Advertisement

Bolstering students’ written argumentation by refining an effective discourse intervention: negotiating the fine line between flexibility and fidelity

  • Carla M. Firetto
  • P. Karen Murphy
  • Jeffrey A. Greene
  • Mengyi Li
  • Liwei Wei
  • Cristin Montalbano
  • Brendan Hendrick
  • Rachel M. V. Croninger
Original Research

Abstract

Effective interventions are needed to bolster students’ argumentation capacities, an area in which they consistently struggle. Quality Talk (QT) is an approach to small-group classroom discussion shown to support students’ oral argumentation with preliminary evidence that it may also bolster students’ written argumentation. Teachers often must adapt interventions to their local context, balancing needed flexibility with sufficient adherence to fidelity to reach expected efficacy. The present study was conducted over one school year with two fifth-grade teachers and their 46 students. In Phase I, two participating teachers implemented a refined version of QT, and we examined the effects on students’ oral and written argumentation performance. While typical gains in students’ oral argumentation performance were evidenced, students’ written argumentation did not improve to the degree expected, particularly in terms of performance with unfamiliar texts. In Phase II, both teachers reincorporated a component of QT (i.e., regular post-discussion written argumentation practice) they had adapted in Phase I, and one teacher added a new written argumentation scaffold designed to further bolster students’ transfer from oral to written argumentation. By the end of the study, students from both classes evidenced growth in written argumentation, but the students from the class receiving the writing scaffold outperformed comparison class students with large effects. Findings underscore the importance of including regular post-discussion written argumentation practice and illustrate the added value of a new written argumentation scaffold, while also contributing to a better understanding of how to balance flexibility and fidelity for efficacious QT implementation.

Keywords

Small-group discussion Quality Talk Oral argumentation Argumentative writing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, through Grant R305A130031 to the Pennsylvania State University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of the Institute or the US Department of Education.

