What students need to know about good talk: Be BRAVE

References

• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Making meaning through talk. In Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk (pp. 135–166). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–172.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caskey, M., & Anfara, V. A. (2014). Developmental characteristics of young adolescents. Association for Middle Level Education. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/WNDet/TabId/270/ArtMID/888/ArticleID/455/Developmental-Characteristics-of-Young-Adolescents.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enyedy, N., & Stevens, R. (2014). Analyzing collaboration. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W. (1994). Cooperative learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miyake, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The social and interactive dimensions of collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Middle School Association (NMSA). (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
   Google Scholar
• Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 26–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas-Drummond, S., Mazon, N., Fernandez, M., & Wegerif, R. (2006). Explicit reasoning, creativity, and co-construction in primary school children’s collaborative activities. Thinking Skill and Creativity, 1, 84–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudnitsky, A. (2013). Tasks and talk: The relationship between teacher’s goals and student discourse. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(3), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Rudnitsky, A., Coburn, M., & Stanek, A. (2013, April). Going meta: What happens when students talk about talk? Paper presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization, Portsmouth, NH.
   Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siegler, R., DeLoache, J., Eisenberg, N., & Saffran, J. (2014). How children develop (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1992). Thought and language (Rev. ed., Alex Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wegerif, R., Littleton, K., Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Rowe, D. (2004). Widening access to educational opportunities through teaching children how to reason together. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(2), 143–156.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (2001). The case for dialogic inquiry. In Action, talk, & text: Learning through inquiry (pp. 171–194). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 379–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar