Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research

References

• *Åberg, M., Mäkitalo, A., & Säljö, R. (2010). Knowing and arguing in a panel debate: Speaker roles and responsibility to others. In: K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 13–31). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• *Adams, G.R., & Cohen, A.S. (1974). Children’s physical and interpersonal characteristics that affect student-teacher interactions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 43, 1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Aguiar, O.G., Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 174–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• *Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussion in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 393–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Altermatt, E.R., Jovanovic, J., & Perry, M. (1998). Bias or responsivity? Sex and achievement-level effects on teachers’ classroom questioning practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 516–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ang, D.B.L. (2006). Cooperative group work: Using of reciprocal teaching in group work. NIE Digital Repository . http://hdl.handle.net/10497/3097.
   Google Scholar
• *Ash, D. (2008). Thematic continuities: Talking and thinking about adaptation in a socially complex classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Au, K.H., & Mason, J.M. (1983). Cultural congruence in classroom participation structures: Achieving a balance of rights. Discourse Processes, 6, 145–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 9–34.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routlege & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• *Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 23–41.
   Google Scholar
• *Bennett, N., & Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• *Bergin, D., Ford, M., & Hess, R. (1993). Patterns of motivation and social behavior associated with microcomputer use of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 437–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes and control. St Albans, Herts: Paladin.
   Google Scholar
• *Berry, R.A.W. (2006a). Teacher talk during whole-class lessons: Engagement strategies to support the verbal participation of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 211–232.
   Google Scholar
• *Berry, R.A.W. (2006b). Inclusion, power, and community: Teachers and students interpret the language of community in an inclusion classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 489–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Berry, R.A.W., & Kim, N. (2008). Exploring teacher talk during mathematics instruction in an inclusion classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 363–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Biggs, A.P., & Edwards, V. (1991). ‘I treat them all the same’: Teacher-pupil talk in multiethnic classrooms. Language and Education, 5, 161–176.
   Google Scholar
• *Black, L. (2004). Differential participation in whole-class discussions and the construction of marginalised identities. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5, 34–54.
   Google Scholar
• *Black, L. (2007). Analysing cultural models in socio-cultural discourse analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 20–30.
   Google Scholar
• *Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 750–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bleicher, R.E., Tobin, K.G., & McRobbie, C.J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 33, 319–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Boydell, D. (1975). Pupil behaviour in junior classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 122–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Brooks, D.M., Silvern, S., & Wilson, B.J. (1978). The ecology of teacher-pupil classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 14, 39–45.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance; Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Brown, K., & Kennedy, H. (2011). Learning through conversation: Exploring and extending teacher and children’s involvement in classroom talk. School Psychology International, 32, 377–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Brown, R., & Hirst, E. (2007). Developing an understanding of the mediating role of talk in the elementary mathematics classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42, 18–28.
   Google Scholar
• Burbules, N.C., & Bruce, B.C. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In: V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (4th ed.). (pp. 1102–1121). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• *Buriel, R. (1983). Teacher-student interactions and their relationship to student achievement: A comparison of Mexican American and Anglo-American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 889–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• *Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873–884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Casey, H.K. (2009). Intersections and interactions: A case study of a seventh grade teacher’s practices with struggling readers and writers. Journal of School Connections, 2, 23–45.
   Google Scholar
• *Casteel, C.A. (1998). Teacher-student interactions and race in integrated classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 115–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cazden, C.B., Cox, M., Dickinson, D., Steinberg, Z., & Stone, C. (1979). “You all gonna hafta listen”: Peer teaching in a primary classroom. In: W. A. Collins (Ed.), Children’s language and communication. The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Volume 12. ( ed.). (pp. 181–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• *Chapman, R.B., Larsen, S.C., & Parker, R.M. (1979). Interactions of first-grade teachers with learning disordered children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 225–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cheshire, J., & Jenkins, N. (1991). Gender issues in the GCSE oral English exam: Part II. Language and Education, 5, 19–40.
   Google Scholar
• *Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315–1346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Christie, D., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Howe, C., & Topping, K. (2009). Supporting group work in Scottish primary classrooms: Improving the quality of collaborative dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 141–156.
   Google Scholar
• *Clarke, D., Xu, L.H., & Wan, M.E.V. (2010). Student speech as an instructional priority: Mathematics classrooms in seven culturally-differentiated cities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3811–3817.
   Google Scholar
• *Conwell, C., Griffin, S., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Gender and racial differences in unstructured learning groups in science. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 107–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cornbleth, C., & Korth, W. (1980). Teacher perceptions and teacher-student interaction in integrated classrooms. The Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 259–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cornelius, L.L., & Herrenkohl, L.R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 467–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cubero, R., & Ignacio, M.J. (2011). Accounts in the classroom: Discourse and the coconstruction of meaning. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24, 234–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Culican, S.J. (2007). Troubling teacher talk: The challenge of changing classroom discourse patterns. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34, 7–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56, 117–127.
   Google Scholar
• *Daly, J., Kreiser, P., & Roghaar, L. (1994). Question-asking comfort: Explorations of the demography of communication in the eighth grade classroom. Communication Education, 43, 27–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Danielewicz, J.M., Rogers, D.L., & Noblit, G. (1996). Children’s discourse patterns and power relations in teacher-led and child-led sharing time. International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 9, 311–331.
   Google Scholar
• *Dart, B., & Clarke, J. (1988). Sexism in schools: A new look. Educational Review, 40, 41–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Davy, A., & Brown, W. (2007). Turning show’n’tell into democratic dialogue. Networks, 9, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• *Dawes, L. (2004). Talking and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 677–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Dawes, L., English, J., Holmwood, R., Giles, J., & Mercer, N. (2005). Thinking together in geography: Using speaking and listening to develop thinking skills at KS3. Stevenage: Badger Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• *Delafield, B. (1999). Lessons: Philosophy for children. In I. Parker & the Bolton Discourse Network (Eds.), Critical textwork: An introduction to varieties of discourse and analysis. ( ed.). (pp. 53–64). Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delamont, S., & Hamilton, D. (1976). Classroom research: A critique and a new approach. In: M. Stubbs & S. Delamont (Eds.), Explorations in classroom observation (pp. 3–20). Chichester: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• *Dillon, J.T. (1982). Cognitive correspondence between question/statement and response. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 540–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Doecke, B., Gill, P., Illesca, B., & Van de Ven, P.-H. (2009). The literature classroom: Spaces for dialogue. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 9, 5–33.
   Google Scholar
• *Dombey, H. (2003). Interactions between teachers, children and texts in three primary classrooms in England. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 37–58.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Duffy, J., Warren, K., & Walsh, M. (2001). Classroom interactions: Gender of teacher, gender of student, and classroom subject. Sex Roles, 45, 579–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Dunkin, M.J., & Doenau, S.J. (1982). Ethnicity, classroom interaction and student achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 26, 171–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54, 151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Eder, D. (1982). The impact of management and turn-allocation activities on student performance. Discourse Processes, 5, 147–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, A.D., & Westgate, D.P.G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. (2nd ed.). London: The Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• *Edwards, J.-A. (2009). Socio-constructivist and socio-cultural lenses on collaborative peer talk in a secondary mathematics classroom. In: M. Joubert (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 29 (pp. 49–54).
   Google Scholar
• *Eggleston, J. (1983). Teacher-pupil interactions in science lessons: Explorations and theory. British Educational Research Journal, 9, 113–127.
   Google Scholar
• *Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 205–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1891–1914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Evans, M.A. (1987). Discourse characteristics of reticent children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 171–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fernandez, F., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Re-conceptualising scaffolding and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36, 40–54.
   Google Scholar
• *Fiedler, M.L. (1975). Bidirectionality of influence in classroom interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 735–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Finkel, E.A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students’ knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 345–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Firestone, G., & Brody, N. (1975). Longitudinal investigation of teacher-student interactions and their relationship to academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 544–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fisher, E. (1993). Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their relationship to learning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. Language and Education, 7, 239–257.
   Google Scholar
• *Fisher, R., & Larkin, S. (2008). Pedagogy or ideological struggle? An examination of pupils’ and teachers’ expectations for talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 22, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanders, N.A. (1960). Interaction analysis in the classroom: A manual for observers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher-child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children. Science Education, 76, 373–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Franke, M.L., Webb, N.M., & Chan, A.G. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 380–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *French, J., & French, P. (1984). Gender imbalances in the classroom: An interactional account. Educational Research, 26, 127–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Friedman, P. (1973). Relationship of teacher reinforcement to spontaneous student verbalization within the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 59–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fuentes, M.À., & Hernández, E. (2011). From “This is impossible” to “I will make the standard higher”: A close look at interaction in the CLIL classroom. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 4, 17–36.
   Google Scholar
• *Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the primary classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• *Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., & Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11- to 14-year-olds compared. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 119–140.
   Google Scholar
• *Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the primary classroom (the ORACLE project). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Giglioli, P.P. (Ed.). (1972). Language and social context. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• *Gilbert, J.K., & Pope, M.L. (1986). Small group discussions about conceptions in science: A case study. Research in Science and Technological Development, 4, 61–76.
   Google Scholar
• *Gillies, R.M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation: Problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7–27.
   Google Scholar
• *Good, T., Cooper, H., & Blakely, S. (1980). Classroom interaction as a function of teacher expectations, student sex and time of year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 378–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Good, T.L., Sikes, J.N., & Brophy, J.E. (1973). Effects of teacher sex and student sex on classroom interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 74–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Good, T.L., Slavings, R.L., Harel, K.H., & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passivity: A study of question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociology of Education, 60, 181–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Greenleaf, C., & Freedman, S.W. (1993). Linking classroom discourse and classroom content: Following the trail of intellectual work in a writing lesson. Discourse Processes, 16, 465–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Grieshaber, S. (2010). Beyond discovery: A case study of teacher interaction, young children and computer tasks. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 69–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Guzzetti, B.J., & Williams, W.O. (1996). Gender, text, and discussion: Examining intellectual safety in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 5–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hacker, D.J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699–718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Herrenkohl, L.R., Palincsar, A.S., DeWater, L.S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hillman, S.B., & Davenport, G.G. (1978). Teacher–student interactions in desegregated schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 545–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hogan, K. (1999a). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 855–882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hogan, K. (1999b). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Holden, C. (1993). Giving girls a chance: Patterns of talk in co-operative group work. Gender and Education, 5, 179–189.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C. (1981). Acquiring language in a conversational context. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C. (1997). Gender and classroom interaction: A research review. Edinburgh: SCRE.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C. (2010). Peer groups and children’s development. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Mackenzie, M. (1995). Collaborative learning in physics: Some implications for computer design. In: C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 51–68). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• *Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K., Jessiman, E., & Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 549–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hughes, D.C. (1973). An experimental investigation of the effects of pupil responding and teacher reacting on pupil achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 10, 21–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2011). Peer interaction patterns among adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) in mainstream school settings. Autism, 15, 397–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Irvine, J.J. (1985). Teacher communication patterns as related to the race and sex of the student. The Journal of Educational Research, 78, 338–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Irvine, J.J. (1986). Teacher–student interactions: Effects of student race, sex, and grade level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 14–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jarvela, S. (1996). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5, 237–259.
   Google Scholar
• *Jenkins, N., & Cheshire, J. (1990). Gender issues in the GCSE oral English examination: Part 1. Language in Education, 4, 261–292.
   Google Scholar
• *Jenkins, P., & Lyle, S. (2010). Enacting dialogue: The impact of promoting Philosophy for Children on the literate thinking of identified poor readers, aged 10. Language and Education, 24, 459–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1171–1190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodríguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (2000). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• *Jones, M.G. (1990). Action zone theory, target students and science classroom interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 651–660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jones, M.G., & Gerig, T. (1994). Silent sixth-grade students: Characteristics, achievement, and teacher expectations. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 169–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jones, M.G., & Wheatley, J. (1989). Gender influences in classroom displays and student-teacher behaviour. Science Education, 73, 535–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jones, M.G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jones, P. (2010). Teaching, learning and talking: Mapping “the trail of fire”. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9, 61–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jones, S., & Tanner, H. (2002). Teachers’ interpretations of effective whole-class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, 28, 265–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jule, A. (2002). Speaking their sex: A study of gender and linguistic space in an ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 19, 37–51.
   Google Scholar
• *Keys, C.W. (1997). An investigation of the relationship between scientific reasoning, conceptual knowledge and model formation in a naturalistic setting. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 957–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 333–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. In: K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 48–63). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• *Kurth, L.A., Anderson, C.W., & Palincsar, A.S. (2002). The case of Carla: Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Education, 86, 287–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Grouping of pupils in secondary school classrooms: Possible links between pedagogy and learning. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 349–374.
   Google Scholar
• *Kutnick, P., Ota, C., & Berdondini, L. (2008). Improving the effects of group working in classrooms with young school-aged children: Facilitating attainment, interaction and classroom activity. Learning and Instruction, 18, 83–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lajoie, S.P., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S.D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lee, C.D. (2006). ‘Every good-bye ain’t gone’: Analyzing the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 305–327.
   Google Scholar
• *Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition, and peer interaction in computer-based cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 549–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefstein, A. (2010). More helpful as problem than solution: Some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms. In: K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 170–191). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• *Levy, J., Wubbels, X., & Brekelmans, M. (1992). Student and teacher characteristics and perceptions of teacher communication style. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 23–29.
   Google Scholar
• *Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2011). “Seeing is believing”: Looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 2, 39–57.
   Google Scholar
• *Lindow, J.A., Wilkinson, L.C., & Peterson, P.L. (1985). Antecedents and consequences of verbal disagreements during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 658–667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipman, M., & Sharp, A.M. (1978). Growing up with philosophy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Littleton, K., Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., Rowe, D., & Sams, C. (2005). Thinking together at Key Stage 1. Early Years, 25, 165–180.
   Google Scholar
• *Littleton, K., Twiner, A., & Gillen, J. (2010). Instruction as orchestration: Multimodal connection building with the interactive whiteboard. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5, 130–141.
   Google Scholar
• *Luckner, A.E., & Pianta, R.C. (2011). Teacher-student interactions in fifth grade classrooms: Relations with children's peer behaviour. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 257–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Maher, D. (2009). The importance of elementary school students’ social chat online: Reconceptualising the curriculum. Computers and Education, 53, 511–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mariage, T.V. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Maroni, B., Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2008). Turn-taking in classroom interactions: Overlapping, interruptions and pauses in primary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23, 59–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Martin, R. (1972). Student sex and behavior as determinants of the type and frequency of teacher-student contacts. Journal of School Psychology, 10, 339–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *McCaslin, M., Tuck, D., Wiard, A., Brown, B., Lapage, J., & Pyle, J. (1994). Gender composition and small-group learning in fourth grade mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 94, 467–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mchoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *McIntyre, E., Kyle, D.W., & Moore, G.H. (2006). A primary-grade teacher’s guidance toward small-group dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 36–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18, 285–294.
   Google Scholar
• *Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children's joint activity at the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 24–32.
   Google Scholar
• *Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1993). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2, 339–355.
   Google Scholar
• *Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19, 195–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
   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
• *Merritt, M. (1982). Repeats and reformulations in primary classrooms as windows of the nature of talk engagement. Discourse Processes, 5, 127–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Meyer, K., & Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven exploration in science teaching. Science Education, 81, 173–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mills, K.A. (2007). Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Power, pedagogy and discourses in a multiliteracies classroom. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 6, 221–241.
   Google Scholar
• *Mills, S.R., Rice, C.T., Berliner, D.C., & Rosseau, E.W. (1980). The correspondence between teacher questions and student answers in classroom discourse. The Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 194–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Moore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: A comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 531–549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Morgan, V., & Dunn, S. (1988). Chameleons in the classroom: Visible and invisible children in nursery and infant classrooms. Educational Review, 40, 3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mortimer, E.F., & Machado, A.H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84, 429–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1981). Brainstorming in the classroom to invent a model: A case study. School Science Review, 62, 771–778.
   Google Scholar
• *Nystrand, M., Wu, L.L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 33–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford University Press (2002). Shorter Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of information books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Palincsar, A.S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Palincsar, A.S., Anderson, C., & David, Y.M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Panagos, J.M., Griffith, P.L., & Ripich, D.N. (1985). Teacher-pupil discourse in classrooms for hearing-impaired children. The Exceptional Child, 32, 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• *Parker, M., & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers’ use of questioning and modelling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review, 59, 299–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Pastoor, L.deW (2004). Discourse and learning in a Norwegian multiethnic classroom: Developing shared understanding through classroom discourse. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 13–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Petersen, P., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1991). Effects of co-operative learning on perceived status of male and female pupils. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 717–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• *Pierce, K.M., & Gillies, C. (2008). From exploratory talk to critical conversations. In: N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools (pp. 37–53). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• *Pishghadam, R., Hashemi, M.R., & Reza Adel, S.M. (2010). Dialogical interaction in formal and informal contexts: A study in an EFL situation. Iranian EFL Journal, 6, 27–71.
   Google Scholar
• *Pontefract, C., & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41, 87–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Pratt, N. (2006). “Interactive” teaching in numeracy lessons: What do children have to say? Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 221–235.
   Google Scholar
• *Preiss, D.D. (2009). The Chilean instructional pattern for the teaching of language: A video-survey study based on a national program for the assessment of teaching. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Proper, H., Wideen, M.F., & Ivany, G. (1988). World view projected by science teachers: A study of classroom dialogue. Science Education, 72, 547–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Purnell, K., Callan, J., Whymark, G., & Gralton, A. (2004). Managing learner interactivity: A precursor to knowledge exchange. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 1, 32–44.
   Google Scholar
• *Qiong, L., & Yujing, N. (2009). Dialogue in the elementary school mathematics classroom: A comparative study between expert and novice teachers. Frontiers of Education in China, 4, 526–540.
   Google Scholar
• *Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Reid, D.J. (1980). Spatial involvement and teacher-pupil interaction patterns in school biology laboratories. Educational Studies, 6, 31–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rennie, L., & Parker, L. (1987). Detecting and accounting for gender differences in mixed-sex and single-sex groupings in science lessons. Educational Review, 39, 65–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discussion and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Richter, F.D., & Tjosvold, D. (1980). Effects of student participation in classroom decision making on attitudes, peer interaction, motivation, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 74–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ritchie, S.M. (2001). Actions and discourses for transformative understanding in a middle school science class. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 283–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rivard, L.P., & Straw, S.B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Roberts, C.M., & Smith, P.R. (1999). Attitudes and behaviour of children towards peers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 35–50.
   Google Scholar
• *Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Albarrán, C.D., & Littleton, K.S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 177–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rop, C.J. (2003). Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school chemistry classrooms: Perceptions of a group of motivated learners. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 13–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Roth, M.-W., McGinn, M.K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonné, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 293–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 423–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rymes, B. (2003). Eliciting narratives: Drawing attention to the margins of classroom talk. Research in the Teaching of English, 37, 380–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323–346.
   Google Scholar
• *Sage, R.J.W.B. (1994). What do we learn from classroom conversations? A drama model approach. Early Child Development and Care, 101, 109–118.
   Google Scholar
• *Schmitz, M.J., & Winskel, H. (2008). Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative problem-solving task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 581–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Schuh, K.L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner-centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 426–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Schwab, G. (2011). From dialogue to multilogue: A different view on participation in the English foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2, 3–19.
   Google Scholar
• *Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88, 77–83.
   Google Scholar
• *Scott, P.H., Mortimer, E.F., & Aguiar, O.G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sepeng, P. (2011). Triadic dialogue: An analysis of interactions in multilingual mathematics primary classrooms. US-China Education Review, 8, 412–418.
   Google Scholar
• *Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Shrock, S.A., & Stepp, S.L. (1991). The role of the child microcomputer expert in an elementary classroom: A theme emerging from a naturalistic study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23, 545–559.
   Google Scholar
• *Siann, G., McLeod, H., Glissov, P., & Durndell, A. (1990). The effect of computer use on gender differences in attitudes to computers. Computers and Education, 14, 183–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Simon, S., & Richardson, K. (2009). Argumentation in school science: Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning. Argumentation, 23, 469–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Simpson, A.W., & Erickson, M.T. (1983). Teachers’ verbal and nonverbal communication patterns as a function of teacher race, student gender, and student race. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 183–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sinclair, JMcH, & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by pupils and teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2010). How prosody marks shifts in footing in classroom discourse. International Journal of Educational Research, 49, 69–77.