References

  1. Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351.  https://doi.org/10.2307/747620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593–604.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-063.72.5.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Berland, L., & McNeill, K. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765–793.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryson, M., & Scardamalia, M. (1996). Fostering reflectivity in the argumentative thinking of students with different learning histories. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 12, 351–384.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356960120402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, Y., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34, 100–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.  https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.36.4.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coker, D. L., & Erwin, E. (2011). Teaching academic argument in an urban middle school: A case study of two approaches. Urban Education, 46(2), 120–140.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. College Board. (2004). Report of the National Commission of Writing for America’s families, schools, and colleges. Writing: A Ticket to Work... Or a Ticket Out. A Survey of Business Leadershttps://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/21479/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d.
  12. Council of Writing Program Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project. (2011). Framework for success in postsecondary writing. http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf.
  13. Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230–268.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015002001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croninger, R. M. V., Li, M., Cameron, C., & Murphy, P. K. (2017). Classroom discussions: Building the foundation for productive talk. In P. K. Murphy (Ed.), Classroom discussions in education: Promoting productive talk about text and content (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15, 363–381.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.72187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00043-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De La Paz, S. (2005). Teaching historical reasoning and argumentative writing in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29, 412–454.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312461591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63, 167–181.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De La Paz, S., & McCutchen, D. (2011). Learning to write. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 382–407). New York and London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  21. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1994). Grounding intervention research in the larger context of schooling: A response to Pressley and Harris. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I. H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400–424. http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/20068354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01189290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Durlak, J. A. (2010). The importance of doing well in whatever you do: A commentary on the special section, “Implementation research in early childhood education.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(3), 348–357. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200610000232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felton, M., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47, 672–683. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016901.
  26. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can’t write arguments. English in Education, 18, 73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.1984.tb00668.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Williams, P. (1982). Measuring implementation of a structured educational model in an urban school district: An observational approach. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 67–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goffreda, C., & Diperna, J. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 463–483.Google Scholar
  32. Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., et al. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework of core processes and constructs. Educational Psychologist, 51, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: The effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  35. Greene, J. A. (2015). Serious challenges require serious scholarship: Integrating implementation science into the scholarly discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79, 181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2017). Self-regulated strategy development: Theoretical bases, critical instructional elements, and future research. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (series editors) and R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (volume editors), Studies in writing: Design principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles (Vol. 34). Leiden: Brill Editions.Google Scholar
  38. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Friedlander, B., & Laud, L. (2013). Bring powerful writing strategies into your classroom! Why and how. Reading Teacher, 66(7), 538–542.  https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1–16.Google Scholar
  40. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  41. Hays, J. N., & Brandt, K. S. (1992). Socio-cognitive development and students’ performance on audience-centered argumentative writing. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 202–229). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hoose, P. M. (2001). We were there, too!: Young people in U.S. history. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  43. Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Beker, K. (2016). Argumentative reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 39–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Jimenez-Aleibandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleibandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, E., Jenkins, J., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(4), 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 361–406). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  47. Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., & McMaster, K. L. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Knudson, R. E. (1992, December). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. In Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353 381.Google Scholar
  49. Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Tracing the development of argumentative writing in a discourse-rich context. Writing Communication, 33, 92–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lauer, J. M. (1994). Persuasive writing on public issues. In W. R. Winterowd & V. Gillespie (Eds.), Composition in context: Essays in honor of D. C. Stewart (pp. 62–72). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Li, M., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2014). Examining the effects of text genre and structure on 4th- and 5th-grade students’ high-level comprehension as evidenced in small-group discussions. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(3), 205–234.  https://doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2014.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Li, M., Murphy, P. K., Wang, J., Mason, L. H., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., et al. (2016). Promoting reading comprehension and critical-analytic thinking: A comparison of three approaches with fourth and fifth graders. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 101–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Long, V. A., Firetto, C. M., & Murphy, P. K. (2014, August). Transfer effects from small group discussions of text to writing. In Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. López, C., & Vicuña, A. M. (2011). Improving the teaching of argumentation through pragma-dialectical rules and a community of inquiry. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1130–1140).Google Scholar
  56. Mason, L. H., Reid, R., & Hagaman, J. (2012). Building comprehension in adolescents: Powerful strategies for improving reading and writing in content areas. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  57. McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Research, 19(9), 11–16. http://web.stanford.edu/group/suse-crc/cgi-bin/drupal/sites/default/files/rand-change.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mendive, S., Weiland, C., Yoshikawa, H., & Snow, C. (2016). Opening the black box: Intervention fidelity in a randomized trial of a preschool teacher professional development program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 130–145.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mirza, N. M., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420080204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Murphy, P. K. (2015). Mooring points and touchstones along the road to school-based interventions—An introduction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Murphy, P. K. (Ed.). (2018). Classroom discussions in education: Promoting productive talk about text and content. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2018). Quality Talk: A blueprint for productive talk. In P. Karen Murphy (Ed.), Classroom discussions in education: Promoting productive talk about text and content. Educational Psychology Insights Series (pp. 101–133). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Greene, J. A., & Butler, A. M. (2017a). Analyzing the talk in Quality Talk discussions: A coding manual.  https://doi.org/10.18113/S1XW64.
  65. Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Li, M., Wei, L., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2017b). Fostering student writing through intervention research: An examination of key components. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (series editors) and R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (volume editors), Studies in Writing Series: Design principles for teaching effective writing (Vol. 34, pp. 253–279). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  66. Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2016). What REALLY works: Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Science, 3(1), 27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B., Li, M., Montalbano, C., et al. (2018). Quality Talk: Developing students’ discourse to promote high-level comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1113–1160.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218771303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Li, M., Lobczowski, N. G., Duke, R. F., et al. (2017c). Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 336–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Murphy, P. K., & Knight, S. L. (2016). Exploring a century of advancements in the science of learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 402–456.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16677020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Soter, A. O. (2011). Instruction based on discussion. In R. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 382–407). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  71. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Reading framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.edpubs.gov/document/ed002606p.pdf?ck=6.
  73. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf.
  74. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts: Kindergarten-Grade 12 Introduction. Washington, DC: Authors. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/students-who-are-college-and-career-ready-in-reading-writing-speaking-listening-language/.
  75. Pearson. (2012). AIMSweb technical manual (R-CBM and TEL). Eden Prairie, NM: NCS Pearson Inc.Google Scholar
  76. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Piaget, J. (1928). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  78. Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x66035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01322393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rogoff, B. (2017). Teaching exceptional children. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Scanlon, D., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. (1994). Collaborative dialogues between teachers and researchers to create education interventions: A case study. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5(1), 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Soter, A. O., 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, 372–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163–171.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Webb, N. M., & Palinscar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  92. Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 283–302.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3003_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wei, L., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2018). How can teachers facilitate productive small-group talk? An integrated taxonomy of teacher discourse moves. Elementary School Journal, 118(4), 578–609.  https://doi.org/10.1086/697531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Developing a model of Quality Talk about literary text. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 142–169). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  95. Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Tsai, H. F. (2011, August). Theoretically framing research on classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. In Paper presented at the 14th biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
  96. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H. A., & Anderman, E. M. (2013). Theories of learning and teaching in TIP. Theory into Practice, 52, 9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.795437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla M. Firetto
    • 1
  • P. Karen Murphy
    • 2
  • Jeffrey A. Greene
    • 3
  • Mengyi Li
    • 4
  • Liwei Wei
    • 2
  • Cristin Montalbano
    • 3
  • Brendan Hendrick
    • 3
  • Rachel M. V. Croninger
    • 2
  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  3. 3.The University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.AIRWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations