Unlocking High-Quality Teaching

Classroom interaction is talk between the teacher and students and between students themselves. Classroom interaction considers the ways in which teachers engage students in whole-class discussion or dialogue, in particular by asking probing questions about the content in focus. It also considers situations where students collaborate, working together on tasks with a shared goal in pairs or small groups.

In both situations (teacher-student whole-class interaction, and student-student interaction), students are required to explain their thinking: to the teacher and the whole class, or to other students in a small group. They also need to listen to, engage with and build on the thinking and ideas of the teacher and of other students. Both situations can be parts of the same lesson or a unit of lessons.

Extensive research has developed over the last four decades that shows the benefits of rich classroom interaction between the teacher and students, and between students themselves, for student learning outcomes (Kim and Wilkinson, 2019[1]; Mercer, Wegerif and Major, 2019[2]; Murphy et al., 2009[3]; Nystrand, 2006[4]; Palinscar, 2019[5]).

Furthermore, studies have also found that the benefits of high-quality classroom interactions stretch beyond student cognitive outcomes, and that there also social and emotional benefits for students (Alexander, 2018[6]; Park, J. et al., 2017[7]; Resnick, Asterhan and Clarke, 2015[8]). Interactive discussions stimulate students’ interest, promoting their thinking and reasoning, and, at the same time, enhance their social relationships with others (both the teacher and other students), as well as their feelings about themselves as learners (Gillies, 2016[9]; Jay, T. et al., 2017[10]).

Classroom interaction can also indirectly benefit student learning due to the information that it furnishes to teachers. Students’ talk is a key source for teachers to learn about their students. By encouraging students to share their thinking, teachers can come to understand how their students make sense of tasks and ideas, diagnose what misconceptions they have or challenges they have encountered, and what they might need to progress (Alexander, 2018[6]; Wiliam, 2017[11]).

Classrooms are interactive spaces from the very beginning of a lesson to its end. Furthermore, interaction can take many forms, and these can also change and evolve over a lesson. It is therefore inevitably challenging to break down and present classroom interaction in a coherent way. To foster classroom interaction, teachers can make use of the following practices:

• questioning and responding

• student collaboration

• whole-class discussion.

All of these practices are important and interconnected. Teachers often move fluidly between various forms of classroom interaction within a single lesson. Student collaboration and whole-class discussions can deepen student thinking and offer opportunities for students to practice articulating their understanding, while questioning and responding further stimulate student thinking and provide valuable insights into their progress. All these practices are important and there is no particular hierarchy among them.

Each of these practices are outlined one-by-one below. Each section presents a definition for the practice and other associated terms on how it might also be referred to; key research findings on its impact on student outcomes; main implementation challenges identified by researchers and schools in designing the structure of the activity, task or content, role of students and role of teachers. Then, it looks into the complexity for teachers to foster classroom interaction and some of the enabling conditions that may be significant. The final section builds on schools’ insights to provide an indication about the complexities of implementation and provides reflection questions for instructional and school leaders.

The questioning engages students in a range of levels of cognitive reasoning. These are varied and appropriate for students (e.g. reasoning that asks students to analyse, synthesise, justify, or conjecture) and done in a manner to ensure all students are cognitively engaged and challenged.

The questioning offers a window onto student thinking and their levels of understanding. This may include the teacher facilitating students posing these types of questions to their peers.

Associated Terms: Quality of questions; High-leverage or higher-order questions; Probing or enquiring

There is evidence that questioning that facilitates learning requires students to think for themselves and engage in a range of levels of cognitive reasoning that privileges, particularly higher-order reasoning – reasoning that asks students to analyse, synthesise, justify, or conjecture (Alexander, 2020[14]) (Henningsen and Stein, 1997[17]). Characteristics of such questioning are an appropriate mixture of varied discourse patterns, including IRE (initiate, respond, evaluate), recall questions, and students speaking back-and-forth to one another or one after another without the teacher evaluating each student’s response. In this last situation, supportive questioning places the teacher in a facilitating role rather than directing or controlling the discourse (OECD, 2020b[18]; Williams and Baxter, 1996[19]).

