Quality Talk: Developing Students’ Discourse to Promote High-level Comprehension
Abstract
Students often struggle to comprehend complex text. In response, we conducted an initial, year-long study of Quality Talk, a teacher-facilitated, small-group discussion approach designed to enhance students’ basic and high-level comprehension, in two fourth-grade classrooms. Specifically, teachers delivered instructional mini-lessons on discourse elements (e.g., questioning or argumentation) and conducted weekly text-based discussions in their language arts classes. Analysis of the videorecorded discussions showed decreases in teacher-initiated discourse elements, indicating a release of responsibility to students, whereas students’ discourse reflected increased critical-analytic thinking (e.g., elaborated explanations or exploratory talk). Importantly, statistically and practically significant increases were evidenced on written measures of students’ basic and high-level comprehension, indicating the promise of small-group discourse as a way to foster individual student learning outcomes.
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?
Dialogic pedagogy in language arts classrooms can lead to students having productive text-based discussions.
“dialogic pedagogy in language arts classrooms, which allows students to express their thoughts and ideas and to reason about multiple arguments around texts, can lead to students having productive text-based discussions (Murphy et al. 2018)”
From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Murphy et al. 2018
Students tend to leave IRE/IRF discussions with the impression that only one answer, as affirmed by the teacher, is correct.
“Therefore, students tend to leave with the impression that only one answer, as affirmed by the teacher, is correct (Murphy et al. 2018).”
From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Murphy et al. 2018
Cites
Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups
Cohen, E. G. (1994) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543064001001 · Cited by 2,120 · see citing works
Peer interaction and learning in small groups
Webb, N. M. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Li, M., Montalbano, C., & Wei, L.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- American Institutes for Research (US)
- Venue
- American Educational Research Journal
- Published
- 2018-04-27
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1113-1160
- ISSN
- 0002-8312 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1011
- OpenAlex
- W2801045554
- Cited by
- 130
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 21.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Educational Research Journal (publishedVersion)
- Grantee Submission
- Funders
- Institute of Education Sciences (R305A130031)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
- Keywords
- small group discussion, text comprehension, discourse elements, teacher questioning, argumentation, fourth grade, language arts instruction, student discourse
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