Understanding linkage between teacher talk moves, discourse contexts and students’ talk productivity

References

• Aguiar, O. G., E. F. Mortimer, and P. Scott. 2010. “Learning from and Responding to Students’ Questions: The Authoritative and Dialogic Tension”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 47 (2): 174–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, R. 2008. “Culture, Dialogue and Learning: Notes on an Emerging Pedagogy.” In Exploring Talk in Schools, edited by N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson, 91–114. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bansal, G. 2018. ”Teacher discursive moves: conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms.” International Journal of Science Education, 40 (15): 1891–1912.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, D., & Todd, F. 1977. Communication and learning in small groups. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Barnhart, T., and E. van Es. 2015. “Studying Teacher Noticing: Examining the Relationship among Pre-service Science Teachers’ Ability to Attend, Analyse and Respond to Student Thinking.” Teaching and Teacher Education 45: 83–93. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., and D. Hammer. 2012. “Framing for Scientific Argumentation.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (1): 68–94. doi:10.1002/tea.20446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. 2006. ”How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: a function of display questions.” Journal of Literacy Research, 38 (2): 141–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, N. J. S., S. O. Nagashima, A. Fu, M. Timms, and M. Wilson. 2010. “A Framework for Analysing Scientific Reasoning in Assessments.” Educational Assessment 15 (3–4): 142–174. doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.530562.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsen, W. S. 1991. “Questioning in Classrooms: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” Review of Educational Research 61 (2): 157–178. doi:10.3102/00346543061002157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. R. 2010. ”Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts.” Review of Educational Research, 80 (3): 336–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A., and B. M. Hand. 2012. “The Importance of Embedding Argument within Science Classrooms.” In Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation, edited by M.S. Khine, 39–53, Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., S. Park, and B. Hand. 2016. “Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students’ Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments.” Cognition and Instruction 34 (2): 100–147. doi:10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C. 2007. “Teacher Questioning in Science Classrooms: Approaches that Stimulate Productive Thinking.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (6): 815–843. doi:10.1002/tea.20171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. 2014. ”The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51 (10): 1275–1300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobber, M., & van Oers, B. 2015. ”The role of the teacher in promoting dialogue and polylogue during inquiry activities in primary education.” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22 (4): 326–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ennis, R. 2011. “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective, Part I.” Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 26 (1): 4–18.
   Google Scholar
• Facione, P. A. 1990. “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.” “The Delphi Report” Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. (ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423).
   Google Scholar
• Gallardo-Virgen, J., and R. DeVillar. 2011. “Sharing, Talking, and Learning in the Elementary School Science Classroom: Benefits of Innovative Design and Collaborative Learning in Computer-integrated Settings.” Computers in Schools 28 (4): 278–290. doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.621803.
   Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. 2008. ”The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse, problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning.” International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (6): 323–340.
   Google Scholar
• Grimberg, B. I., and B. Hand. 2009. “Cognitive Pathways: Analysis of Students’ Written Texts for Science Understanding.” International Journal of Science Education 31 (4): 503–521. doi:10.1080/09500690701704805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinath, A. S., and S. A. Southerland. 2019. “Applying the Ambitious Science Teaching Framework in Undergraduate Biology: Responsive Talk Moves that Support Explanatory Rigor.” Science Education 103 (1): 92–122. doi:10.1002/sce.21484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. B., A. MacPherson, J. Osborne, and A. Wild. 2015. “Beyond Construction: Five Arguments for the Role and Value of Critique in Learning Science.” International Journal of Science Education 37 (10): 1668–1697. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1043598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessy, S., C. Howe, N. Mercer, and M. Vrikki. 2020. “Coding Classroom Dialogue: Methodological Considerations for Researchers.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 25: 100–404. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, C., and M. Abedin. 2013. “Classroom Dialogue: A Systematic Review across Four Decades of Research.” Cambridge Journal of Education 43 (3): 325–356. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayima, F., and A. Jakobsen. 2020. “Exploring the Situational Adequacy of Teacher Questions in Science Classrooms.” Research in Science Education 50 (2): 437–467. doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayima, F. 2016. “Question Classification Taxonomies as Guides to Formulating Questions for Use in Chemistry Classrooms.” European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 4 (3): 353–364. doi:10.30935/scimath/9476.
   Google Scholar
• Khong, T. D. H., Saito, E., & Gillies, R. M. 2019. ”Key issues in productive classroom talk and interventions.” Educational Review, 71 (3): 334–349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. 2017. ”Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science.” Learning and Instruction, 48: 23–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. 2013. Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge.London.