A recent study exploring the why and how of elaborated and extended dialogue found open questions – where an extended answer was required – were crucial (Hennessy et al., 2021[20]). Even more important than open questions was the follow-on contingent questions asking the students to give reasons for their responses, and/or explain how they worked out their responses (Rojas-Drummond et al., 2013[21]; Sedova and Navratilova, 2020[22]; Sedova et al., 2019[23]). For instance, Bishop (2021[24]) investigated teacher response patterns to student contributions with a convenient sample of 13 teachers and 250 students. Multilevel modelling showed a significant positive relationship between highly responsive teacher moves, such as revoicing or posing follow-up questions that explored student ideas in more detail, and student learning of the focus mathematics topic. It was also of note in the study that the level of cognitive work demanded by the teacher’s question was related to the level of response given by students, meaning that when teachers asked low-level questions, they got low-level responses, while high-level questions where related to an increase in the instances of high-level responses albeit still with some variation.

Initiating questions launch student thinking and provide a platform for responses. Typically, this is achieved through either open or closed questions, which is informed by the immediate goal in the lesson. Open questions create possibilities for students to provide expanded answers, building their narrative skills as well as their vocabulary (van der Wilt, van der Veen and Michaels, 2022[25]). They may also heighten student agency by inviting them to bring in a wider array of thoughts and ideas. Closed questions ask for a clear and definitive answer, such as a yes or no, or a particular solution or definition. They typically serve to gauge student understanding around a specific focus or to activate thinking about specific knowledge (Howe and Abedin, 2013, p. 10[15]; Vrikki et al., 2018, p. 88[26]).

Insights from schools:

Avoid evaluating the responses at first but continue to pass the question on to other students by simply thanking students for their answer and then saying to someone else “what do you think?”.

Elicit a range of responses quickly to build early engagement, such as by using mass participation tools like mini-whiteboards or technological tools, or quick-fire questions around the room.

Give students the chance to disagree with a provocative statement on the subject matter, such as by responding to a statement like ‘the most importance factor in the topic is X’, or an intentional ‘spot the mistakes’ exercise. Students enjoy the degree of argumentation.

A large body of research has examined how questioning can be equitable in the classroom so that all students have the chance to offer high-quality responses. This has included investigating ways to ensure that questioning is accessible, such as by giving students adequate time to process a question and think through their response (Ingram, 2016[27]) or reformulating questions to scaffold students’ participation when needed (Harumi, 2023[28]). A further area of notable research has been on how questioning may be subject to biases and how this can be monitored to manage the distribution of high-quality questions to facilitate more equitable participation from students (Consuegra, Engels and Willegems, 2016[29]; Skelton and Read, 2006[30]).

Insights from schools:

Writing the question as well as speaking it can make it more accessible to second-language learners, and give them the time to read it several times.

Model to students out loud how to identify the key words in a question and how to deduce what those words must mean for their response.

Build a routine of thinking and writing time before responses and be explicit about why it matters. Let students know how long you want them to think – depending on the question – and why it matters for the quality of responses that there is no calling out or raising hands straight away.

Try to forewarn students who are quieter that you would like them to contribute – when circulating the room and seeing their work, a quick “That’s a really interesting answer, do you mind sharing that with the class later?” can let them mentally prepare.

Let students test out ideas with a peer first, so that they can refine their initial thinking and then when they are sharing an idea with the whole class it is the pair rather than the individual contributing.

It is important that teachers master the process of asking ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions that can probe and push student thinking (Alexander, 2020[14]). These play a role in promoting more student elaboration of their ideas and more student participation (Hennessy et al., 2021[20]; Lefstein, Snell and Israeli, 2015[31]). In particular, questions that require students to analyse, synthesise, justify and conjecture demand higher levels of cognitive functioning (OECD, 2020a[32]).

Insights from schools:

Explain to students why you will use questions that probe and push their thinking, so they understand how it is a tool for helping them to think harder, as well as a way of helping their peers hear more complex thinking.

Develop a clear prompt and routine that let’s students know they need to share more of their reasoning, the same simple prompt of “Can you go deeper into why you are saying that?” or “Can you tell us more?” can be a quick tool for highlighting to students that more detail is needed.

Play ‘the devil’s advocate’ and challenge students to convince you with more justifications and rationale; a prepared counter argument, such as an alternative perspective or interpretation, can help encourage students to further engage.

