The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 63 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes?
Open accessAbstract
It is now widely believed that classroom dialogue matters as regards student outcomes, with optimal patterns often regarded as requiring some or all of open questions, elaboration of previous contributions, reasoned discussion of competing viewpoints, linkage and coordination across contributions, metacognitive engagement with dialogue, and high student participation. To date, however, the relevance of such features has been most convincingly examined in relation to small-group interaction among students; little is known about their applicability to teacher–student dialogue. This article reports a large-scale study that permits some rebalancing. The study revolved around 2 lessons (covering 2 of mathematics, literacy, and science) that were video recorded in each of 72 demographically diverse classrooms (students’ ages 10–11 years). Key measures of teacher–student dialogue were related to 6 indices of student outcome, which jointly covered curriculum mastery, reasoning, and educationally relevant attitudes. 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. So long as students participated extensively, elaboration and querying of previous contributions were found to be positively associated with curriculum mastery, and elaboration was also positively associated with attitudes.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This naturalistic study of 72 English primary classrooms examined whether theoretically productive teacher–student dialogue predicts student outcomes after controlling for prior attainment and other confounds. It found that Elaborated dialogue and Querying were positively associated with curriculum mastery only when Student Participation was high, and Elaborated was also positively associated with attitudes, but support did not extend to science or reasoning.
Key findings
- Elaborated and Querying interacted with Student Participation for Mathematics and SPAG: high Elaborated/Querying plus high Student Participation was most productive. For example, classes above average on Elaborated+Querying and Student Participation had estimated marginal Mathematics SAT mean 107.68 and SPAG mean 108.71, versus 104.57 and 106.01 for above-average Elaborated+Querying but below-average Student Participation.
- Elaborated had a positive main effect on end-of-year PASS attitudes, \(t(71.54)=5.13, p<.001\), and this was not undermined by Querying.
- No statistically significant main effects of dialogue were found with Reading SAT, science, or reasoning. With reasoning, Elaborated × Refer Back was significant, \(t(79.00)=-2.05, p=.044\), but the paper describes the pattern as inconsistent and not strongly positive.
- Reasoned dialogue variables showed little positive evidence: the Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio was positively associated with PASS, but benefits were eliminated under high Querying; across SATs and science there was only one significant result involving reasoned dialogue, and it did not reflect a positive impact.
Methods
- Naturalistic design: 72 demographically diverse Year 5/6 primary classes (students aged 10–11) across 48 schools in England; two lessons per class were video-recorded, covering two of mathematics, literacy, and science (144 lessons total).
- Dialogue was analyzed with turn-level codes and lesson-level ratings; key variables included Elaborated, Reasoned, Querying, Referring Back, Referring Widely, ratios to Non-Dialogic, and Student Participation.
- Outcomes were six indices: Mathematics, SPAG, and Reading SATs; a specially designed science test; a specially designed reasoning test; and end-of-year PASS attitudes. Analyses used two-level (class, student) modelling with baseline and confound variables controlled; usable samples included 1,751 Reading SAT, 1,754 SPAG, 1,573 Mathematics SAT from 61 classes, 1,103 science from 44 classes, 1,778 reasoning, and 1,784 PASS.
Limitations
- The paper states that the naturalistic approach left some themes inadequately examined: coordination codes CI, SC, and RC were too rare for analysis, Talk Rules ratings were too consistently low and potentially unreliable, and Referring Back/Referring Widely frequencies were low.
- The paper states that science results may be affected by sampling and motivation: the science test was taken in only 44 classes, often after SATs, sometimes with lower curriculum coverage, and the sample mean was 13.99 out of 33.
- The paper states that the sample was restricted to England and that the science and reasoning tests were newly designed for the study; it also notes that further research is needed before optimal dialogue patterns can be specified.
- Evident from the text: the design is correlational, not causal; dialogue was sampled from only two lessons per class; and several outcomes relied on teacher-administered or teacher-supplied assessment.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
97 Own result · 33 Own method · 31 Own interpretation · 15 No basis given · 14 Sources not found · 11 No full text of the sources · 7 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“the initiatives have achieved only patchy success as regards target dialogue (e.g.Alexander et al., 2017;Lefstein & Snell, 2014;Osborne et al., 2013;Pehmer et al., 2015;Pimentel & McNeill, 2013;Ruthven et al., 2017;Wells & Arauz, 2006).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Alexander et al., 2017Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Video data: quantitative’ section reports striking differences in teacher and pupil talk between intervention and control classrooms. The ‘Balance of recitation and discussion/dialogue’ passage reports significantly greater use of discussion and dialogue by intervention teachers, and the Conclusion calls the impact ‘overwhelmingly positive.’ These passages make a contrary point to the claim of only patchy success in target dialogue. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not matchedcites Lefstein & Snell, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Osborne et al., 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“through professional development programmes, many teachers are already being encouraged to implement the themes”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Productive classroom dialogue
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Alexander, Hardman, & Hardman, 2017Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Rationale and aims section describes a structured professional-development programme for dialogic teaching, and the Interviews section reports its implementation in 28 intervention schools. A note labelled “10” identifies five criteria of dialogic teaching. The report does not establish that multiple programmes were encouraging teachers to implement those five criteria specifically. (LLM, conf=0.79)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells & Arauz, 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So long as students participated extensively, elaboration and querying of previous contributions were found to be positively associated with curriculum mastery, and elaboration was also positively associated with attitudes.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The five themes (open questions, elaboration, reasoned discussion, linkage/coordination, meta-cognitive engagement) and high student contribution together constitute a valid operationalization of theoretically productive classroom dialogue.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So long as students participated extensively, elaboration and querying of previous contributions were found to be positively associated with curriculum mastery, and elaboration was also positively associated with attitudes.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The five themes (open questions, elaboration, reasoned discussion, linkage/coordination, meta-cognitive engagement) and high student contribution together constitute a valid operationalization of theoretically productive classroom dialogue.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses conducted when two-thirds of the classrooms had been visited indicated that dialogue indices computed from two lessons almost perfectly predicted indices computed from three, so long as the lessons covered different subjects (i.e.90-95% of the variance was covered).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Classroom recordings.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as cluster frequencies for teacher and student contributions combined were strongly correlated with cluster frequencies for each taken separately (Pearson rs=.88 to .96 for teachers; .85 to .93 for students)”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Turn-level codes.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicated that these six codes fell into three clusters: a) Elaborated -ELI loaded .92,EL loaded .94,other loadings -.05 to .08;b) Reasoned -REI loaded .90,RE loaded .94,other loadings -.14 to .13;c) Non-Dialogic -OI loaded .89,UC loaded .82,other loadings -.06 to .06.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Turn-level codes.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Elaborated, Querying and/or Student Participation were not positively associated with performance on the science and reasoning tests.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet the benefits from Elaborated, Querying and Student Participation did not extend to the science and reasoning tests”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One such factor lies with sampling, for the science test was taken in only three of the classes depicted in Table 6 as above average with both Elaborated/Querying and Student Participation.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 82
- It may state two separate claims as one. 88
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Video-recorded dialogue was analyzed using a scheme based on work reported by Hennessy, Rojas-Drummond and colleagues (Hennessy et al., 2016).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Dialogue variables.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hennessy et al., 2016 source
The Introduction describes a scheme of systematic indicators for analysing educational dialogue, developed through trialling with video recordings, and says the paper publishes the scheme with worked examples. This supports citing Hennessy et al. (2016) as the work on which a later dialogue-analysis scheme was based; it does not require the source to describe the later study's own analysis. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Richter & Tjosvold, 1980 source
- Partly supportedcites Clarke, Xu, & Wan, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muhonen et al., 2018 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Alexander et al., 2017
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Osborne et al., 2013 source
- Not matchedcites Ruthven et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Turn-level codes.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Turn-level codes.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as Table 3 indicates PreMaths (M), PreMaths (SD), PreRead (M), PrePASS and Group were all significantly related to at least one outcome variable”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Preliminary analyses
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as detailed in Table 5, three interactions were statistically significant with Mathematics, and two were statistically significant (or very close) with SPAG.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the event, the three variables derived from video ratings (Goals, Feedback, Relations) were never significantly related to student outcome, and nor was Trips.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Preliminary analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group work was not observed during eight of the 144 lessons.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Potential confounds.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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%.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four of these interactions involved Student Participation”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, all observed group work was collaborative in nature, i.e. students worked jointly without prescribed roles; peer tutoring was never observed.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Potential confounds.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Lesson-level ratings.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following these criteria, 18 potential confounds were eliminated (see Appendix, column headed 'Dialogue related'), including all variables relating to participant demographics.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Preliminary analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Turn-level codes.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“especially when as is clear from Figure 2's vertical axes, neither Elaborated nor Referring Back exerted marked influences in any case.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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);”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PreMaths (M) | Reading SAT | t(72.40)=5.68, p<.001 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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);”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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);”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“>Average EL+Q | 107.68a | 108.71a | 106.10a”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, there was no sample attrition for the students in all 72 classes took the reasoning test”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cultural differences might also be considered for although the study's sample was demographically diverse, it was nevertheless restricted to England.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, neither variable was positively related to SAT scores or to scores on the science test.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“c) PreMaths (SD) predicted the frequency of Querying and the ratings for Reflection (respective ßs=.29 and .25,ps=.005 and .032).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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);”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“>Average EL+Q | 107.68a | 108.71a | 106.10a”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Group | Mathematics SAT | t(59.08)=2.60, p=.012 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Group | SPAG SAT | t(68.50)=2.33, p=.023 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PrePASS | SPAG SAT | t(71.29)=2.04, p=.045 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PrePASS | Mathematics SAT | t(62.30)=2.98, p=.004 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PreMaths (SD) | Mathematics SAT | t(60.07)=-2.41, p=.019 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Group | End-of-year PASS | t(71.65)=-2.31, p=.024 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Elaborated/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Refer Back Reasoning | t(71.67)=1.97, p=.052 | |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PreRead (M) | Mathematics SAT | t(58.12)=2.73, p=.008 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PrePASS | Science | t(47.48)=1.98, p=.053 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Group | Reasoning | t(72.88)=2.53, p=.014 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Reasoned x Querying | End-of-Year PASS | t(71.51)=-1.79, p=.077 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| PreRead (M) | End-of-year PASS | t(71.57)=1.98, p=.051 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Report quality was strongly predicted by the frequency of reasoned differences of opinion during group discussion.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anderson et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fung and Howe
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, despite the heterogeneity, the five themes are indisputably prominent within the literature, endorsed by many researchers from many countries.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Productive classroom dialogue
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Productive classroom dialogue
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alexander, 2008
- Not matchedcites Mercer & Littleton, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells & Arauz, 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this questionnaire addressed 19 potential confounds, and focused upon the frequency with which specified practices occurred.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Initial visits.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Pauli and Reusser (2015) report positive associations between attainment in mathematics and what they term 'co-constructive talk', which includes explanation and justification.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pauli and Reusser (2015) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Initial visits.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Howe, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggested naturally occurring variation with some features at least, whose relation to student outcomes might be examined without intervention.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, steps were taken to identify relevant confounds, and to take their influence into account.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the relevance of reference back in natural settings is questionable (Howe et al., 2007).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Howe et al., 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Classroom recordings.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ahmed, Howe, Major, Hennessy, Mercer, & Warwick, Forthcoming
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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'.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rojas-Drummond et al., 2010
