Differences between a teacher educator’s and prospective classroom teacher’s talk-based strategies for fostering academically productive classroom talk

Figures & data

Table 1. Talk move coding catalogue.

Category	Code	Description and example utterance	Associations with the norms of the APCT
Transferring and evaluating (TRE)	Soft evaluation	The teacher provides implicit hints to imply an answer’s acceptability or rejection.	No research-based association with a version or norm of the APCT.
	Explicit affirmation	The teacher directly accepts the student’s response.
	Explicit rejection	The teacher immediately and directly rejects the student’s response.
	Affirmation-cum-direct instruction	The teacher accepts and confirms the student’s response and expands it by uttering more information.
	Logical expositions	The teacher provides knowledge pieces based on the school science social languages.
	Verbal cloze	The teacher stops his/her uttering and asks students to complete the incomplete sentence.
Process skills (PROS)	Observation	The teacher requests students to observe an in-class occurrence regarding the subject under consideration.	No research-based association with a version or norm of the APCT.
	Projection	The teacher asks the students to make inferences regarding the subject under consideration.
	Comparison	The teacher guides the students to make comparisons of two ideas, objects, cases, etc.
Communicating (COM)	Probing	The teacher requests the students to deliver more information regarding a provided response.	Research-based association with a norm of the APCT (e.g. Norm-1: talk should be clear and intelligible) (e.g. Alexander, 2006; Michaels et al., 2008)
	Clarifying	The teacher asks students to make their utterances more apprehensible.
	Re-voicing	The teacher guides the students to reformulate their responses to make them more understandable.
	Concretizing	The teacher presses the students to give tangible examples to make their responses clear and intelligible.
Monitoring (MON)	Metadiscourse	The teacher guides the students to re-ponder the concepts or procedures.	Research-based association with a norm of the APCT (e.g. Norm-4: talk should incorporate intense discursively oriented metacognitive activity) (e.g. Soysal, 2021; Tang, 2017)
	Focusing	The teacher gathers the students’ attention to a specific response.
	Engaging (on the fly)	The teacher creates an on-moment noticing for the students.
	Engaging (prospective)	The teacher declares about the near future of the classroom discourse flow.
	Engaging (retrospective)	The teacher reminds the history of classroom discussions to the students.
	Summarizing	The teacher sums up the critical points of the students’ responses for their use.
	Selecting	The teacher features a specific student-led response while eliminating others.
	Mind change	The teacher forces the students to ponder whether they have changed their initial ideas.
Negotiating (NEGO)	Critiquing	The teacher invites the students to judge a response given by another student.	Research-based association with a norm of the APCT (e.g. Norm-3: talk should include accountability and justification) (e.g. Conner et al., 2014a; 2014b; Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013)
	Commenting on	The teacher guides the students to comment on an idea the teacher proposes.
	Interpreting	The teacher asks the students to make sense of and evaluate a case given by the teacher.
Discrepant (DISC)	Cognitive conflict	The teacher poses discrepant questions, cases, ideas etc., to create a disequilibrium in the students’ existing mental schemes.	Research-based association with a norm of the APCT (e.g. Norm-2: talk should contain critiques) (e.g. Jadallah et al., 2011; Soysal & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2021)
	Praising	The teacher praises the students for presenting a counterargument or rebuttal based on a previously given student-led response.
	Inconsistency	The teacher identifies the internal or external inconsistency between two responses that occurred at two different time frames of classroom talks.
Justification (JUS)	Evidencing	The teacher demands concrete evidence from the students to support their baseless claims.	Research-based association with a norm of the APCT (e.g. Norm-3: talk should include accountability and justification) (e.g. Conner et al., 2014a; 2014b; Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013)
	Appropriating	The teacher requests the students to provide relevant evidence to support their claims.
	Frequency	The teacher guides the students to provide more than a piece of evidence to justify their claims.
	Praising evidencing	The teacher praises the students providing ample and relevant evidence for supporting their claims.
Concluding (CONC)	Labelling	The teacher asks the students to provide summarising recaps of the considered ideas in the lesson.	No research-based association with a version or norm of the APCT.
	Conclusive remarks	The teacher requests the students to draw inferences by considering salient arguments that emerged in the classroom talks.
Organising (ORG)	Re-positioning	The teacher asks the students to re-locate their bodies to see and respond to their friends.	No research-based association with a version or norm of the APCT.
	Active listening	The teacher promotes a classroom environment where students must listen and attend to their classmates’ articulations.
	Comfortable	The teacher maintains intellectual classroom settings where the students are free to utter their intuitive or subjective ideas.
	Maladaptive	The teacher develops a classroom management strategy to deal with maladaptive student behaviour.

Figure 1. The differences between the enacted talk moves.

Figure 2. The differences between the observed patterns of interaction.

Table 2. An elaborated excerpt from a lesson of the candidate teacher (main theme: conscious consumer).

Turn	Speaker	Sequence*	Utterance	Talk move type
1	T	IN	During the day, for example, I can look at some people’s behaviours and say that this person is conscious or unconscious. What could be the reason for this? Do you feel this way sometimes too?	Opening questions
2	All	R	No …	–
3	T	IR	For example, what comes to mind when you think of consciousness?	Opening question
4	S1	R	A smart and knowledgeable person.	–
5	T	FQ/I	Does anyone agree with your friend’s opinion?	Negotiating (commenting on)
6	S11	R	No …	–
7	T	FQ/I	Why?	Communicating (probing)
8	S11	R	Conscious people have flaws too!	–
9	T	FQ/I	Don’t you think a conscious person would be more sparing?	Communicating (probing)
10	S3	R	Yes … Right.	–
11	T	FQ/I	Why do you agree with me?	Communicating (probing)
12	S3	R	Because conscious implies thrifty.	–
13	T	E/I	Yes. What else?	Explicit affirmation
14	S9	R	A person who does not waste money.	–
15	T	E/I	Pretty good example. Anything else?	Explicit affirmation
16	S21	R	For example, let’s say I have a computer.	–
17	T	–	Please, but I can’t hear your friend! (The teacher was shouting)	Organising (maladaptive)
18	S21	R	For example, let’s say I have a computer. Then I want another one even though I don’t need it.	–
19	T	FQ/E/I	So, she spends money inconsistently. Good. And you?	Communicating (re-voicing)/Explicit affirmation
20	S3	R	For example, the unconscious consumer… For example, he buys something in the first place he sees it. But the other is searching. For example, the conscious consumer asks someone else.	–
21	T	E/I	OK! What else?	Explicit affirmation
22	S12	R	The conscious consumer makes purchases according to his plan and the list.	–
23	T	E/EX/I	For example, I always create a list when I go shopping! Yes, you?	Explicit affirmation/Logical expositions
24	S15	R	For me, the conscious consumer first makes a list. List of “needs” and “wants”. Ranks in order of importance. And the conscious consumer knows where to buy the cheapest and best quality.	–
25	T	E/I	OK. You are quite right. Anything else?	Explicit affirmation
26	S8	R	For example, the unconscious first consider their wishes. For example, s/he does not know his/her needs. For example, if s/he sees something beautiful, s/he immediately buys it. But s/he doesn’t need it.	–
27	T	E/EX/I	Super answer! For example, sometimes it can be like this: something is on sale. But I don’t need it. But I still buy. Why, because it’s on sale. So, do I need it? No! Now you can answer.	Explicit affirmation/Affirmation-cum-direct instruction
28	S4	R	For example, conscious consumers shop according to their budget.	–
29	T	E/EX/I	Yes. The budget is also very important. For example, I can calculate first and then spend. Yes, you?	Explicit affirmation/Logical expositions
30	T	IB	All right. For example, suppose I am a conscious consumer. What should I pay attention to in a product I will buy as a conscious consumer?	Re-opening question

*T: Teacher; S1: The first student uttering a response; I: Initiation; I_N: Nuclear initiation; I_N: Nuclear re-initiation; I_B: Bound initiation; R: Response; E: Evaluation; E_X: Explanation; FQ: Follow-up questioning.