Be mindful of follow-up questions that may be too open and broad, such as “Can you talk about this with a partner?”, as these may prompt students to actually go in completely the wrong direction or overwhelm students with too many possibilities when a clearer focus may lead to clearer responses.

Students have opportunities to work together either in pairs, or in small groups on a shared learning goal. This revolves around carefully structured tasks that are conducive to meaningful collaboration, which may mean students are working on separate tasks contributing to a common overall outcome, or together on a shared task.

Whatever the arrangement, students take turns to participate, ask each other questions and listen to and interrogate each other’s ideas and responses. Students give explanations of their thinking, exchange ideas, explore issues, formulate new ideas and derive solutions. Furthermore, during this, all students in a small group, or both students working in a pair, have turns to participate.

Associated Terms: Collaborative learning approaches; Pair work and small group work; Peer tutoring

Webb et al. (2021[33]) summarise evidence from comparative and correlational studies, as well as from more detailed case studies, that has accumulated over many years. They note that results in student learning, whether through comparison or by linkage with student test scores, showed improved learner attainment. In particular, they highlight how the level of detail in students’ talk makes a difference to learning outcomes; when the tasks the pairs or groups were working on required learners to explain and clarify their thinking, give supporting reasons, and discuss each other’s ideas in a detailed, rigorous way, there was higher student achievement. These results are echoed in other studies, with several meta-analyses showing that students working in small groups indeed achieve higher learning outcomes than students working on a task individually, such as in terms of increased performance on standardised or teacher-made tests (Howe, 2010[34]; Resnick, Asterhan and Clarke, 2015[8]; Kyndt et al., 2013[35]; Rohrbeck, C. et al., 2003[36]; Roseth, Johnson and Johnson, 2008[37]; Chen et al., 2018[38]). Some studies have also demonstrated positive effects of collaboration on not only cognitive outcomes but also meta-cognitive, affective-motivational and social aspects of learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2008[39]).

Of note though is the considerable research around the connection between positive outcomes and the teacher’s role too. van Leeuwen & Janssen (2019[40]) conducted a systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. They argue that the positive results from collaborative learning hinge upon the instructional decisions of teachers, suggesting that impactful collaboration is not spontaneous and automatic, a finding echoed across other studies too (Cohen, 1994[41]; van de Pol, Volman and Beishuizen, 2010[42]; Kaendler et al., 2014[43]).

A consistent point across research is that student collaboration needs to be carefully organised around a task or activity that can support effective collaboration (Gillies, 2016[9]). This includes the task being conducive to students explaining and justifying their thinking to each other, and students discussing each other’s ideas in a meaningful way. Accordingly, teachers may need to attend to students’ prior knowledge levels and consider if they are well-prepared for this type of explanatory, meaningful talk.

It also means that teachers need to consider structural aspects. Research suggests that pairs can be productive, and that three to five students is the ideal in groups (Alexander, 2020[14]). This also relates to the considering the group’s dynamics, informed by the teacher using their knowledge of students of how certain compositions of groups may, or may not, work productively.

Insights from schools:

Spend some time first preparing students for the collaborative task by surfacing the key pieces of previous learning that students should be mindful of through a whole-class, small group, or online brainstorm.

Provide a clear, quality example of what the final output should be like, such as a piece of work from a previous year or class, to communicate high expectations and so students know exactly what to aim for.

Break the task down into stages to reduce the risk of them losing focus or being overwhelmed. Stages can be written out on a prompt, or also communicated through a model example.

Give students advance warning of when collaborative tasks are coming up so they can prepare and know what type of knowledge they will need to have ready.

Collaboration is not only a way for students to engage in productive talk that enhances their learning (Alexander, 2018[6]), but also an opportunity for students to develop a broader range of skills and dispositions, that are important for students’ social-emotional development (Johnson and Johnson, 2008[39]). In this respect, the process of collaborating is valuable in itself, and teachers can play a role in heightening students’ agency in the collaboration to help them foster skills like managing interactions, negotiating ideas, and working towards a common goal.

Insights from schools:

Ask students to define what types of behaviours or skills they expect from each other before collaborating, to increase their buy-in and engagement with positive collaborative behaviours.

Provide students with a clear outline of the success criteria that they can monitor their work against in an ongoing way. For instance, what are the different questions or steps they need to fulfil and evidence?

Challenge students to give peer feedback to other groups, at periodic points on specific criteria, so students have not just ownership of their own collaboration but also in shaping high-quality learning across the whole classroom.

Give students space to reflect on the collaboration experience, so they have a record of this and can take ownership of improving these elements the next time.

A systematic review by van Leeuwen & Janssen (2019[40]) found that several aspects of teacher guidance are positively associated with student collaboration, such as giving feedback on students' strategies or helping students plan their task, progress and resolve conflicts. To this end, during collaboration, teachers can monitor which problems students encounter and thoughtfully intervene when necessary (van de Pol, Volman and Beishuizen, 2010[42]).

Insights from schools:

Establish simple and clear routines for getting into collaboration that guide students to transition into collaborating in a focused, efficient way that avoids distractions.

To ensure everyone contributes early on, try instigating a rule that everyone speaks at the beginning one-by-one, even if sharing one simple piece of prior knowledge or an initial idea.

Pay attention to power dynamics and be ready to adjust groups or to take time to revisit the collaboration norms as a whole class.

Consider assigning roles to students, particularly if they are struggling to start or certain students are excluded, such as each person writing one paragraph of the essay or handling one specific task. Be mindful though that each role should have cognitive demands – time-keeping is not a role that will stretch students’ learning.

Pose open-ended questions that prompt students to think about their collaboration in a different way, be that looking back to specific examples from previous work when struggling, or considering an alternative approach to push them further on.

The teaching provides for whole-class discussion of key ideas, procedures, and perspectives in different parts of a lesson. The teaching makes it possible for students to express their thinking to others in the class, and share how they are reasoning about an idea or problem. Students have opportunities to engage with the ideas of others and build on these.

These are orchestrated in a way that all students have opportunities to contribute their ideas to the classroom discussion.

Associated Terms: Class dialogue; Discussion opportunities; Classroom discourse; Student oracy

Evidence has accumulated over four decades across a range of countries and in different subjects that whole-class classroom discussions can lead to positive learning outcomes for students, specifically greater retention and transfer of what students have learned (Resnick, Asterhan and Clarke, 2015[8]). However, researchers have also consistently emphasised that rich and deep discussions do not happen automatically (Alexander, 2018[6]; Nystrand et al., 2003[44]) but require time and careful, constant thinking from teachers.

Significant evidence comes from a randomised control trial investigating classroom interaction between the teacher and students, and students themselves (Jay, T. et al., 2017[10]). The study worked with some 78 schools in three different English cities and focused on students aged 9-10 years old. The study found that students in the intervention group were on average up to two months ahead of their control group peers in English, maths and science. The qualitative data of a simultaneous video study (included as part of the evaluation) established that in the intervention classrooms, there was more extended and elaborated dialogue between the teacher and students, such as students disagreeing with each other, and the teacher encouraging students to develop their ideas and respond to others’ ideas. Accompanying teacher interviews found that while some teachers found the programme challenging, all the teachers were in favour of developing more interaction in their classrooms and strategies for doing this (see also Alexander, 2018_[6]).

The findings echo a mixed methods study in Finland examining 46 teachers and more than 600 12-year-old students. The researchers found that the quality of educational dialogue correlated positively with students' grades in language arts and physics/chemistry (Muhonen et al., 2018[45]). Again, observational methods suggest that higher quality educational dialogues were present in physics/chemistry lessons which also demonstrated more versatile and richer scaffolding strategies from teachers.

A key consideration in whole-class discussion has been its inclusivity and ensuring that all students can participate (Vrikki et al., 2018[26]; Blatchford et al., 2010[46]). This equity issue is not merely a question of the quantity of talk; rather, high-quality talk needs to be made available to all students in a class. This demands consideration from teachers both in advance and in an ongoing way during discussion.

Insights from schools:

Activate prior knowledge so that students are better prepared for meaningful participation, such as facilitating a discussion once a good amount of prior knowledge has already been established, or by first conducting a recall activity with students.

Monitor who is participating and create space for different students to participate, by drawing on knowledge of individual students and inviting them to share at strategic points in the conversation.

Make use of multiple forms of engagement, such as technological tools where students can actively participate without having to speak out loud. Live documents or brainstorming tools can mean multiple contributions simultaneously or allow quieter students and second-language speakers to feel more comfortable.

A notable feature of productive discussions is the sharing of ideas in a reciprocal, meaningful manner. Students should engage and build on each other’s ideas in a cumulative way (Vrikki et al., 2018[26]; Alexander, 2008[47]). This type of discussion does not just happen automatically but is built through student-student interactions, and teachers can play a role in enabling this.

Insights from schools:

Ensure students are aware of what makes a healthy interaction, such as mutual respect, actively listening, and constructive questioning, so that they can actively self-monitor themselves and their peers.

Provide students with prompts to use to tie themselves to previous contributions, such as sentence starters for constructively critiquing ideas, or for building on someone’s contribution.

Focus discussions around a topic that students are not only knowledgeable on but also passionate about. It may be that students can even choose the topic, or that if something really grabs student curiosity in the classroom then this can be pursued at a whole-class level.

Let students take on the role of moderator or a specific ‘expert’ as part of a discussion panel. These roles can be rotated among students. Many enjoy the responsibility, but it also helps them understand more how they can best contribute later when they are participating again and no longer in a role.

Rich classroom discussion is heavily dependent on the quality of the contributions from students. Teachers play an important role in encouraging these, which in turn can mean a thriving discussion and, thus, crucially learning too (Alexander, 2018[6]; ​Michaels and  O’Connor, 2012[48]).

Insights from schools:

Show students the difference between high-quality contributions and more superficial ones prior to a discussion, so that they have a clear understanding of what to share and why it matters – both for them and their peers.

Give students advance warning, such as a homework activity where they must prepare a well-reasoned contribution on the topic in advance of the discussion, so students have the time to think hard and research their arguments.

Challenge students to revisit their ideas during the discussion by letting them know you will be coming back to them and you’d like them to try rephrase their thinking a second time in a clearer way, connect to prior learning, or include more advanced, specific subject vocabulary.

Highlight particularly high-quality contributions when they arise, identifying the specific features that made it impactful and encouraging others to emulate these.

Interactions are constant and multiple in a classroom. Teaching can be very fluid, seeing the forms of interaction change as needs evolve in a classroom. Monitoring of how classroom interaction is unfolding and if it needs adapting is a constant process for teachers, who use their professional judgement to process the signals that they receive from students in real-time. This can be overwhelming at times. Furthermore, teachers need to balance and monitor individual students' progress with fostering effective group interactions.

Schools’ insights on the in-situ classroom signals for classroom interaction (Table 5.1) demonstrate the demands of monitoring interactions to ensure they are impactful for students. The signals can be thought of as the short-term, in-class manifestation of the long-term knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that teachers seek to encourage. These include:

• Knowledge: Teachers are attuned to noticing progression in students’ thinking. This is seemingly primarily characterised by identifying increasingly detailed contributions from students – whatever level that may manifest, be it at the whole-class or student-student level.

• Skills: Teachers monitor the clarity of communication, with particular attention to how reasoning is articulated, including the evaluation of arguments and ideas that have already been voiced.

• Values and Attitudes: Teachers pay close attention to how mutual respect and active, enthusiastic engagement are demonstrated during collaborative or whole-class exchanges. Students’ openness to different perspectives and their ability to appropriately handle this divergence is attended to as well.

Classroom interaction is shaped by the actions of the teacher in the classroom, but it is also informed by the wider actions at the school- and system-levels. A deeper exploration of its complexity can also shed light on ways in which school leaders can support teachers in fostering high-quality interactions in classrooms.

Norms and routines established at the school level, such as behavioural expectations and shared values, help standardise interactions across classrooms. This consistency aids students in self-monitoring and adapting to structured interactions and transitions, which is crucial for activities like questioning and responding or whole-class discussions. These routines also help mitigate power dynamics and encourage diverse student participation, emphasising the importance of engagement and listening in discussions. For example, communicating what is expected in a contribution – or, when students are collaborating together – can be significant. Reinforcement of these expectations across classrooms may help foster more productive interactions more consistently.

