How Small Group Discussions Can Improve Spoken Discourse Competence

International Journal of Pedagogics

217

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp

VOLUME

Vol.05 Issue06 2025

PAGE NO.

217-221

DOI

10.37547/ijp/Volume05Issue06-59

How Small Group Discussions Can Improve Spoken Discourse
Competence

Saxiyeva Nodira Bahtiyor qizi

Independent researcher, UzSWLU, Uzbekistan

Received:

14 April 2025;

Accepted:

15 May 2025;

Published:

19 June 2025

Abstract:

Many students find it hard to understand complex texts. To help with this, we carried out a year-long

study using a method called Quality Talk in two fourth-grade classrooms. This approach involves small-group
discussions led by the teacher, with the goal of improving both basic reading skills and deeper, more thoughtful
understanding of what students read. As the year went on, we noticed some important changes. Teachers began
stepping back during discussions, allowing students to take the lead. At the same time, students started to think
more deeply

—

offering detailed explanations and exploring different ideas together. We also saw meaningful

improvements in their reading test scores, especially when it came to understanding texts on both basic and
advanced levels. These results suggest that structured small-group conversations can be a powerful way to help
students grow as readers and thinkers.

Keywords:

Argumentation, classroom discussion, critical thinking, Quality Talk, reading comprehension.

Introduction

In today’s world, where students are constantly

surrounded by information from books, websites, and
social media, being able to understand and evaluate
complex texts is more important than ever. But many
students still struggle with key skills

—

like answering

deeper questions, finding reliable information, or
making sense of challenging ideas (Bråten et al., 2011).
A recent national report found that a large number of

students don’t even reach basic levels of reading

comprehension, let alone the kind of critical thinking
needed to really analyze and engage with texts (U.S.
Department

of

Education,

2015).

High-level

comprehension is what happens when students reflect

deeply on what they read, question what they’re

learning, and think about the quality and meaning
behind the content (Iordanou, Kendeou, & Beker,
2016). To help students succeed with these skills,
teachers need to use intentional strategies that
support both comprehension and critical thinking. One
promising option is using classroom discussions as a
learning tool. In fact, research shows that talking about
texts together not only helps students understand
what they read

—

it can also teach them to think more

critically about it (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009;
Reznitskaya et al., 2008).

One of the biggest challenges in education today is that
most classroom discussion s

trategies just aren’t equally

good at helping students understand texts on both a

basic and a deeper level. Many of these methods don’t

do enough to highlight how important it is for students
to think critically and analytically when working with
complex reading materials (Murphy et al., 2009). To
make matters worse, students are rarely taught directly
how to participate in these kinds of meaningful

conversations. Instead, they’re often expected to figure

it out by watching their teachers, without any real

guidance (Murphy et al., 2010). That’s why we

launched this study

—

to explore how both teachers and

students in fourth grade changed the way they talked
about texts over a full school year using a method
called Quality Talk (QT). QT is a structured, teacher-
supported discussion approach aimed at improving

students’ reading comprehension, from basic

understanding to higher-level thinking.
What Helps Students Reach Deeper Understanding?
To truly understand a text, students need to go beyond
simply reading the words. They need to think around
the text

—

asking questions, exploring ideas, and

reasoning through what they’re reading. This kind of

deep comprehension relies on two key abilities: being

International Journal of Pedagogics

218

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp

International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)

able to form and defend arguments and being able to
reflect on how they know what they know. These are
called argumentation and epistemic cognition (Bråten
et al., 2011; Iordanou et al., 2016). Critical thinking is
more than just having an opinion

—it’s about explaining

your reasoning clearly and being open to considering
different perspectives. Students show this when they
offer detailed explanations of their thinking and when

they respectfully challenge or build on each other’s

ideas (Murphy et al., 2014; Murphy et al., 2017).
Learning how to argue well

—

with evidence and logic

—

happens best when students have the chance to talk
things through with others (Iordanou et al., 2016).

But there’s another layer to this: students’ ability to

think critically is deeply connected to how they think
about knowledge itself. This is what we call epistemic
cognition

—

how students come to understand,

question, and make sense of information (Chinn et al.,
2011; Kuhn et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2016). When
students see knowledge as something they can
evaluate and explore

—

not just something to

memorize

—they’re much better equipped to engage

with texts in thoughtful, meaningful ways. Epistemic
cognition is just a fancy term for how students think
about knowledge

—

how they learn, make sense of what

they know, question it, and apply it. When students
start to recognize the difference between what they

know for sure and what they believe or guess, they’re

practicing this kind of thinking. Even though it might
happen quietly in the background, it has a big impact
on how they read, how they argue their points, and
how they learn in general (Alexander et al., 1998).
For students to really understand what they read

—

and

to talk about it in thoughtful, meaningful ways

—

they

need to believe that texts aren’t just facts to be

memorized. They need to see them as ideas that can be
questioned and explored. This means asking things like:
Is this source trustworthy? Does it make sense with
what I already know? Does it meet the standards we
use in school subjects, like science or history? If

students aren’t taught to thi

nk this way and instead just

try to memorize everything, they won’t develop the

deeper understanding or critical thinking needed for

real learning. And they likely won’t take much away

from class discussions either.

There’s strong evidence that helping stu

dents think

about knowledge and how to build arguments really
works

—

especially when they get to talk with peers in a

structured, meaningful way over time. Studies show
that when students are explicitly taught how to argue
their points using evidence, they do better

—

not just

when speaking, but in writing too (Ryu & Sandoval,
2012; Kuhn et al., 2013). Other factors also play a role
in how well students understand texts. For example,
gender and reading fluency matter. Girls, on average,

tend to do better than boys when it comes to reading.
This has been shown in national studies and across
different age groups. A big reason might be that girls
are often more motivated, have a more positive
attitude toward reading, and are more engaged during
discussions (Chiu & McBride-Chang, 2006; Logan &
Johnston, 2009; Wu et al., 2013).
Research has made one thing clear: how fluently
students can read out loud is a strong sign of how well
they understand what they read

—

especially in the

early grades. In fact, study after study has shown that
oral reading fluency (ORF) is one of the best ways to

predict a student’s reading ability. One popular tool

used in schools, DIBELS (which stands for Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills), found that ORF
gave the most accurate

picture of a student’s reading

level (Johnson et al., 2009). When we look at all the
research linking things like how students think about
knowledge (epistemic cognition), gender differences,
and fluency to reading success, it leads to a big
question: What can teachers do to help students really
understand what they read on a deeper level?

So, What Is Quality Talk?

Quality Talk (QT) is one answer to that question. It’s a

well-rounded approach to classroom discussions that
helps students become deeper thinkers and better
readers. QT encourages students to not just read text,
but to talk about it, question it, and really explore what
it means. These discussions help students understand
the basics and go further

—

developing critical thinking,

forming arguments, and learning how to explain their
ideas clearly, both out loud and in writing.
QT is built around four key pieces:
A clear structure for how discussions happen in class
Tools and strategies for meaningful dialogue
Specific teacher techniques for guiding conversations
Core teaching values that create a supportive and
thoughtful learning space
In this updated version of QT, teachers also receive
professional development and coaching. Students use

journals to reflect and learn, and they’re taught step

-

by-step how to ask good questions, back up their ideas,
and build strong arguments. The Ideal Instructional
Frame is the heart of how Quality Talk works

—

it sets

up everything students and teachers need for rich,

meaningful conversations about what they’re reading

.

Here’s how it works: Students are grouped into small

teams of four to six, and both teachers and students
share responsibility for how the discussion unfolds. The
teacher chooses the reading material and sets the
topic, but students take the lead when it comes to who

speaks and how the conversation flows. They’re also

encouraged to interpret and respond to the text in their
own way. Before jumping into discussion, students go

International Journal of Pedagogics

219

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp

International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)

through mini-lessons where they learn how to ask real,
thought-provoking questions

—

and how to answer

them thoughtfully too. They also prepare by reading
the text and doing a short activity in their QT journals
that checks for basic understanding and helps them
create questions of their own.

When it’s time to talk, the teacher acts mor

e like a

guide than a lecturer

—

helping students stay engaged

and nudging them to dig deeper into the ideas behind
the text. This might include looking for hidden
messages, assumptions, or arguments in what they
read. Students are encouraged to make personal
connections to the text and share their own insights, as
well as pull out key facts and details. Once students
understand the basics and have made some emotional

or personal links to the content, they’re ready to think

more critically and challenge ideas. To wrap it all up,
students return to their journals after the discussion
and write down their individual takeaways

—

what they

think and believe based on the conversation. This step,

inspired by Vygotsky’s idea of learning through

reflection, helps them r

eally own what they’ve learned

(Graham & Harris, 2014).
Discourse elements are one of the most important
parts of the Quality Talk approach

—

they're the tools

that help students think more deeply and talk more

meaningfully about what they’re reading. One of

the

biggest tools in this toolbox is the authentic question.

These are the kinds of questions that can’t be answered

with a simple yes or no. Instead, they get students
thinking and wondering. Both teachers and students
can ask them, and the best ones lead to follow-up
questions that build on what someone else just said.
These are called uptake questions, and they help keep
the conversation flowing.
Some questions might push students to analyze or
speculate about what they read

—for example, “What

if this c

haracter had made a different choice?” Others

ask students to make connections between the text

and their own feelings, other books they’ve read, or

things they already know. When students answer these
kinds of questions, they often give elaborated
explanations

—

responses that go beyond the obvious

and show they’re really thinking. You might hear a
student say something like, “I think that would’ve

changed everything, because if he stayed home, he

never would’ve ended up at that school.” These are

moments where students are making sense of the story
in their own words. They also get into exploratory
talk

—

where they think through different ideas, offer

their opinions, and even respectfully disagree with
each other to make the conversation richer.
By engaging in these types of discussions, students

aren’t just talking about the text—they’re learning to

think critically. They start to question where

information comes from, how strong someone’s

argument is, and whether evidence really supports a
claim. These are skills that grow stronger when
students are explicitly taught how to use reasons, find
evidence, and respond to different points of view. To
effectively implement the instructional frame in Quality
Talk (QT), the manner in which teachers lead and
participate in discussions evolves over time. This
evolution is supported by specific strategies known as
teacher discourse moves

—

types of language and

interaction techniques teachers use to guide
productive classroom dialogue (Wei, Murphy, &
Firetto, in press).
At the beginning of QT implementation, teachers
typically provide extensive support by speaking more
frequently and modeling desired behaviors. For
example, a teacher might demonstrate how to pose an

authentic question or affirm a student’s high

-quality

respo

nse (e.g., “That was an excellent elaborated

explanation, Sienna”). As students become more

comfortable with the expectations and begin to take
ownership of the discussion process, teachers gradually
reduce their input, allowing students to lead more of
the conversation. Despite this shift, the teacher
continues to play a supportive role, stepping in with
guidance when necessary. It is important to distinguish
teacher discourse moves from the general discourse
elements of QT. While both are present during
discussions, teacher discourse moves are used
intentionally by educators to scaffold and develop

students’ critical

-analytic thinking.

The final component of the Quality Talk (QT) model
involves five pedagogical principles, each representing
a foundational concept necessary for cultivating a
classroom environment centered on dialogically
enriched, text-based learning.
Language as a Tool for Thinking: Teachers must
recognize that talk functions not just for
communication, but as a means of processing ideas and
examining knowledge (Mercer, 1995, 2000; Murphy et
al., 2012). This reinforces the critical role that discourse
plays in student learning. Normative Expectations and
Dialogic Responsiveness: Effective discussions should
be structured by clear ground rules

—

for example, "We

don’t raise our hands" or "We respect others’ opinions"

(Murphy & Firetto, 2017). As students internalize these
expectations and participate accordingly, teachers can
gradually reduce their control over discussions,
allowing students to take on interpretive leadership.
This transition demonstrates dialogic responsiveness

—

the teacher's willingness to let students guide the
discourse (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).

•

Balancing Structure and Flexibility: While

facilitating discussions, teachers must strike a balance
between guiding the conversation (through teacher

International Journal of Pedagogics

220

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp

International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)

discourse moves) and giving students the autonomy to
contribute ideas that matter to them (Cohen, 1994;
King, 1999).

•

Content Mastery: Teachers must possess a

thorough understanding of the text being discussed,
enabling them to guide the conversation effectively
and ask appropriate follow-up questions.

•

Valuing Diversity in Discourse: Educators

should create space for students to bring their
individual experiences and backgrounds into the
conversation. This inclusion leads to a more dynamic
and inclusive learning environment with a richer range
of perspectives.
What makes Quality Talk (QT) different from other
classroom discussion strategies? A lot, actually. First
and foremost, QT is all about using conversation not

just to talk about the text, but to think through it. It’s

based on the belief that talk is a tool for thinking

—

for

exploring ideas and building understanding together.
Unlike most other methods, QT treats both teachers

and students as key drivers of change. Teachers don’t

just lead discussions

—

they help students learn how to

talk in thoughtful, meaningful ways. Through a series of
specially designed mini-lessons, students learn skills
like how to ask powerful questions or how to build
strong arguments. That way, they can really
participate, not just follow along. Another thing that
sets QT apart is its real-

world application. It doesn’t rely

on outside reading materials chosen by researchers.
Instead, it works with the books and texts schools are
already using, which means it fits naturally into
everyday classroom routines.
QT also gives teachers strong support from the start

—

with training sessions and ongoing coaching that help
them use the method effectively. Over time, teachers
shift more of the discussion responsibility to their
students, giving them space to lead conversations and
think critically on their own. In early research studies,
including one where 14 teachers and over 270 students
took part, QT showed promise in improving how
students understand and engage with texts. While

those teachers got training, the students didn’t

yet

receive the kind of step-by-step instruction the model
now includes.

CONCLUSION

Today’s students face a world full of information—

online, in books, and everywhere in between. To
succeed, they need to know how to think critically,
evaluate sources, and make sense of complex ideas

(Goldman et al., 2010). But those skills aren’t

automatic. They need to be taught, modeled, and
supported, starting as early as elementary school
(Bennett et al., 2008). Structured classroom discussions
are one powerful way to build these skills. But too

often, the way discussions are run in classrooms

doesn’t match what students need. Students don’t get
enough say, and the conversation doesn’t go deep
enough (Soter et al., 2008). That’s where Quality Talk

comes in. With its clear structure, focus on deep
thinking, and support for both teachers and students,
QT shows real potential to help kids become better
thinkers and readers. The early evidence is promising

—

and now it’s time to bring these methods to more

classrooms so that all students are ready to take on the
challenges of the 21st century.

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991).
Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and
literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational
Research, 61(3), 315

–

343.

Bennett, L., Gunn, A. A., & Mortimore, P. (2008).
Teaching thinking in primary schools: The role of
classroom discussion. Education 3

–

13, 36(3), 229

–

241.

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2011).
The relationship between reading fluency and reading
comprehension. Reading and Writing, 24(7), 875

–

902.

Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A.
(2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic
cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology.
Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141

–

167.

Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender,
context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43
countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331

–

362.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom:
Conditions for productive small groups. Review of
Educational Research, 64(1), 1

–

35.

Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams,
R., Tzou, C., & Sherwood, R. (2010). Science inquiry in
the classroom: Possibilities and pitfalls. Science
Education, 94(5), 790

–

812.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2014). Writing development
and instruction. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M.
Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing
Development (pp. 339

–

353). London: SAGE.

Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Beker, K. (2016).
Argumentative discourse and epistemic cognition.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 45(3), 157

–

171.
Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W.
(2009). How accurate are DIBELS oral reading fluency
scores for predicting reading comprehension?
Exceptional Children, 75(2), 160

–

173.

King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer

learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive

perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87

–

115). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The
development of epistemological understanding.

International Journal of Pedagogics

221

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp

International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)

Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309

–

328.

Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013).
Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive,
epistemological, and social dimensions of developing
argumentative competence. Cognition and Instruction,
31(4), 456

–

496.

Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Validating
measurement of epistemic cognition. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 108(3), 452

–

473.

Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in
reading ability and attitudes. Educational Review,
61(2), 89

–

113.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009).
Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A
comparison of instruction for strategies and content
approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218

–

253.
Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of
Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use
Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.
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’

comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740

–

764.

Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Greene, J. A., Wei, L., &

Xiao, Y. (2012). Quality Talk: Developing students’

discourse to promote high-level comprehension and
critical-analytic thinking. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 23(1), 115

–

139.

Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Allen, A. J., Basurto, E., &
Wei, L. (2014). Fostering critical-analytic thinking in
middle school classrooms. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 13, 1

–

14.

Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M. (2017). Reconsidering
discussion-based approaches. In L. Corno & E.
Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology
(3rd ed., pp. 297

–

312). Routledge.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The
instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317

–

344.

Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., & Hsu, Y. Y.
(2008). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to
group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education,
38(1), 29

–

46.

Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to
elementary children's epistemic understanding from
sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3),
488

–

526.

Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L.,
Reninger, K. B., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the
discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level
comprehension. International Journal of Educational

Research, 47(6), 372

–

391.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). The Nation’s

Report Card: Reading 2015. National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Wei, L., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (in press).
Teacher discourse moves that support critical-analytic
thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Wu, X., Zhang, J., & Walberg, H. J. (2013). Gender and
reading: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(4), 1155

–

1171.