Research on the Role of Classroom Discourse As It Affects Reading Comprehension
Abstract
In the current research climate favoring rigorous experimental studies of instructional scripts using randomly chosen treatment and control groups, education and literacy researchers and policy makers will do well to take stock of their current research base and assess critical issues in this new context. This review of research on classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension begins by examining 150 years of research on classroom discourse, and then findings and insights shaped by intensive empirical studies of both discourse processes and reading comprehension over the last three decades. Recent sociocultural and dialogic research supports claims that classroom discourse, including small-group work and whole-class discussion, works as an epistemic environment (versus script) for literacy development. New studies examine situated classroom talk in relation to educational outcomes and cultural categories that transcend the classroom.
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?
Nystrand and colleagues highlight potential relevance to literacy attainment of open questions and high student contribution.
“Nystrand and colleagues (e.g.Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003;Nystrand, 2006) highlight the potential relevance to literacy attainment of the first of the above themes, i.e. that relating to open questions, and also of the crosscutting theme of high student contribution.”
From Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? (2019) · cites this paper as Nystrand, 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 110 · Cited by 351
- Authors
- Nystrand, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nystrand, Martin
- Venue
- Research in the Teaching of English
- Published
- 2006-05-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 392-412
- ISSN
- 0034-527X (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2348
- OpenAlex
- W205886031
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 9.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research in the Teaching of English (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
- Keywords
- classroom discourse, reading comprehension, literacy development, epistemic environment, instructional scripts, small group work, whole-class discussion, sociocultural theory, dialogic learning, situated learning, educational outcomes, cultural categories
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
