Cited by 130Reading and Literacy DevelopmentInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsLinguistics and Education Research

Quality Talk: Developing Students’ Discourse to Promote High-level Comprehension

Murphy, P. Karen, Greene, Jeffrey A., Firetto, Carla M., Hendrick, Brendan D., Li, Mengyi, Montalbano, Cristin, Wei, Liwei·2018·American Educational Research Journal

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

Crossref · 10.3102/0002831218771303

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 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)”
  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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