   Google Scholar
• *Smith, A.B., & Glynn, T.E. (1990). Contexts for boys and girls learning mathematics: Teacher interactions and student behaviour in two classrooms. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 19, 9–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Smith, D.C. (1992). A description of classroom interaction and gender disparity in secondary business education instruction. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 34, 183–193.
   Google Scholar
• *Sprod, T. (1997). “Nobody really knows”; The structure and analysis of social constructivist whole class discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 911–924.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Staarman, J. (2009). The joint negotiation of ground rules: Establishing a shared collaborative practice with new educational technology. Language and Education, 23, 79–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Stake, J., & Katz, J. (1982). Teacher-pupil relationships in the elementary school classroom: Teacher-gender and pupil-gender differences. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 465–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Stierer, B. (1995). Making a statement: An analysis of teacher-pupil talk within “child conferences” in the Primary Language Record. Curriculum Journal, 6, 343–362.
   Google Scholar
• *Tao, P.-K. (2001). Developing understanding through confronting various views: The case of solving qualitative physics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1201–1218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tao, P.-K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary science students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 147–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, H.R., & Ruck, M.D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tennant, G. (2004). Differential classroom interactions by ethnicity: A quantitative approach. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 9, 191–204.
   Google Scholar
• *Thompson, P. (2007). Developing classroom talk through practitioner research. Educational Action Research, 15, 41–60.
   Google Scholar
• *Thompson, R.H., White, K.R., & Morgan, D.P. (1982). Teacher-student interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tobin, K., & Malone, J. (1989). Differential student participation in whole-class activities. Australian Journal of Education, 33, 320–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tolmie, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., Livingston, E., & Thurston, A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20, 177–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Toohey, K., Waterstone, B., & Jule-Lemke, A. (2000). Community of learners, carnival, and participation in a Punjabi Sikh classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 421–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Topping, K.J., & Trickey, S. (2007). Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’ interactive behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 73–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Townsend, J.S., & Fu, D. (1998). Quiet students across cultures and contexts. English Education, 31, 4–19.
   Google Scholar
• *Vadeboncoeur, J.A., & Luke, A. (2004). Who’s/whose at risk? Answerability and the critical possibilities of classroom discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 1, 201–223.
   Google Scholar
• *Vandeyar, S., & Killen, R. (2006). Teacher–student interactions in desegregated classrooms in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 26, 382–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons: Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 347–365.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2007). “Just don’t”: The suppression and invitation of dialogue in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 143–157.
   Google Scholar
• *Webb, N.M. (1982a). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Webb, N.M. (1982b). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Webb, N.M. (1984a). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 33–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Webb, N.M. (1984b). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 211–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Webb, N.M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.
   Google Scholar
• *Weber, J.-J. (2008). From safetalk to exploratory talk and back again: Missed opportunities in a multilingual Luxembourgish primary classroom. The South Florida Journal of Linguistics, 1, 57–79.
   Google Scholar
• Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 347–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Wegerif, R., Linares, J.P., Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Velez, M. (2005). Thinking together in the UK and Mexico: Transfer of an educational innovation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40, 40–48.
   Google Scholar
• *Wells, G., & Arauz, R.M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Whyte, J. (1984). Observing sex stereotypes and interactions in the school lab and workshop. Educational Review, 36, 75–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Wilkinson, W., Treagust, D., Leggett, M., & Glasson, P. (1988). The teaching-learning environment in a student-centered physics classroom. Research Papers in Education, 3, 217–233.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, F. (Ed.). (1970). Language and poverty. Chicago, IL: Markham.
   Google Scholar
• *Wiltse, L.V. (2006). ‘Like pulling teeth’: Oral discourse practices in a culturally diverse language arts classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 199–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Wolf, M.K., Crosson, A.C., & Resnick, L.B. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27–53.
   Google Scholar
• *Wood, T. (1999). Creating a context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 171–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Younger, M., Warrington, M., & Williams, J. (1999). The gender gap and classroom interactions: Reality and rhetoric? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 325–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar