Patterns of Discourse in Two Kinds of Literature Discussion
Abstract
ABSTRACTS Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion This study examines the effects of two different instructional frames for discussion—traditional Recitations and an alternative to Recitations called Collaborative Reasoning—on patterns of discourse in fourth‐grade literature discussions. These two instructional frames differ on four key parameters that define an instructional frame: (a) the stance to be taken, (b) who holds interpretive authority, (c) who controls turntaking, and (d) who controls the topic of the discourse. Two research questions were addressed. The first question was whether it is possible for fourth‐grade teachers and their students to implement Collaborative Reasoning, an instructional frame that transfers much of the control over discourse to students, during their reading lessons. Quantitative analyses were conducted of features of discourse including turntaking, teacher questions, and cognitive processes manifested in students' talk. The results showed that the teachers and students were generally successful at implementing the new instructional frame. It proved more difficult to shift control over topic and turntaking to students than to shift interpretive authority to students. The second question addressed the effects of the new instructional frame on patterns of discourse. In comparison to Recitations, Collaborative Reasoning discussions produced greater engagement and more extensive use of several higher level cognitive processe…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Chinn, Anderson, and Waggoner (2001) showed how different stances, such as expressive, efferent and critical-analytical stances, shape instructional frames of reading lessons.
“Chinn, Anderson, and Waggoner (2001) showed how different stances, such as expressive, efferent and critical-analytical stances, shape instructional frames of reading lessons.”
From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Chinn, Anderson, and Waggoner 2001
Many teachers are already being encouraged through professional development programmes to implement the five themes.
“through professional development programmes, many teachers are already being encouraged to implement the themes”
From Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? (2019) · cites this paper as Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001
Cites
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350 · see citing works
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101 · see citing works
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2018) · Knowing, Learning, and Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315044408-14 · Cited by 3,674 · see citing works
Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2 · Cited by 1,394 · see citing works
On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance
Olson, C. L. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.579 · Cited by 649 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015576 · Cited by 566 · see citing works
Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes?
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Student thought and classroom language: examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775898 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651596 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Self-citationLiu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
‘Explain to your partner’: teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009) · Cambridge Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/03057640802701986 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk
Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Automatically Measuring Question Authenticity in Real-World Classrooms
Kelly, S., Olney, A. M., Donnelly, P., Nystrand, M., & D’Mello, S. K. (2018) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x18785613 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Aukerman, M. S. (2007) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte20076484 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015) · Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue · doi:10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_3 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Felton, M., Crowell, A., Garcia-Mila, M., & Villarroel, C. (2022) · Learning, Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100350 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & Martín, E. (2021) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Magirius, M., Steinmetz, M., & Scherf, D. (2023) · L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature · doi:10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.2.584 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts
Zhong, Y., Davies, M., & Wilson, A. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12816 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- ORCID
- Chinn, Clark A.
- Venue
- Reading Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10-12
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 378-411
- ISSN
- 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-2722
- OpenAlex
- W2039596186
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 8.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Reading Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- literary conversation, collaborative reasoning, recitation, turn-taking, discourse patterns, student discourse, cognitive processes, interpretive authority, classroom discourse, teacher questions, student engagement, reading comprehension instruction, topic management, teacher-student relationship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