   Google Scholar
• Louca, L. T., Z. C. Zacharia, and D. Tzialli. 2012. “Identification, Interpretation-evaluation, Response: An Alternative Framework for Analysing Teacher Discourse in Science.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (12): 1823–1856. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.671971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mameli, C., and L. Molinari. 2014. “Seeking Educational Quality in the Unfolding of Classroom Discourse: A Focus on Microtransitions.” Language and Education 28 (2): 103–119. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.771654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. 2008. ”The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., S. Hennessy, and P. Warwick. 2019. “Dialogue, Thinking Together and Digital Technology in the Classroom: Some Educational Implications of a Continuing Line of Inquiry.” International Journal of Educational Research 97: 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. 1999. ”Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom.” British Educational Research Journal, 25: 95–111.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. 2010. “The Analysis of Classroom Talk: Methods and Methodologies.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1348/000709909X479853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. 1998. “Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.” Revised and Expanded From” Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., C. O’Connor, and L. Resnick. 2008. “Deliberative Discourse Idealised and Realised: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 27 (4): 283–297. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molinari, L., C. Mameli, & A., Gnisci 2013. ”A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern.” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83: 414–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. 2013. ”Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities.” International Journal of Educational Research, 62: 249–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E., and P. Scott. 2003. Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, C., and S. Michaels. 2019. “Supporting Teachers in Taking up Productive Talk Moves: The Long Road to Professional Learning at Scale.” International Journal of Educational Research 97: 166–175. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F. 2019. “Not “Hands On” but “Minds On”: A Response to Furtak and Penuel.” Science Education 103 (5): 1280–1283. doi:10.1002/sce.21543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. 2009. ”Role of discrepant questioning leading to model element modification.” Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20 (2): 95–111.
   Google Scholar
• Resnitskaya, A., and M. Gregory. 2013. “Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 48 (2): 114–133. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., L. Kuo, A. Clark, B. Miller, M. Jadallah, R.C. Anderson, and K. Nguyen-Jahiel. 2009. “Collaborative Reasoning: A Dialogic Approach to Group Discussions.” Cambridge Journal of Education 39 (1): 29–48. doi:10.1080/03057640802701952.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P. H., E. F. Mortimer, and O. G. Aguiar. 2006. “The Tension between Authoritative and Dialogic Discourse: A Fundamental Characteristic of Meaning Making Interactions in High School Science Lessons.” Science Education 90 (4): 605–631. doi:10.1002/sce.20131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. 2008. Thinking as Communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sinha, S., T. Rogat, K. Adams-Wiggins, and C. Hmelo-Silver. 2015. “Collaborative Group Engagement in a Computer-supported Inquiry Learning Environment.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 10 (3): 273–307. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soysal, Y. 2019. “Effects of the Teacher Discursive Moves on the Students’ Reasoning Qualities in the context of Science Teaching: Discourse Analysis Approach.” Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7 (3): 994–1032.
   Google Scholar
• Soysal, Y. 2019. “Indicators of Productive Classroom Talk and Supporting Discourse Moves: A Systematic Review for Effective Science Teaching.” Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 3: 114–137.
   Google Scholar
• Soysal, Y. 2020. “Investigating discursive functions and potential cognitive demands of teacher questioning in the science classroom.” Learning: Research and Practice, 6 (2): 167–194.
   Google Scholar
• Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. 2021. “Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts.” Research in Science Education, 51 (1): 325–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, K. S. 2017. “Analysing Teachers’ Use of Metadiscourse: The Missing Element in Classroom Discourse Analysis.” Science Education 101 (4): 548–583. doi:10.1002/sce.21275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., and D. K. Meyer. 2000. “Studying and Understanding the Instructional Contexts of Classrooms: Using Our past to Forge Our Future.” Educational Psychologist 35 (2): 69–85. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tytler, R., and G. Aranda. 2015. “Expert Teachers’ Discursive Moves in Science Classroom Interactive Talk.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13 (2): 425–446. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9617-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Veen, C., de Mey, L., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2017) ”The effect of productive classroom talk and metacommunication on young children’s oral communicative competence and subject matter knowledge: An intervention study in early childhood education.” Learning and Instruction, 48: 14–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & Michaels, S. 2015. ”Productive classroom dialogue as an activity of shared thinking and communicating: A commentary on Marsal.” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22 (4): 320–325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walshaw, M., and G. Anthony. 2008. “The Teacher’s Role in Classroom Discourse: A Review of Recent Research into Mathematics Classrooms.” Review of Educational Research 78 (3): 516–551. doi:10.3102/0034654308320292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N.M., M.L. Franke, M. Ing, J.C. Wong, C. Fernandes, N. Shin, A C. Turrou, et al. 2014. “Engaging with Others’ Mathematical Ideas: Interrelationships among Student Participation, Teachers’ Instructional Practices, and Learning”. International Journal of Educational Research 63: 79–93. DOI:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegerif, R. 2008. “Reason and Dialogue in Education.” In The Transformation of Learning. Advances in Cultural-historical Activity Theory, edited by B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, and R. van der Veer, 273–286. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar