Social interactions across the lifespan have been shown to constitute a critical factor in individuals’ cognitive and emotional development. Accordingly, it is essential that children and adolescents experience generative interactions within formal educational settings, which accompany them throughout a substantial portion of their lives. Such interactions require the encouragement and cultivation of discourse that advances and supports learning processes. Productive classroom discourse is characterized by an inclusive atmosphere that enables all learners to express their voices and ideas without fear. It encourages learners to listen to one another, to attempt to understand their peers’ ideas, and to consider these ideas from an empathetic perspective, particularly in relation to the emotional dimensions from which they emerge.
Within a community of learners, productive discourse entails taking responsibility not only for one’s individual knowledge but also for the collective knowledge, as well as for peers’ deep understanding (see the principle “Engage learners in peer feedback and assessment”). This dimension requires students to learn how to articulate and justify their ideas based on evidence, in alignment with standards of clarity, accuracy, and validity. Such “accountable discourse” is grounded in the view of social interaction as a foundation for development. It promotes equity in the classroom and enables participation even among students who might otherwise refrain from doing so. Through discourse, it is thus possible to foster students’ sense of self-efficacy, as well as to develop a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility within the classroom.
The teacher plays a critical role in fostering productive discourse in the classroom. This role is explicitly addressed in the work of John Dewey. Dewey explained how teachers can encourage productive discourse through discursive moves such as revoicing students’ ideas, using expressions such as: “Let me see if I understood your idea… did you mean that…?” Such utterances enable other students to engage with ideas as clarified and, at times, conceptualized by the teacher. It is important to note that this is a complex task, particularly in large and heterogeneous classrooms, where maintaining classroom discourse and attending to each student’s intentions and needs is inherently limited. Additionally, teachers are not immune to biases that may be related to gender, ethnicity, or influenced by information such as students’ prior history. Research indicates that many teachers are not aware of such biases and may, unintentionally, foster generative discourse for certain groups while producing non-generative or even exclusionary discourse for others. For example, a study examining interactions leading to participation in the national computer science olympiad found that teachers’ discourse practices were biased toward supporting boys’ development while hindering that of girls. Awareness of such biases can contribute to increasing equity of opportunity in the classroom and in society.
Norms of productive discourse can be cultivated through scaffolds (supportive tools) that engage learners in identifying and constructing the values that guide discourse and collaborative practices. Activity designers can plan processes that support students in co-constructing criteria and standards that enable all learners to feel comfortable participating in discourse and collaborative work, while emphasizing responsibility for knowledge, for the community, and for standards of explanation. In the large and heterogeneous classrooms characteristic of schools, fostering productive discourse is an essential means for promoting equity, a sense of belonging, and meaningful learning.
Many citizen science initiatives provide valuable opportunities for practicing such discourse. They bring students into interaction with stakeholders, community members, and scientists from diverse backgrounds, and require the adoption of discourse norms that respect diversity of voices, cultural differences, and disparities in levels of knowledge. Moreover, engagement with scientific agendas and the need for precise collaboration with experts necessitate accountable, considerate, and enabling discourse.
Deepening and Expansion ▼
Bias in teacher–classroom discourse
Studies (e.g., Sagy & Hazzan, 2007; Sagy, Kali, Tsaushu, & Tal, 2016) demonstrate that teachers’ perceptions of their students influence their teaching, even when these perceptions are biased. For example, a study examining teaching culture among faculty at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology found that instructors misperceived students’ learning culture. They underestimated students’ willingness to invest effort and engage in independent learning. These misperceptions led instructors to elaborate on certain topics rather than deepen others. Observations from another study, conducted in the context of the high school computer science olympiad, illustrated how unconscious bias can manifest in discourse between instructor and class. During sessions designed to encourage participation, the instructor presented riddles and invited students to solve them. When students raised their hands, the instructor asked for their names and then their answers. However, when addressing female students, the instructor did not ask for their names. This difference became more pronounced when the riddle was difficult. Initially, no students volunteered; after some time, a female student raised her hand. She was not asked for her name, and only after correctly answering was she asked her name, along with an additional question—whether she had encountered the riddle before. Such biased interactions may discourage female students from participating in contexts that invite this type of response. One finding of the study was that the external diversity among members of the Israeli team was very low: most participants were Jewish students from central regions of the country. Until the time of the study, no female students or non-Jewish students had reached the team.
A similar bias is described in reports by AAUW (2000) and the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women (1992), which indicate that girls are often excluded from classroom discourse, particularly in science and technology domains. These reports attribute the phenomenon to biased teacher responses, lack of direct engagement with female students, and insufficient encouragement of self-expression. They emphasize the need to establish discourse norms that promote gender equity—by actively encouraging all voices and creating an environment in which students can make mistakes, ask questions, and propose ideas.
Accountable Talk
Accountable talk is a pedagogical practice that encourages learners to take responsibility for their individual and collective knowledge by engaging in discourse that adheres to standards of explanation, reasoning, and evidence. This discourse takes place in a safe and inclusive environment and is based on three principles: accountability to the community (demonstrating mutual respect and attentive listening), accountability to knowledge (advancing ideas rather than merely expressing opinions, and maintaining factual accuracy even when articulation is challenging), and accountability to standards (precision, clarity, and justification). The teacher’s central goal is to facilitate a process of joint meaning-making, guided by the teacher yet grounded in learners’ active participation and ownership. Teachers employ discursive moves such as revoicing, posing probing questions, and requesting clarification to encourage all learners to participate actively. Accountable talk begins when students think aloud about complex problems that require collaboration—by noticing intriguing aspects of a problem, questioning unexpected findings, or expressing, explaining, and reflecting on their reasoning processes. The teacher seeks to encourage a broad range of ideas, including incomplete ones, and guides students to engage with one another’s contributions: to extend, challenge, or clarify claims (including those of the teacher), to ask questions, justify proposed solutions, or offer counterarguments and alternative explanations. This process increases participation and deepens evidence-based understanding, thereby supporting equity in the classroom (Resnick et al., 2018).
Learning through partnerships—teachers, technology, and peers
Marcia C. Linn and Sherry Hsi (2000) examine the role of technology as a partner in learning and in making science accessible to all students. Earlier, Hsi (1997) described how an online forum (Multimedia Forum Kiosk) supports students in learning science by fostering inquiry-oriented discourse that allows time for thinking, reading, and responding. Such tools support reflection and deeper engagement through sustained dialogue. Moreover, they may encourage students who struggle with oral expression to articulate their ideas, thereby contributing to collective knowledge construction and enhancing their sense of self-efficacy and equity.
Building on this, Craig Hoadley (1997) describes how computer-mediated scientific discussion can promote gender equity through open, inclusive, and evidence-based discourse. Digital environments can reduce disparities by giving voice to learners who might not participate in face-to-face discussions, thus enabling broader and more equitable participation. Hoadley (2004) further elaborates on productive collaborative learning in both online and offline environments, proposing principles for discourse that promote listening, idea development, and shared responsibility for knowledge. These works highlight the importance of accountable, flexible, and inclusive discourse as a key mechanism for constructing scientific knowledge in heterogeneous classrooms and diverse societies.
Additional Resources:
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
Buzo-Schwartz, M. (2013). Learning in classroom groups, Avney Rosha Institute.
References ▼
AAUW. (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, D.C.: AAUW.
Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-26.
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Fostering productive collaboration offline and online: learning from each other. In M. Linn, E. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 145-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hsi, S. (1997). Facilitating knowledge integration in science through electronic discussion: The Multimedia Forum Kiosk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187-201.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S., 2000. Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. . (2018). Accountable Talk: Instructional Dialogue that Builds the Mind. The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Sagy, O., & Hazzan, O. (2007). Diversity in excellence fostering programs: The case of the informatics Olympiad, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(3), pp. 233-253.
Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Tsaushu, M., & Tal, T. (2016). The Culture of Learning Continuum: promoting internal values in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1–21. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1174205
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.