through this, insight and learning.”

• cites Piaget (1959, p.137)Not matched

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

• cites Vygotsky (1998, p.168)Not matched

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

• cites Bakhtin (1981, p.348)Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

The negligible school effects meant that two-level modeling (class, student) was sufficient, with the sample size also more than adequate for this approach.

“However, the negligible school effects meant that two-level modeling (class, student) was sufficient, with the sample size also more than adequate for this approach (Field, 2013;Maas & Hox, 2005).”

• cites Field, 2013Not matched

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

• cites Maas & Hox, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The results are consistent with the first theme, that initiations should include open questions.

“These results are consistent with the first of the underlying themes, i.e. that initiations should include open questions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.

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

For Vygotsky, juxtaposition plays an indispensable role in confronting the individual with the need to form a basis, to prove, confirm and verify his own idea.

“For Vygotsky (1998, p.168), it plays an indispensable role in confronting the individual with 'the need to form a basis, to prove, confirm and verify his own idea'.”

• cites Vygotsky (1998, p.168)Not matched

  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).

Inter-judge agreement for science test short-text items was 92% for all pairs of markers.

“Their reliability was checked through comparing their individual scores for these items across the students in eight classes: inter-judge agreement was 92% for all pairs of markers.”

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

Dialogue-outcome relations were examined via two-level (class, student) modelling, regarded as the optimal strategy for relating class-level dialogue to individual student scores while recognizing student clustering and immaterial school effects.

“Dialogue-outcome relations were also examined via two-level (class, student) modelling, regarding this as the optimal strategy for relating dialogue (assessed at the class level) to the scores of individual students while also recognizing that the students were clustered in classes and school effects were immaterial.”

May combine two claims.

The quality of group work was assessed against features of dialogue that previous research has shown to be productive in that context, indicating that dialogue probably contributed to the positive relation with test scores.

“The quality of group work was of course assessed against features of dialogue that previous research has shown to be productive in that context, indicating that dialogue probably contributed to the positive relation with test scores.”

May combine two claims.

The third theme features prominently in the literature, yet as regards teacher-student dialogue there is little compelling empirical research.

“The theme features prominently in the literature, yet as regards teacher-student dialogue there is little compelling empirical research.”

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

The consequences of the sub-types of the themes may (and, from the present results, do) turn out to differ.

“The consequences of these sub-types may (and, from the present results, do) turn out to differ.”

May combine two claims.

The results offer partial but not whole-hearted support for the third theme, in that value has been detected in acknowledging and probing differences of opinion, but not, at least as currently effected in teacher-student dialogue, in examining the reasons on which opinions are based.

“As noted, they offer partial but not whole-hearted support for both the first theme (when some but not all types of open question have emerged as productive) and the third theme (when value has been detected in acknowledging and probing differences of opinion, but not, at least as currently effected in teacher-student dialogue, in examining the reasons on which opinions are based).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The third theme associated with theoretically productive classroom dialogue is that differences of opinion should not merely be acknowledged and probed as reflected in Querying, but also examined with reference to the reasons on which opinions are based.

“The motivation for including the variables was, of course, the third theme associated with theoretically productive classroom dialogue, i.e. that differences of opinion should not merely be acknowledged and probed as reflected in Querying, but also examined with reference to the reasons on which opinions are based.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The results make an original and significant contribution in their own right: this is the first large-scale investigation of the relationship between teacher-student dialogue and student outcomes which systematically takes account of relevant confounds.

“Nevertheless, the results make an original and significant contribution in their own right: this is the first large-scale investigation of the relationship between teacher-student dialogue and student outcomes which systematically takes account of relevant confounds.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The study's measured confounds are sufficient to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships between dialogue and outcomes.

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

Reported results were always replicated; for example, the same strong three-way solution emerged with no cross-factor loadings.

“Reported results were always replicated, e.g.here the same, strong, three-way solution emerged with no cross-factor loadings.”

May combine two claims.

The repeated relevance of the Elaborated variable implies stronger support for the second theme, yet even here the results with the reasoning test highlight exceptions.

“The repeated relevance of the Elaborated variable implies stronger support for the second theme, yet even here the results with the reasoning test highlight exceptions.”

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

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.”

• cites Muhonen et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The results offer partial but not whole-hearted support for the first theme, in that some but not all types of open question have emerged as productive.

“As noted, they offer partial but not whole-hearted support for both the first theme (when some but not all types of open question have emerged as productive) and the third theme (when value has been detected in acknowledging and probing differences of opinion, but not, at least as currently effected in teacher-student dialogue, in examining the reasons on which opinions are based).”

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

The fourth theme associated with theoretically productive classroom dialogue is that through explicit links amongst contributions and attempts to co-ordinate, integrated lines of enquiry should be pursued.

“The fourth theme associated with theoretically productive classroom dialogue was that through explicit links amongst contributions and attempts to co-ordinate, integrated lines of enquiry should be pursued.”

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

Principal components analysis was regarded as appropriate for data reduction following Field (2013).

“Data reduction across this paper is intended merely to simplify measured variables, so following Field (2013) principal components analysis was regarded as appropriate throughout.”

• cites Field (2013)Not matched

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

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

Benefits should accrue from promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation.

“Nevertheless, benefits should accrue from promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation in teacher-student dialogue will produce benefits in student outcomes.

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

Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation comprise a relatively straightforward combination of dialogue features that could be promoted to teachers and manageably achieved in practice.

“The implication is that Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation comprise a relatively straightforward combination of dialogue features that, referring to exemplary instances like Shackleton's Journey, could be promoted to teachers and manageably achieved in practice.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Reasons characteristically occur in a rich tapestry of inter-connected and discursively salient ideas about whose status students are motivated to reflect, which may explain their productiveness.

“Thus, reasons characteristically occur in what earlier was referred to as 'a rich tapestry of inter-connected and discursively salient ideas' about whose status students are motivated to reflect.This may explain their productiveness.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Limited motivation to master the subject matter is a further factor extraneous to dialogue that, in the context of science, may have moderated the impact of Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation.

“In any event, limited motivation to master the subject matter is a further factor extraneous to dialogue that, in the context of science, may have moderated the impact of Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation.”

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

The associations between confounds and dialogue variables are unsurprising because scale usage would have partially depended on dialogue, some scales relate to dialogic pedagogy, and some relate conceptually to the dialogue variables themselves.

“These associations are perhaps unsurprising when scale usage would have partially depended on dialogue, some scales relate to the concept of 'dialogic pedagogy' discussed earlier, and some relate conceptually to the dialogue variables themselves, e.g.Goals and Aims.”

May combine two claims.

Even when multiple reasons were expressed in teacher-student dialogue, there was no uncertainty about their quality and therefore no need for contrastive reflection from students.

“Thus, even when multiple reasons were expressed, as with the discussion below about which rational number terms should be inserted into crossword boxes, there was no uncertainty about their quality and therefore no need for contrastive reflection from students.”

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

Two-stage linear step-up procedures confirmed that this approach resulted in no inappropriate exclusions.

“Two-stage linear step-up procedures(Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006) confirmed that this approach resulted in no inappropriate exclusions.”

• cites Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The skills tapped via the reasoning test might genuinely be immune to the influences of Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation, implying limits on the scope of these otherwise productive variables.

“All in all then, it appears that the skills tapped via the reasoning test might genuinely be immune to the influences of Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation, implying limits on the scope of these otherwise productive variables.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Achievement of this combination alone should pay dividends.

“Achievement of this combination alone should pay dividends.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation in teacher-student dialogue will produce benefits in student outcomes.

May combine two claims.

If such trends are true of science in general and not merely the specific topic, they most likely reflect the marginalization that removing primary science SATs has triggered.

“If such trends are true of science in general and not merely the specific topic (and the test's procedural component was generic), they most likely reflect the marginalization that removing primary science SATs has triggered (Leonard, Lamb, Howe, & Choudhoury, 2017).”

• cites Leonard, Lamb, Howe, & Choudhoury, 2017Not matched

  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).

All relevant analyses were repeated using factor analysis.

“However, noting controversy within the literature over techniques, all relevant analyses have been repeated using factor analysis.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Is and Rs need to be embellished and teacher E/Fs need to be withheld to permit student reflection and appraisal, but the basic format can be preserved.

“Is and Rs need to be embellished and teacher E/Fs need to be withheld to permit student reflection and appraisal, but the basic format can be preserved.”