Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literaturediscussions

Reading Teacher

Volumn 65, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 446-456

  Reznitskaya, Alina ^a  

^a MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862158217     PISSN: 00340561     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/TRTR.01066     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adler, M., Rougle, E., Kaiser, E., & Caughlan, S. (2003). Closing the gap between concept and practice: Toward more dialogic discussion in the language arts classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(4), 312-322. (Pubitemid 40176333)
2. Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
3. Asterhan, C.S.C., & Schwarz, B.B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
4. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (Vol. 8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
5. Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907-941. doi:10.3102/00028312039004905 (Pubitemid 36263742)
6. Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
8. Chambers, V. (2001). Amistad rising: The story of freedom. In J. Flood, J.E. Hasbrouck, J.V. Hoffman, D. Lapp, A.S. Medearis, S. Paris, et al. (Eds.), McGraw-Hill Reading (pp. 619-645). New York: McGraw-Hill School Division.
9. Chinn, C.A., O'Donnell, A.M., & Jinks, T.S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-97. doi:10.1080/00220970009600650 (Pubitemid 33220295)
10. Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
11. Galton, M.J. (2007). Learning and teaching in the primary classroom. London: Sage.
12. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 (Pubitemid 33590046)
13. Gregory, M. (2007). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Teaching Philosophy, 30(1), 59-84.
14. Junker, B.W., Matsumura, L.C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M.K., Levison, A., Wiesberg, J., et al. (2006). Overview of the Instructional Quality Assessment. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
15. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2001). The path to wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 261-264. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3604-6 (Pubitemid 33582707)
16. Lipman, M. (1996). Nous. Montclair, NJ: The Institute for Advancement of Philosophy for Children.
17. Mehan, H. (1998). The study of social interaction in educational settings: Accomplishments and unresolved issues. Human Development, 41(4), 245-269. doi:10.1159/000022586
18. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A socio-cultural approach. London: Routledge.
19. Murphy, P.K., Soter, A.O., Wilkinson, I.A., Hennessey, M.N., & Alexander, J.F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764. doi:10.1037/a0015576
20. National Board for Professional Teacher Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.
21. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.
22. Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-198. doi:10.1207/ S15326950DP3502-3
23. Paul, R.W. (1986). Dialogical thinking: Critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge and passions. In J.B. Baron & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 127-148). New York: Freeman.
24. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic.
25. Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K.M., & Hamre, B.K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Baltimore: Brookes.
26. Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (in press). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
27. Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., & Oyler, J. (2011). Dialogic Inquiry Tool. Montclair, NJ: The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.
28. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., et al. (2009). Collaborative Reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29-48. doi:10.1080/ 03057640802701952
29. Rosebud Yellow Robe. (2001). Tonweya and the eagles. In J. Flood, J.E. Hasbrouck, J.V.Hoffman, D. Lapp, A.S. Medearis, S. Paris, et al. (Eds.), McGraw-Hill Reading (pp. 557-577). New York: McGraw-Hill School Division.
30. Sandora, C., Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students' comprehension and interpretation of complex literature. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20(3), 177-212. doi:10.1080/ 027027199278394
31. Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 395-411. doi:10.1080/01411920410001689706 (Pubitemid 38835121)
32. Soter, A., Wilkinson, I.A., Murphy, P.K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001
33. Splitter, L.J., & Sharp, A.M. (1996). The practice of philosophy in the classroom. In R.F. Reed & A.M. Sharp (Eds.), Studies in philosophy for children: Pixie (pp. 285-314). Madrid, Spain: Ediciones De La Torre.
34. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Santa Cruz, CA: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
35. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1993). The "grammar" of schooling": Why has it been so hard to change. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.
36. Vygotsky, L.S. (1968). Thought and language (newly revised, translated, and edited by Alex Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23. doi:10.1191/1362168802lr095oa
38. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., Battey, D., Freund, D., et al. (2007). The role of teacher discourse in effective Groupwork. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
39. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493-516. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4
40. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605895
41. Wilkinson, I.A.G., Reninger, K.B., & Soter, A.O. (2010). Developing a professional development tool for assessing quality talk about text. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 59. Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
42. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.doi:10.3102/00346543072002131