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Howe and Abedin (2013) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Previous Research · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some features have proved more accessible than others, and even when features have emerged as accessible in principle teachers vary over their adoption.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Procedure and Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Initial visits.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recognizing such difficulties, caution is already being advocated around the use of randomized controlled approaches in classroom research (e.g.Ginsburg & Smith, 2016).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ginsburg & Smith, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“had achieved 81% agreement over their independent ratings during training.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Classroom recordings.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Previous Research
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Turn-level codes.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Design Considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was no reason to anticipate lack of comparability due to associations between dialogic practices and time of recording.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Classroom recordings.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, such progress does not necessarily generalize to other contexts or relate to longer-term growth (e.g.Howe, 2009;Howe & Zachariou, 2017).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Student assessment.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Howe, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Howe & Zachariou, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Initial visits.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hattie (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Initial visits. · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Elaborated and Querying with Student Participation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Potential confounds.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cronbach's alpha across all items was .93.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Outcome variables.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A thorough approach was taken towards assessing potentially confounding variables, with such variables considered as appropriate in the analyses.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Elaborated and Querying with Student Participation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bakhtin (1981, p.348)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and in terms of content, the science test maps onto the prescribed Year 6 curriculum.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The involvement of Querying resonates with the third theme's stipulation that differences be acknowledged and probed”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, 10% of scripts from all classes were subject to quality checks, with fewer marking errors detected than one per 500 answers.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Outcome variables.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Outcome variables.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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'.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Elaborated and Querying with Student Participation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Piaget (1959, p.137)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the tests have both emerged as psychometrically robust”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Elaborated and Querying with Student Participation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Piaget (1959, p.137)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Vygotsky (1998, p.168)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bakhtin (1981, p.348)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Preliminary analyses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Field, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maas & Hox, 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results are consistent with the first of the underlying themes, i.e. that initiations should include open questions.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.
In the paper
“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'.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Elaborated and Querying with Student Participation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vygotsky (1998, p.168)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Outcome variables.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The theme features prominently in the literature, yet as regards teacher-student dialogue there is little compelling empirical research.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Rational Number Crossword
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The consequences of these sub-types may (and, from the present results, do) turn out to differ.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Rational Number Crossword
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The study's measured confounds are sufficient to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships between dialogue and outcomes.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reported results were always replicated, e.g.here the same, strong, three-way solution emerged with no cross-factor loadings.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muhonen et al. (2018) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Data reduction across this paper is intended merely to simplify measured variables, so following Field (2013) principal components analysis was regarded as appropriate throughout.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Field (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, benefits should accrue from promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation in teacher-student dialogue will produce benefits in student outcomes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Reasoned Dialogue
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Two-stage linear step-up procedures(Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006) confirmed that this approach resulted in no inappropriate exclusions.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Achievement of this combination alone should pay dividends.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation in teacher-student dialogue will produce benefits in student outcomes.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Science and Reasoning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Leonard, Lamb, Howe, & Choudhoury, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, noting controversy within the literature over techniques, all relevant analyses have been repeated using factor analysis.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Limitations and Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The five themes (open questions, elaboration, reasoned discussion, linkage/coordination, meta-cognitive engagement) and high student contribution together constitute a valid operationalization of theoretically productive classroom dialogue.
“The paper refers to the themes collectively as 'theoretically productive (classroom) dialogue', with 'productive' meaning 'conducive to positive student outcomes' and 'dialogue' employed in the broader of the senses discussed above but qualified via 'productive'.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Teacher-student dialogue predominates in classroom settings.
“This is despite its predominance in classroom settings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The five themes, together with the crosscutting theme, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.
“The study reported here was predicated upon five themes that, together with a further theme that cuts across all five, embody widely held conceptions of productive classroom dialogue.”
The paper relies on this without support.
What is productive amongst students is not necessarily productive when teachers are involved.
“However, what is productive amongst students is not necessarily productive when teachers are involved”
The paper relies on this without support.
Previously there was little convincing evidence relating to teacher-student dialogue.
“and previously there was little convincing evidence relating to teacher-student dialogue.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Variables extrinsic to dialogue-outcome relations only distort interpretation of those relations when they are associated with both dialogue and outcome.
“Variables extrinsic to dialogue-outcome relations only distort interpretation of those relations when they are associated with both dialogue and outcome.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The expert scholars' rankings are valid indicators of educationally productive dialogue.
“All eight scholars had previously endorsed most (often all) of the themes, meaning that their rankings bore directly on theme-variable coherence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation in teacher-student dialogue will produce benefits in student outcomes.
“Achievement of this combination alone should pay dividends.”
“Nevertheless, benefits should accrue from promoting Elaborated, Querying, and Student Participation”
The paper relies on this without support.
The study's measured confounds are sufficient to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships between dialogue and outcomes.
“this is the first large-scale investigation of the relationship between teacher-student dialogue and student outcomes which systematically takes account of relevant confounds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Policymakers and schools regard the included outcome measures as highly significant.
“The desirability of including outcome measures that policymakers and hence schools regard as highly significant was a major reason for the study's focus upon Year 6.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(71.07) = -1.07reported p = .288 · recomputed p = .288
“t(71.07)=-1.07,p = .288”
- Consistentt(72.4) = 5.68reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(72.40)=5.68, p < .001”
- Consistentt(70.15) = 2.78reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007
“t(70.15)=2.78, p = .007”
- Consistentt(60.07) = -2.41reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019
“t(60.07)=-2.41, p = .019”
- Consistentt(58.12) = 2.73reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008
“t(58.12)=2.73, p = .008”
- Consistentt(71.57) = 1.98reported p = .051 · recomputed p = .052
“t(71.57)=1.98, p = .051”
- Consistentt(62.3) = 2.98reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“t(62.30)=2.98, p = .004”
- Consistentt(71.29) = 2.04reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .045
“t(71.29)=2.04, p = .045”
- Consistentt(47.48) = 1.98reported p = .053 · recomputed p = .054
“t(47.48)=1.98, p = .053”
- Consistentt(59.08) = 2.6reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012
“t(59.08)=2.60, p = .012”
- Consistentt(68.5) = 2.33reported p = .023 · recomputed p = .023
“t(68.50)=2.33, p = .023”
- Consistentt(72.88) = 2.53reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014
“t(72.88)=2.53, p = .014”
- Consistentt(71.65) = -2.31reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .024
“t(71.65)=-2.31, p = .024”
- Consistentt(59.74) = -2.41reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019
“t(59.74)=-2.41, p = .019”
- Consistentt(67.48) = 3.4reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(67.48)=3.40, p = .001”
- Consistentt(66.08) = 2.21reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .031
“t(66.08)=2.21, p = .03”
- Consistentt(76.13) = 1.98reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .051
“t(76.13)=1.98, p = .052”
- Consistentt(74.95) = 2reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .049
“t(74.95)=2.00, p = .049”
- Consistentt(79) = -2.05reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044
“t(79.00)=-2.05, p = .044”
- Consistentt(71.67) = 1.97reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .053
“t(71.67)=1.97, p = .052”
- Consistentt(71.54) = 5.13reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(71.54)=5.13, p < .001”
- Consistentt(71.88) = -2.9reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005
“t(71.88)=-2.90, p = .005”
- Consistentt(71.56) = -2.24reported p = .028 · recomputed p = .028
“t(71.56)=-2.24, p = .028”
- Consistentt(71.5) = 2.3reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .024
“t(71.50)=2.30, p = .024”
- Consistentt(71.43) = 1.97reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .053
“t(71.43)=1.97, p = .052”
- Consistentt(71.51) = -1.79reported p = .077 · recomputed p = .078
“t(71.51)=-1.79, p = .077”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Main analyses
“However, the latter two results were qualified through significant interactions with Querying”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
“| Reasoned/Non-Dialogic Ratio x Querying | End-of-Year PASS | t(71.43)=1.97, p=.052 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Additional information
“| End-of-Year PASS | 2.47 | 0.62 | 0.44 to 3.96 |”
§ Teacher-Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact upon Student Outcomes? > Outcome variables.
“With PASS, each of the 50 items was scored from 1 to 4 (see Appendix), and scores for negatively worded items were reversed so that 4 always indicated a maximally positive attitude.”
Citations
Cites
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
(2017) · Cited by 16,319
The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays
Thompson, E. M., Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., Emerson, C. G., & Holquist, M. (1981) · World Literature Today · doi:10.2307/40136453 · Cited by 9,747
Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement
Carter, M. (2009) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410903415150 · Cited by 7,696
The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays
Wasiolek, E., Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. G. (1982) · Comparative Literature · doi:10.2307/1770763 · Cited by 7,540
(2008) · Cited by 6,939
Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005) · Methodology · doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 · Cited by 3,582
Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate
Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/93.3.491 · Cited by 3,228
Hattie, J. (2008) · doi:10.4324/9780203887332 · Cited by 3,051
Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom
Mehan, H. (1979) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 · Cited by 2,872
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- GL Assessment. (2013). PASS: Pupil attitudes to self and school. London, UK: Author.
- 10.1060/09500782.2016.1230127 · DOI
- 10.1080/19415257.2016.128653 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.1.2.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09004 · DOI
- Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
- Sinclair, J. M. H., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by pupils and teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Vygotsky, L. (1998). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 5: Child psychology. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erath, K., Ingram, J., Moschkovich, J. N., & Prediger, S. (2021) · ZDM · doi:10.1007/s11858-020-01213-2 · Cited by 229
Coding classroom dialogue: Methodological considerations for researchers
Hennessy, S., Howe, C. J., Mercer, N., & Vrikki, M. (2020) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100404 · Cited by 154
Self-citationImplications for Social Impact of Dialogic Teaching and Learning
García-Carrión, R., de Aguileta, G. L., Cuxart, M. P., & Ramis‐Salas, M. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00140 · Cited by 203
Chen, G., Chan, C. K. K., Chan, K. K. H., Clarke, S. N., & Resnick, L. Β. (2020) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2020.1783269 · Cited by 130
Chen, G. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103670 · Cited by 93
An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning
Hennessy, S., Calcagni, E., Leung, A., & Mercer, N. (2021) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943 · Cited by 131
Self-citationDialogic education for classroom teaching: a critical review
Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2020) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2020.1837859 · Cited by 126
“…been emphasized in all the four models of dialogic education and has also been found to produce positive student outcomes in empirical studies (e.g. Howe et al. 2019; O’Connor, Michaels, and Table 1. dialogic moves facilitating dialogic education. dialogic moves definition elicitation to elicit…”
BackgroundLearning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches
Rapanta, C., & Felton, M. K. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09637-2 · Cited by 120
Song, Y., Huang, L., Zheng, L., Fan, M., & Liu, Z. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00508-2 · Cited by 115
“Its strategic use facilities students’ deep understanding, critical thinking, reasoning and learning achievement (Howe et al., 2019).”
InfluentialAbdallah, A. K., & Abdallah, R. K. (2023) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-5518-0.ch007 · Cited by 74
Wang, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1301786 · Cited by 144
“Studies consistently demonstrate that students who experience positive relationships with their teachers are more likely to exhibit heightened levels of engagement, motivation, and a genuine enthusiasm for learning (Froiland et al., 2019; Howe et al., 2019).”
BackgroundArtificial intelligence in classroom discourse: A systematic review of the past decade
Wang, D., Yang, T., & Chen, G. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102275 · Cited by 96
Romano, L., Consiglio, P., Angelini, G., & Fiorilli, C. (2021) · European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education · doi:10.3390/ejihpe11030055 · Cited by 66
“Thus, although the teacher may be a valuable source of support for the struggling student, he/she is generally at a different and higher level than pupils [39,63].”
BackgroundThinking through talk: Using dialogue to develop students’ critical thinking
Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2023) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2023.104068 · Cited by 64
Evaluating large language models in analysing classroom dialogue
Long, Y., Luo, H., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-024-00273-3 · Cited by 87
Silent students and the patterns of their participation in classroom talk
Šeďová, K., & Navrátilová, J. (2020) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2020.1794878 · Cited by 74
Xiao, M., Tian, Z., & Xu, W. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies : Official Journal of the IFIP technical committee on Education · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11681-0 · Cited by 60
“High levels of teacher-student interaction promote effective student outcomes (Howe et al., 2019; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2018), as less or passive interaction can lead to negative emotions among students.”
BackgroundAutomatic Classification of Semantic Content of Classroom Dialogue
Song, Y., Lei, S., Hao, T., Lan, Z., & Ding, Y. (2020) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633120968554 · Cited by 54
“Howe et al. (2019) reported that dialogic contributions in the form of elaboration and querying were beneficial for mathematics and reading achievements.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialHennessy, S., Kershner, R., Calcagni, E., & Ahmed, F. (2021) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3269 · Cited by 68
Self-citationFurberg, A., & Silseth, K. (2021) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2021.1954521 · Cited by 50
“Educational dialogs, specifically whole-class conversations, might provide rich opportunities for such activities (Berland et al., 2020; Clarà, 2019; Howe et al., 2019; Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2007).”
BackgroundChen, G., & Chan, C. K. K. (2022) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100609 · Cited by 48
van der Wilt, F. M., Bouwer, R., & van der Veen, C. (2021) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101522 · Cited by 72
Facial Expression Recognition for Probing Students’ Emotional Engagement in Science Learning
Tang, X., Gong, Y., Xiao, Y., Xiong, J., & Bao, L. (2024) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-024-10143-7 · Cited by 56
“…through students’ hands-on participation in learning activities (Eva & Kathleen, 2023); and (3) interactive teaching, which emphasizes the interaction between teacher guidance and student activities (Howe et al., 2019) and promotes the construction of knowledge through both subjects’ joint efforts.”
Demszky, D., Liu, J., Hill, H. C., Sanghi, S., & Chung, A. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105183 · Cited by 52
Exploring the relationship between dialogic teacher talk and students’ persuasive writing
Al‐Adeimi, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (2020) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101388 · Cited by 58
An analysis of teacher questioning practices in dialogic lessons
Vrikki, M., & Evagorou, M. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102107 · Cited by 36
Self-citationPrediger, S., Götze, D., Holzäpfel, L., Rösken-Winter, B., & Selter, C. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.969212 · Cited by 76
Mačina, J., Daheim, N., Chowdhury, S. P., Sinha, T., Kapur, M., Gurevych, I., & Sachan, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.372 · Cited by 62
Principal Self-Efficacy and Learning Organizations: Influencing School Improvement.
Hesbol, K. A. (2019) · Digital Commons - DU (University of Denver) · Cited by 38
Developing and supporting implementation of a dialogic pedagogy in primary schools in England
Hardman, J. (2019) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102908 · Cited by 47
de Araujo, A., Papadopoulos, P. M., McKenney, S. E., & de Jong, T. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13007 · Cited by 37
“In addition to what can be observed in dialogue, the students' perception of the importance of their active participation is a key factor that characterizes productivity (Howe et al., 2019).”
Ehrenfeld, N., & Horn, I. S. (2020) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-020-09939-2 · Cited by 37
“In a recent book extending the 5 Practices, Smith and Sherin (2019) elaborate on monitoring as involving “assessing and advancing questions”––that is, uncovering what students understand and moving their thinking forward, echoing the perspectives of Webb et al. (2009) and Howe et al. (2019).”
BackgroundKelly, S., Bringe, R., Aucejo, E. M., & Fruehwirth, J. C. (2020) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.28.5012 · Cited by 41
“Thus, in the past, due to their labor-intensive nature, such systems have been primarily used in research settings (e.g. Gamoran & Kelly, 2003; Howe et al., 2019; Murphy et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2003) and in pre-service teacher preparation (e.”
MethodDialogue through the eyes: Exploring teachers’ focus of attention during educational dialogue
Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Rasku‐Puttonen, H., & Lerkkanen, M. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101607 · Cited by 36
Dialogic Teaching during Cooperative Inquiry-Based Science: A Case Study of a Year 6 Classroom
Gillies, R. M. (2020) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci10110328 · Cited by 48
“Similarly, Howe, Hennessy, Mercer, Vrikki, and Wheatley [11], in a large study of 72 demographically diverse classrooms of students, aged 10–11 years, studying mathematics, literacy, and science, found that as long as students engaged extensively in seeking or providing elaborations and challenging others’ previous co…”
BackgroundMeasuring Teaching Practices at Scale: A Novel Application of Text-as-Data Methods
Liu, J., & Cohen, J. (2021) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737211009267 · Cited by 37
“Literature focused on teachers’ “up-take” suggests that effective teaching is likely to exhibit a higher level of “language coordination” (Howe et al., 2019), in that there are more synchrony in teachers’ and students’ language.”
BackgroundToward the automated analysis of teacher talk in secondary ELA classrooms
Dale, M., GODLEY, A. J., Capello, S. A., Donnelly, P. J., D’Mello, S. K., & Kelly, S. (2021) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103584 · Cited by 46
Calcagni, E., Ahmed, F., Trigo-Clapés, A. L., Kershner, R., & Hennessy, S. (2023) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2023.104067 · Cited by 48
Self-citationUsing linguistic ethnography as a tool to analyse dialogic teaching in upper primary classrooms
Maine, F., & Cermakova, A. L. (2021) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100500 · Cited by 27
Using Innovative Methods to Explore the Potential of an Alerting Dashboard for Science Inquiry
Dickler, R., Gobert, J. D., & Pedro, M. S. (2021) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2021.7153 · Cited by 29
“The discourse (Gee, 2004), or conversation, that occurs between teachers and students as a result of the technology can reveal a great deal about how teachers support students’ understandings in science (Jurow & Creighton, 2005), including in relation to student outcomes (Howe et al., 2019; Manz & Renga, 2017).”
BackgroundTeaching strategies for value-loaded critical thinking in philosophy classroom dialogues
Rombout, F., Schuitema, J. A., & Volman, M. L. L. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100991 · Cited by 27
“Researchers have argued that dialogues actively involve students in collaborative meaning-making (Ten Dam & Volman, 2004) and promote elaboration and reasoning (Howe, Hennessy, Mercer, Vrikki & Wheatley, 2019; Wilkinson et al., 2017).”
Boyd, M. P. (2023) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100695 · Cited by 38
The relationship between teacher talk and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis
Yang, T., & Chen, G. (2024) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100638 · Cited by 52
Hao, T., Chen, X., & Song, Y. (2020) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633120940956 · Cited by 36
“Being a fundamental and important way of teaching, classroom dialogue has been widely recognised for its positive role in fostering thinking and learning achievement (Howe et al., 2019).”
BackgroundWang, M., Zhang, D., Zhu, J., & Gu, H. (2025) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331251321719 · Cited by 32
“The work of Howe et al. (2019) has been particularly insightful in this regard.”
Watson, A. M., Newman, R., & Morgan, S. D. (2021) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2021.1905655 · Cited by 25
“Given the impact of effective teacher-student dialogue on student learning (e.g. Howe et al., 2019), we believe that studies such as this provide valuable illumination of how classroom talk operates within a functionally-oriented grammar pedagogy.”
BackgroundMurphy, C. J., Abu-Tineh, A. M. H., Calder, N., & Mansour, N. (2021) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103367 · Cited by 29
Coding schemes and analytic indicators for dialogic teaching: A systematic review of the literature
Yang, T., & Chen, G. (2023) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100702 · Cited by 31
Chan, M. C. Y. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101564 · Cited by 26
Kraatz, E., Nagpal, M. N., Lin, T., Hsieh, M., Ha, S. Y., Kim, S., & Shin, S. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587058 · Cited by 43
Rødnes, K. A., Rasmussen, I., Omland, M., & Cook, V. (2020) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2020.103229 · Cited by 27
Classroom discussion practices in online remote secondary school settings during COVID-19
Gutentag, T., Orner, A., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107250 · Cited by 24
Design practices and principles for promoting dialogic argumentation via interdisciplinarity
Koichu, B., Schwarz, B. B., Heyd‐Metzuyanim, E., et al. (2022) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100657 · Cited by 24
Hu, X., He, W., Chiu, T. K. F., & Zhao, L. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11556-w · Cited by 27
“In younger students, effective educational dialogue requires the involvement of both teachers and students (Howe et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSmit, R., Hess, K., Taras, A., Bachmann, P., & Dober, H. (2023) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101777 · Cited by 44
Guzmán, V., & Larraín, A. (2021) · Professional Development in Education · doi:10.1080/19415257.2021.1902837 · Cited by 55
Macagno, F., Rapanta, C., Mayweg-Paus, E., & García-Milà, M. (2022) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.011 · Cited by 27
Li, X., Han, G., Fang, B., & Ju-hou, H. (2024) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-024-00872-z · Cited by 37
“In practice, however, there is wide variation in the quality of discourse (Howe et al., 2019).”
Education for collective intelligence
Hogan, M., Barton, A., Twiner, A., James, C. C., Ahmed, F., Casebourne, I., Steed, I., Hamilton, P., Shi, S., Zhao, Y., et al. (2023) · Irish Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03323315.2023.2250309 · Cited by 33
“Evaluations show dialogic education to be effective in improving thinking, increasing conceptual understanding and increasing learning gains in subject areas using standardised tests (Howe et al. 2019; Alexander 2018).”
Automatic classification of activities in classroom videos
Foster, J. K., Korban, M., Youngs, P. A., Watson, G. S., & Acton, S. T. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100207 · Cited by 30
“…outcomes such as student achievement or performance on disciplinary practices (Applebee et al., 2003; Barron, 2003; Bishop, 2021; Cobb et al., 1992; Goodwin et al., 2021; Howe et al., 2019; Murphy et al., 2009; Nussbaum, 2008; Resnick et al., 2018; Sedova et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2014, 2021).”
Li, B., Wang, C., Bonk, C. J., & Kou, X. (2024) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-024-00960-3 · Cited by 29
“Active participation in these discussions has been linked to enhanced curriculum mastery and positive attitudes towards the subject matter (Howe et al., 2019).”
Hennessy, S. (2024) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2024.2339346 · Cited by 31
Self-citationWang, D., & Chen, G. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/te.2024.3421606 · Cited by 21
“students’ critical thinking, skill acquisition, and academic performance [1].”
Davies, M. J., & Esling, S. (2020) · The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy · doi:10.1007/bf03652047 · Cited by 20
Quality of dialogue and emotion regulation in contentious discussions in higher education
Firer, E., Slakmon, B., Dishon, G., & Schwarz, B. B. (2021) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100535 · Cited by 19
Moser, M., Zimmermann, M., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., & Wischgoll, A. (2022) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100633 · Cited by 22
Kosel, C., Böheim, R., Schnitzler, K., Holzberger, D., Pfeffer, J., Bannert, M., & Seidel, T. (2023) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2023.104142 · Cited by 27
Allotey, E., García-Carrión, R., Villardón-Gallego, L., et al. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01801-z · Cited by 19
Freedman, E. B. (2020) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2020.1744442 · Cited by 23
“Use of class discussion has been shown to improve reading comprehension (Murphy et al., 2009, 2018), argumentative writing (Applebee et al., 2003; Wissinger & De La Paz, 2016), and overall academic achievement (Alexander, 2018; Howe et al., 2019; Muhonen et al., 2018).”
BackgroundStudents' dialogic and justifying moves during dialogic argumentation in mathematics and physics
Hähkiöniemi, M., Hiltunen, J., Jokiranta, K., Kilpelä, J., Lehesvuori, S., & Nieminen, P. (2022) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100608 · Cited by 24
Willison, J., Draper, C., Fornarino, L., Li, M., Sabri, T., Shi, Y., & Zhao, X. (2023) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267.2023.2207147 · Cited by 29
“Metacognition is portrayed in the literature as qualitatively similar across schooling and universities (Perry et al., 2019) and beneficial for learning across these sectors (Howe et al., 2019; Perry et al., 2019).”
The distribution and productivity of whole-class dialogues: Exploring the potential of microblogging
Frøytlog, J. I. J., & Rasmussen, I. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101501 · Cited by 20
Building agency through technology-aided dialogic teaching
Omland, M., & Rødnes, K. A. (2020) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100406 · Cited by 19
Teachers’ implementation and evaluation of design principles for value-loaded critical thinking
Rombout, F., Schuitema, J. A., & Volman, M. L. L. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101731 · Cited by 21
“…that such an approach actively involves students in collaborative meaning-making (Ten Dam & Volman, 2004), which promotes elaboration and reasoning (Howe, Hennessy, Mercer, Vrikki, & Wheatley, 2019; Wilkinson et al., 2017), and that dialogue makes it possible to take the perspectives of others…”
Silseth, K., & Arnseth, H. C. (2021) · Mind Culture and Activity · doi:10.1080/10749039.2021.1964534 · Cited by 30
“Studies have demonstrated the potential of whole-class conversations since they might provide the teacher with opportunities to answer questions, facilitate shared meaning making among students, and publicly demonstrate methods of reasoning and explaining (Howe et al., 2019; Rødnes et al., 2021; Wells, 1993).”
BackgroundTeachers’ Perspectives on Talk in the Programming Classroom : Language as a Mediator
Sentance, S., & Waite, J. (2021) · ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) · doi:10.1145/3446871.3469751 · Cited by 27
“Thus they assert that Accountable Talk [56] has much in common with the five principles of dialogic teaching [1], and that Thinking Together [31, 54] has much in common with dialogically organized instruction [59] and dialogic teaching, because all emphasize the importance of cultivating a dialogic classroom culture b…”
BackgroundInfluentialAmodia-Bidakowska, A., Hennessy, S., & WARWICK, P. V. (2023) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100742 · Cited by 23
Self-citationEducational dialogue among teachers experiencing different levels of self-efficacy
Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Rasku‐Puttonen, H., & Lerkkanen, M. (2021) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100493 · Cited by 23
Wang, D., & Chen, G. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13604 · Cited by 18
Exploring types of educational classroom talk in early childhood education centres
Muhonen, H., Verma, P., von Suchodoletz, A., & Rasku‐Puttonen, H. (2020) · Research Papers in Education · doi:10.1080/02671522.2020.1784259 · Cited by 22
Capturing Classroom Talk With the Low- Inference Discourse Observation Tool: A Validation Study
LaRusso, M. D., Al‐Adeimi, S., Kim, H. Y., Harbaugh, A. G., & O’Connor, M. C. (2023) · The Journal of Early Adolescence · doi:10.1177/02724316231182291 · Cited by 20
“When teachers cultivate dialogic environments, previous research has found improved student outcomes such as persuasive writing (Al-Adeimi & O ’ Connor, 2021), and end-of-year exams (Howe et al., 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialDetecting the factors affecting classroom dialogue quality
Rapanta, C., Miralda-Banda, A., García-Milà, M., Vrikki, M., Macagno, F., & Evagorou, M. (2023) · Linguistics and Education · doi:10.1016/j.linged.2023.101223 · Cited by 23
“In a naturalistic study in British primary schools, in which the di-alogues of 72 classrooms were coded, Howe et al. (2019) reported that the level of students ’ participation in classroom dialogue, along with their use of building on and challenging ideas, was positively associated with their…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationŠeďová, K., Sedláček, M., Šalamounová, Z., Lintner, T., Švaříček, R., Vlček, J., Malíková, K., & Rozmahel, I. (2025) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2025.2454637 · Cited by 26
“This approach aligns with the understanding of teacher talk moves as effective tools for creating space for productive student participation (Sedova et al. 2016; Hardman 2019; Howe et al. 2019; Hennessy et al. 2023; Vrikki and Evagorou 2023).”
Classroom interaction and student learning: Reasoned dialogue versus reasoned opposition
Howe, C. J. (2023) · Dialogic Pedagogy A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education · doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.549 · Cited by 15
“As detailed elsewhere (Howe & Abedin, 2013; Howe et al., 2019), one reason is that many analyses of teacher-student dialogue have been descriptive rather than concerned with consequences.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationNi, Y., Shi, L., Cheung, A., Chen, G., Ng, O., & Cai, J. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101758 · Cited by 17
Baker, M. J., Schwarz, B. B., & Ludvigsen, S. (2021) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-021-09359-1 · Cited by 15
“Howe et al.’s findings ( 2019 ), that show through SEDA that dialogical practices predict cognitive and social outcomes, address the concerns of policy makers with respect to the implementation of dialogic practices.”
BackgroundExploring Higher-Order Thinking in Higher Education Seminar Talk
Heron, M., & Palfreyman, D. M. (2021) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2021.2018397 · Cited by 22
de Araujo, A., Papadopoulos, P. M., McKenney, S. E., & de Jong, T. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00469-7 · Cited by 14
“…learning activities can be linked to positive effects on knowledge acquisition (Gillies, 2019; Lou et al., 2001), group task performance (Howe et al., 2019; Michaels et al., 2008), several cognitive processes (Chen et al., 2023; van Blankenstein et al., 2011 ), the specific mechanisms…”
Exploring the collective process of classroom dialogue using sequential pattern mining technique
Song, Y., Cheng, B. H., Zhu, J., & Hu, X. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102050 · Cited by 15
Achieving online dialogic learning using breakout rooms
Douglas, S. (2023) · Research in Learning Technology · doi:10.25304/rlt.v31.2882 · Cited by 18
Chang, C.-C., Wegerif, R., & Hennessy, S. (2023) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100729 · Cited by 22
Self-citationAlqassab, M., & León, J. (2024) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2024.104750 · Cited by 22
CHANG, D. C.-C., Hsu, W.-C., Chien, X. C., & Kuo, H. (2024) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101748 · Cited by 18
Kriewaldt, J., Robertson, L., Ziebell, N., Biase, R. D., & Clarke, D. J. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101776 · Cited by 14
Howe, C. J. (2020) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100471 · Cited by 13
Self-citationSigstad, H. M. H., Buli‐Holmberg, J., & Morken, I. (2021) · European Journal of Special Needs Education · doi:10.1080/08856257.2021.1997481 · Cited by 13
“Through dialogues with each student during their learning process, the teachers obtained insight into how students solved academic problems, representing the first step in identifying the students’ knowledge and helping them further their learning achievements (Howe et al. 2019).”
BackgroundOER4Schools: Outcomes of a Sustained Professional Development Intervention in Sub-Saharan Africa
Haßler, B., Hennessy, S., & Hofmann, R. (2020) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00146 · Cited by 17
Self-citationComputer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Chan, C. K. K., Chen, G., & Chen, B. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199841332.013.26 · Cited by 13
Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2023) · Education sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13010082 · Cited by 9
Oracy and cultural capital: the transformative potential of spoken language
Knight, R. (2023) · Literacy · doi:10.1111/lit.12343 · Cited by 12
“For example, well-structured dialogue between students, or between students and teachers, has been linked to improved attainment in a range of curriculum areas (EEF, 2017; Howe et al., 2019; Sedova et al., 2019).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Howe, Christine
- Venue
- Journal of the Learning Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-03-22
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4-5
- Pages
- 462-512
- ISSN
- 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7809
- OpenAlex
- W2938991962
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 46.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
- Apollo
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- teacher-student dialogue, classroom discourse, student outcomes, student participation, curriculum mastery, student reasoning, attitudes toward education, elementary school classrooms, metacognitive engagement
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