Table 3. An elaborated excerpt from a lesson of the teacher educator (main theme: justice and equality).

Turn	Speaker	Sequence*	Utterance	Talk move type
1	T	IN	What do we see here now? Who wants to summarise this for me?	Opening demonstration
2	S18	R	Now they are not equal. We can give them another box or two to make them even. But it wouldn’t be fair because we cannot give equal boxes to all.	–
3	T	FQ/I	But then it is unfair. We don’t give everyone an equal number of boxes. What do you think of this idea?	Discrepant (cognitive conflict)
4	S11	R	No, you misunderstood it. This is special discrimination. You misunderstood. If you give the same number of boxes to a child human, a baby human, and an adult human, they will not be able to watch the football match. You need to understand that equality and justice are not the same.	–
5	T	FQ/I	Then let’s only give place to women and children on the municipal buses, not to men. Just let them sit. Isn’t that special discrimination?	Discrepant (cognitive conflict)
6	S11	R	No. It’s not like that.	–
7	T	FQ/I	Then I misunderstood you. Which part of what you said did I misunderstand?	Communicating (clarifying)
8	S3	R	What I mean is about respect. A child cannot see through the wall without buying more than one box. Then he will not be respected. This is special discrimination.	–
9	T	FQ/I	I understand you very well, but I’m very curious what your friends think about our discussion right now?	Negotiating (critiquing)
10	S4	R	Also, in the photo, you just showed. For example, an elephant was asked to climb a tree. A monkey was also asked to climb a tree. There is no equality here. Equality of opportunity …	–
11	T	FQ/I	Could you please rehearse the equality of______?	Monitoring (focusing)
12	S4	R	Equality of opportunity …	–
13	T	FQ/I	Has anyone heard of such a concept before?	Monitoring (focusing)
14	S4	R	So, everyone should be equal according to their situation. In other words, the same opportunities are given to those tall and those short. But these possibilities do not reflect their conditions.	–
15	T	(IB)/FQ/I	Alice, then a question for you! I am curious about Alice’s answer first. Actually, I’m curious about all of your answers. But first I would like to hear Alice’s answer. Which do you think is more important: equality or justice?	Process skills (comparison)
	S9	R	Of course, justice is more important than equality. Both are important, but I think justice is more important.	–
16	T	FQ/I	Can anyone explain to me which one is more important and why?	Justification (evidencing)
Long-lasting silence (more than 5 secs)
17	T	IB	Let me help you. For example, let’s think like this. Let’s at least try. What can’t be without which?	Process skills (projection)
18	S7	R	Like this, let’s put people without arms, eyes, or ears to an exam with the same questions and equal duration. There is equality here. Same questions, same time. It would not be fair, though.	–
19	T	FQ/I	Your friend gave a rather interesting example.//What would you say if I told you to consider this example and evaluate his answer?	Monitoring (focusing)//Negotiating (critiquing)
20	S15	R	For example, there is equality in this picture. But this is unjust equality.	–
21	T	FQ/I	Do you think there is such a concept as unjust equality? Do you think we can build a just world without equality?	Negotiating (critiquing)

*T: Teacher; S1: The first student uttering a response; I: Initiation; I_N: Nuclear initiation; I_N: Nuclear re-initiation; I_B: Bound initiation; R: Response; E: Evaluation; E_X: Explanation; FQ: Follow-up questioning.

Figure 3. The differences between the occurred communicative approaches.

Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching : Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.

 Google Scholar

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soysal, Y. (2021). Exploring elementary and middle school science teachers’ metadiscourse moves: A Vygotskian analysis and interpretation. Learning: Research and Practice, 7(1), 70–104. doi:10.1080/23735082.2020.1761432

 Google Scholar

Tang, K. S. (2017). Analyzing 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

Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014a). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429. doi:10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A. & Francisco, R. T. (2014b). Identifying kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 181–200. doi:10.1080/10986065.2014.921131

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (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

Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a Teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. doi:10.3102/0002831210371498

 Web of Science ®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(S1), 325–367. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1

 Google Scholar