Teacher preparation and professional collaboration also play critical roles in shaping classroom interactions, even if these are always somewhat unpredictable and thus naturally contingent. When it comes to questioning and responding, for example, a key challenge revolves around gauging when deeper questions are more relevant and how these are to be formulated to spur that appropriate level of cognitive load. Teachers’ ability to carefully prepare questions and their accompanying potential scaffolds or extensions can facilitate teachers’ in-class attentiveness to student learning signals.

Enabling student collaboration or whole-class discussions may be more demanding for teachers with larger classes – not just to give everyone a fair chance to participate but also to align to their prior knowledge- and limited physical spaces or resources. For example, structuring collaboration may be challenging in more limited physical spaces or resources needed for the collaboration (e.g. samples, equipment). In considering the assignment of teachers to students, leaders may also consider the relationships that already exist and how these have a bearing on the nature of interactions.

In navigating the challenge of enabling high-quality classroom interaction, school and system leaders may carefully consider some of the following questions:

• How is a school culture cultivated where the potential temporary noise and disruption of interactive classrooms are understood as part of the learning process rather than as a negative behaviour?

• What policies and routines can schools implement to foster respect, appreciation of diversity, and rich contributions in the classroom?

• How does the size and diversity of the class shape the opportunities for student collaboration and whole-class discussion? How does it intersect with opportunities to pair teachers or make a second teacher available?

• Does a teacher for all subjects or across several years facilitate building the necessary routines for effective classroom dynamics? What is the role of whole-school approaches to shaping classroom interaction patterns across classrooms?

• How can school leaders ensure that teachers have enough planning time and flexibility in the curriculum to incorporate meaningful interactive activities?

[48] ​Michaels, S. and C.  O’Connor (2012), Talk Science Primer, https://inquiryproject.terc.edu/shared/pd/TalkScience_Primer.pdf (accessed on 7 August 2024).

[14] Alexander, R. (2020), A dialogic teaching companion, Routledge.

[6] Alexander, R. (2018), “Developing dialogic teaching: genesis, process, trial”, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 33/5, pp. 561-598, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140.

[47] Alexander, R. (2008), Towards Dialogic Teaching: rethinking classroom talk.

[12] Alexander, R. (2000), Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education, Blackwell.

[24] Bishop, J. (2021), “Responsiveness and intellectual work: Features of mathematics classroom discourse related to student achievement”, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 30/3, pp. 466-508, https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1922413.

[46] Blatchford, P. et al. (2010), Structures for teaching and learning, Routledge.

[38] Chen, J. et al. (2018), “The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88/6, pp. 799-843, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584.

[13] Clarke, D., L. Xu and V. Wan (2010), “Spoken mathematics as a distinguishing characteristic of mathematics classrooms in different countries”, Mathematics Bulletin – a journal for educators (China), Vol. 49, pp. 1–12.

[41] Cohen, E. (1994), “Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 64/1, pp. 1-35, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001.

[29] Consuegra, E., N. Engels and V. Willegems (2016), “Using video-stimulated recall to investigate teacher awareness of explicit and implicit gendered thoughts on classroom interactions”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 22/6, pp. 683-699, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1158958.

[28] Harumi, S. (2023), “The facilitative use of learner-initiated translanguaging in Japanese EFL contexts”, Applied Pragmatics, Vol. 5/1, pp. 86-119, https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20014.har.

[20] Hennessy, S. et al. (2021), “An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning”, Language and Education, Vol. 37/2, pp. 186-211, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943.

[17] Henningsen, M. and M. Stein (1997), “Mathematical Tasks and Student Cognition: Classroom-Based Factors That Support and Inhibit High-Level Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning”, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 28/5, p. 524, https://doi.org/10.2307/749690.

[34] Howe, C. (2010), Peer Groups and Children’s Development (Understanding Children’s Worlds), Wiley-Blackwell.

[15] Howe, C. and M. Abedin (2013), “Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research”, Cambridge Journal of Education, pp. 325-356.

[27] Ingram, J. (2016), “A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom interactions and the efects on student and teacher interactional behaviours”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 46/1, pp. 37-53.

[10] Jay, T. et al. (2017), Dialogic Teaching: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary, Education Endowment Foundation with Sheffeld Hallam University, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/fles/Projects/Evaluation_ Reports/Dialogic_Teaching_Evalu (accessed on 13 August 2024).

[39] Johnson, D. and R. Johnson (2008), “Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning: The Teacher’s Role”, in The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom, Springer US, Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8_1.

[43] Kaendler, C. et al. (2014), “Teacher Competencies for the Implementation of Collaborative Learning in the Classroom: a Framework and Research Review”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 27/3, pp. 505-536, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9288-9.

[1] Kim, M. and I. Wilkinson (2019), “What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk”, Language,Learning and Social Interaction, Vol. 21, pp. 70-86.

[35] Kyndt, E. et al. (2013), “A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 10, pp. 133-149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002.

[31] Lefstein, A., J. Snell and M. Israeli (2015), “From moves to sequences: expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 41/5, pp. 866-885, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3164.

[2] Mercer, N., R. Wegerif and L. Major (eds.) (2019), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2020., https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677.

[45] Muhonen, H. et al. (2018), “Quality of educational dialogue and association with students’ academic performance”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 55, pp. 67-79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.007.

[3] Murphy, P. et al. (2009), “Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 101/3, pp. 740-764, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576.

[4] Nystrand, M. (2006), Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension, http://www.jstor.org/stable/401717 (accessed on 24 February 2020).

[44] Nystrand, M. et al. (2003), “Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse”, Discourse Processes, Vol. 35/2, pp. 135-198, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3502_3.

[18] OECD (2020b), Global Teaching InSights: Technical Report, OECD Publishing.

[32] OECD (2020a), Global Teaching InSights: A Video Study of Teaching, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/20d6f36b-en.

[5] Palinscar, A. (2019), “Building teacher practice and class-wide dialogue: An historical inquiry across three sociocultural interventions”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 97, pp. 157-165.

[7] Park, J. et al. (2017), Traditions, research and practice supporting academically productive classroom discourse, Oxford University Press, http://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acre¬fore-9780190264093-e-21 (accessed on 13 August 2024).

[9] Queensland, U. (ed.) (2016), “Cooperative Learning: Review of Research and Practice”, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 41/3, pp. 39-54, https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3.

[8] Resnick, L., C. Asterhan and S. Clarke (2015), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue, AERA.

[36] Rohrbeck, C. et al. (2003), “Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 240-250.

[21] Rojas-Drummond, S. et al. (2013), “‘Dialogic scaffolding’: Enhancing learning and understanding in collaborative contexts”, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Vol. 2/1, pp. 11-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.003.

[37] Roseth, C., D. Johnson and R. Johnson (2008), “Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134/2, pp. 223-246, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223.

[22] Sedova, K. and J. Navratilova (2020), “Silent students and the patterns of their participation in classroom talk”, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 29/4-5, pp. 681-716, https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1794878.

[23] Sedova, K. et al. (2019), “Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 63, p. 101217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217.

[30] Skelton, C. and B. Read (2006), “Male and female teachers’ evaluative responses to gender and the implications of these for the learning environments of primary age pupils”, International Studies in Sociology of Education, Vol. 16/2, pp. 105-120, https://doi.org/10.1080/09620210600849802.

[42] van de Pol, J., M. Volman and J. Beishuizen (2010), “Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 22/3, pp. 271-296, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

[25] van der Wilt, F., C. van der Veen and S. Michaels (2022), “The relation between the questions teachers ask and children’s language competence”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 115/1, pp. 64-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2029806.

[40] van Leeuwen, A. and J. Janssen (2019), “A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 27, pp. 71-89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001.

[26] Vrikki, M. et al. (2018), “Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms”, Language and Education, Vol. 33/1, pp. 85-100, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1509988.

[33] Webb, N. et al. (2021), “Learning through explaining and engaging with others’ mathematical ideas”, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, Vol. 25/4, pp. 438-464, https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1990744.

[11] Wiliam, D. (2017), Embedded Formative Assessment: (Strategies for Classroom Assessment That Drives Student Engagement and Learning) (The New Art and Science of Teaching), Solution Tree Press.

[19] Williams, S. and J. Baxter (1996), “Dilemmas of Discourse-Oriented Teaching in One Middle School Mathematics Classroom”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 97/1, pp. 21-38, https://doi.org/10.1086/461847.

[16] Xu, L. and D. Clarke (2019), “Speaking or not speaking as a cultural practice: Analysis of mathematics classroom discourse in Shanghai, Seoul, and Melbourne”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 1021, pp. 127–146.