.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Student Talk Moves and Reading Comprehension: A Multilevel Analysis of Classroom Discourse
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
S
R
DOI：10.1080/10888438.2026.2678592.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Dialogic talk supports multiple student outcomes, including reading comprehension and persuasive writing. However, few studies examine how specific student talk moves contribute to these outcomes. We examined the predictive relationship between student talk moves and post-discussion reading comprehension scores, utilizing the Low-Inference Discourse Observation (LIDO) tool to code classroom talk along a spectrum of dialogicity and measuring reading comprehension with the Global Integrated Scenario-Based Assessment (GISA). We examined data from 42 classrooms involving 369 unique students participating in a debate-focused curriculum in grades four through eight. The sample included predominantly Black students ( n=154), followed by white ( n=106), Latino/a ( n=89), and multiracial/other ( n=20). Female students represented 54.2% of the sample, and 86.4% were economically disadvantaged. Participants were English speakers in mainstream classrooms in the Northeastern United States. Using multilevel modeling and controlling for teacher talk moves, prior GISA scores, and demographic variables, we found a positive relationship between students’ uptake (i.e. referencing one another’s ideas) and reading comprehension scores. Conversely, minimal student responses were negatively associated with reading comprehension. Results from this study highlight the role of student-led dialogic interactions in supporting reading comprehension on a distal measure not directly aligned with the discussion content. These findings offer practical insights for educators seeking to foster more engaging and dialogic learning environments.
Keywords:
student talk moves
reading comprehension
dialogic discourse
classroom discussion
multilevel analysis
Journal
IF:
2.4
Papers:
62
Citations:
2.8K
Organization
Cited Papers