Teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence in relation to the quality of educational dialogue

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence in relation to the quality of educational dialogue © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Accepted version (Final draft) Muhonen, Heli; Pakarinen, Eija; Rasku-Puttonen, Helena; Lerkkanen, Marja- Kristiina Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2022). Teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence in relation to the quality of educational dialogue. Research papers in education, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2022.2135013 2022 Teacher–Student Relationship and Students’ Social Competence in Relation to the Quality of Educational Dialogue Heli Muhonen, Eija Pakarinen, Helena Rasku-Puttonen, and Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen Corresponding author Heli Muhonen, Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 2 ABSTRACT Teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence were investigated in relation to the quality of educational dialogue. The data consisted of 151 video-recorded Grade 2 lessons. The teachers (N = 50) also rated their students’ (N = 664) social competence and the teacher–student relationship. In terms of teacher–student relationships, closeness associated positively while conflict associated negatively with high quality dialogue. Regarding students’ social competence, cooperation skills and empathy linked positively while disruptiveness linked negatively with high quality dialogue. The findings provide new knowledge on how different student-related factors may support or prevent the building of educational dialogue. Keywords: quality of educational dialogue, teacher–student relationship, social competence, primary school Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 3 Introduction Educational dialogue describes continuous, cumulative, and reciprocal classroom talk, through which the teacher and students explore and build shared knowledge together (Alexander 2006). For years, dialogue has been acknowledged as being vital for students’ development, and dialogic interactions have been shown to support their socialisation, motivation, personal self-development (Gillies 2014; Johnson and Johnson 2002), metacognitive processes and self-regulation (Newman 2017). In light of some recent studies, dialogue has been shown to support students’ learning in different subjects (e.g. see Alexander 2018; Howe et al. 2019; Muhonen et al. 2018; Sedova et al. 2019). Despite the acknowledged importance of educational dialogue, it rarely occurs in the classrooms of diverse school levels worldwide (Howe and Abedin 2013). It is often the case that teachers do not actively and consistently invite their students to explain their thinking or ask questions that would allow shared knowledge building and practicing dialogic skills (Howe et al. 2019; Webb et al. 2019). In addition, students rarely take their own initiative but instead participate in discussion only when asked to give answers to justify their thoughts (Myhill 2006). To enhance the quality and occurrence of dialogue in the classrooms, there is a need to determine which factors may prevent or advance educational dialogue and thereby link with students’ learning. In prior research, there are less studies that have investigated the role of diverse student-related factors in the occurrence or quality of educational dialogue. In our study, we investigated the teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence as studentrelated factors possibly associated with the quality of educational dialogue. The teacher–student relationship has been typically defined based on the closeness and conflict in the daily interactions between the teacher and the student (see Pianta 1999). There is considerable research evidence that young students’ relationships with their teachers predict students’ social and academic success (e.g. Bergin and Bergin 2009; Pianta 1999; Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 4 Roorda et al. 2011; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman 2009) and the teacher–student relationship has been found to be connected with the quality of classroom interactions on a broader scale (Buyse et al. 2008; Hamre and Pianta 2005). However, there is limited knowledge of how the teacher–student relationship may be linked with the quality of educational dialogue in the classroom. Students’ social competence refers to the presence of prosocial behaviour (such as cooperation skills and empathy) and lack of antisocial behaviour (such as disruptiveness and impulsivity) (see Junttila et al. 2006). It has been acknowledged that through interactions in the classroom, children practice their social competence and emotional understanding (e.g. see Pakarinen, Lerkkanen, and von Suchodoletz 2020; Rose-Krasnor 1997). In prior research, students’ social competence development has been found to be connected to high-quality teacher–student interactions in the classroom (e.g. Hamre and Pianta 2005; Rimm-Kaufman and Chiu 2007). However, less is known about how students’ social competence may be associated with the quality of educational dialogue, especially among young students and when no interventional approach has been used. Over the past decades, the extensive research on educational classroom dialogue has predominantly focused on describing effective dialogue as it typically occurs in classrooms on diverse school levels (for a review, see Howe and Abedin 2013). However, in order to facilitate the increase of dialogue in the classrooms, also broader investigation in terms of the background mechanisms of dialogue is needed (Howe and Abedin 2013). The aim of our study was to contribute to prior research by looking into the relation between student-related factors and the quality of educational dialogue in Grade 2 classrooms. Authentic classroom interaction data in terms of the moderate and high quality of educational dialogues and ratings of the teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence are utilised in the current study. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 5 Educational Dialogue The importance of educational dialogue is based on the view that learning has its basis in interacting with other people (Vygotsky 1978). In effective whole-class educational dialogue, which was the focus of our study, both teacher and students are expected to participate actively in the learning process by sharing their thoughts and knowledge, asking questions, elaborating different views, and further building knowledge based on one another’s thoughts (Alexander 2006; Mercer and Littleton 2007). In prior research, diverse terms have been used in parallel to describe the phenomenon of educational classroom talk and the prior research has illustrated how different dialogic approaches create so called ‘communities of enquiry’ (Mercer 2000). The definition for educational dialogue used in our study relies on Alexander’s (2006, 2020) concept of dialogic teaching, which describes dialogue between the teacher and students through the following six principles (Alexander 2018, p. 566; Alexander 2020, p. 131): 1) collective (teacher and students together participate in the classroom discussion); 2) reciprocal (teacher and students listen to each other and share ideas and alternative views); 3) supportive (teacher and students have the freedom to express ideas freely without the fear of giving a wrong answer); 4) deliberate (teacher and students discuss and seek to resolve different points of view, they present and evaluate arguments as they work towards reasoned positions and outcomes ); 5) cumulative (teacher and students build on their own and each other’s contributions towards the gradual accumulation of knowledge); and 6) purposeful (the discussion between the teacher and students is structured with specific learning goals in view). For educational dialogue to succeed, the teacher has an important opportunity to open the dialogic space for the participants to share their thoughts, explore, negotiate, and confront different ideas in an open and supportive learning environment (Webb 2009). As the Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 6 Alexander’s (2020) principles of dialogic teaching suggest, supportive and respectful relationship between the teacher and students should be built for effective dialogue to occur in the classroom. Participants’ good interpersonal skills and purposeful interaction support the building of successful dialogue in which the group members encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts as they work together (Gillies 2014). In scaffolded interactions between the adult and young children, mutual trust is considered as the key element for sharing thoughts and learning through the interaction (Rommetveit 1979; Stone 1998). Therefore, trustful relationship between the adult and child is needed to build dialogue and further to support child’s language development (Bruner 1975; Hobson 2002; Rommetveit 1979). The teacher also has the key responsibility in reacting to student initiatives and further allowing openings and time for the shared dialogic space (Cazden 2001; Webb 2009). Practices such as asking open questions, encouraging students to share and explain their thinking, encouraging students to justify and clarify their problem-solving strategies, and providing supportive and constructive feedback represent teachers’ scaffolding through which they support students’ conceptual development and participation in dialogue (e.g. Muhonen et al. 2016; Rojas-Drummond et al. 2013; Webb at al. 2019). In addition, scaffolding students’ process and self-evaluative metatalk have been shown to facilitate classroom dialogues that harness students’ metacognitive processes and self-regulation (Newman 2017). It has also been proposed that through more student-centred scaffolding practices, teachers can shape the quality of the dialogue, for instance, by using authentic questions about issues and concepts that students have experience with and by allowing students’ initiatives, questions, and ideas to modify the direction of the discussion (Nystrand 1997; Rasku-Puttonen et al. 2012). In fact, it is predominantly the teachers’ scaffolding practices, their activeness, and the participation of students that have been suggested to define the quality of the educational dialogue. In the present study, the analysis of the educational Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 7 dialogue quality is based on the four patterns of dialogic teaching discovered by Muhonen et al. (2016, 2018, 2022): teacher-initiated dialogues of a moderate and high quality and student-initiated dialogues of a moderate and high quality. Within the patterns, the different types of educational dialogues are identified based on the initiator (either the teacher or student) and the quality (either moderate or high) of the dialogue. The quality of the dialogue is defined based on the activeness and strategies of the teacher’s scaffolding and on the involvement of the students. In moderate-quality dialogues, students’ participation is highly dependent on the teacher’s scaffolding, and the teacher utilises a relatively limited variety of scaffolding techniques and questioning. In high-quality dialogues, both teacher and students participate actively in the discussion, and the teacher utilises a variety of scaffolding strategies to support shared knowledge building. Though the quality and effects of educational dialogue have been broadly examined, research considering factors contributing to dialogue quality (at least in the classroom context) is still in the early stages. In prior research, student-related factors, such as communication skills or academic performance, have been predominantly considered as trained outcomes of educational dialogue rather than factors that may enable the occurrence of dialogue in the classroom. Through interventional studies, it has been shown that students’ communication skills can be trained and improved when teachers actively scaffold students and invite them to participate in the dialogue. In his interventional study focused on dialogic teaching, Alexander (2018) found that students in the intervention group demonstrated higher levels of argumentation, explanation, justification, and challenging each other. In their Thinking Together intervention program, Mercer and colleagues (e.g. Mercer 2008; Mercer and Littleton 2007) showed that primary school students in the intervention program raised their skills in individual reasoning and collective thinking. In addition, through their intervention study-based Professional Development Program (PDP), van der Veen et al. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 8 (2017) showed that productive classroom dialogue supported young children’s oral communicative competence. However, research (without an interventional approach) is needed also on how students’ already existing social competence, including communication skills, may contribute to the quality of educational dialogue in the classroom. In our study, the teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence are considered as factors that can potentially contribute to the quality of educational dialogue. Teacher–Student Relationship and Its Associations with Classroom Interactions The emotional relationship between the teacher and students is acknowledged as an important factor in students’ development (Hamre and Pianta 2001). The quality of the teacher–student relationship has been typically defined based on the levels of closeness and conflict in the relationship (Pianta 1999; Roorda et al. 2011). In a supportive relationship, high closeness between the teacher and student is characterised by warmth, good communication, and approachability (Birch and Ladd 1997; Pianta 1999). On the other hand, in more conflicted relationships, anger and tensions usually exist between the teacher and student (Birch and Ladd 1997). In general, teachers have a basic need for relatedness with their students, and the quality of the relationships can be reflected in teacher’s work performance and well-being (Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs 2011). In fact, teachers have reported relationships with their students as the most meaningful source of motivation and enjoyment in their work (Hargreaves 2000). Based on attachment theory and relationship-driven models (see Verschueren and Koomen 2012), warm and supportive relationships with low conflicts between teachers and students have a beneficial impact on students in diverse ways (e.g. Bergin and Bergin 2009; Pianta 1999; Roorda et al. 2011). Research has consistently reported that a close teacher– child relationship is linked with students’ higher academic performance (e.g. Birch and Ladd Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 15 Analysis of the Quality of Educational Dialogue The first analysis phase focused on identifying episodes of educational dialogue within the 151 video-recorded lessons. The video recordings were viewed by a researcher specialising in analysis of dialogic interactions. During video viewing, the researcher made notes regarding the interaction in the lessons and aimed to identify episodes of educational dialogue between the teachers and students (i.e., communicative events; see Hymes 1972). The identification of the episodes was based on the criteria of dialogic teaching by Alexander (2006, 2020). According to these criteria, mutual continuous verbal exchange between the teacher and students was considered an episode of educational dialogue if it reflected the six principles of dialogic teaching: 1) collective, 2) reciprocal, 3) supportive, 4) deliberate, 5) cumulative, and 6) purposeful educational classroom talk. Therefore, educational classroom talk characterised only as dialogic was considered for the present study and for further analysis. Shorter and segmented types of interaction, for instance separate question–answer sequences, or other types of educational classroom talk, were not considered as episodes of educational dialogue themselves, but they could be included within an episode including a broader exchange between the teacher and students. The episodes represented discussion under one main topic. In cases where a topic or activity changed, the episode was considered to end. A new main topic, initiated by either the teacher or students, was defined to begin a new dialogic episode. The researcher, responsible for the analysis, watched and evaluated each identified episode of educational dialogue several times in order to identify the boundaries of the episodes as correctly as possible and to verify the quality of dialogic interaction between the teacher and students participating in the discussion. On average, the found episodes of educational dialogue lasted for 169 seconds (minimum of 30 seconds, maximum of 700 seconds). Regarding the dialogue duration per entire lesson, on average, 237 seconds of educational dialogue occurred per lesson (min = 0, max = 1,993 seconds). Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 16 After identifying the episodes of educational dialogue, the content of each dialogic episode was carefully examined. The episode content was analysed in terms of separate communicative acts (i.e., statements; see Hymes 1972) of the teacher and students. Each individual communicative act of the teacher or students was determined as an analysis unit. The length of a communicative acts varied and was considered as consisting of a word, a sentence, or several sentences, as long as the communicative act was identifiable. Different types of communicative acts were analysed within the dialogic episodes: for example, questions (open / closed, clarifying / expanding, abstract / practical), elaborations, responses, feedback comments, justifications, expanding comments, and summarising comments. After analysing the content of the dialogic episodes, the quality of the episodes was finally determined. Based on the analysis of the dialogue content, each episode was categorised based on the four patterns of dialogic teaching by Muhonen et al. (2016, 2018): teacher-initiated dialogue of moderate quality, teacher-initiated dialogue of high quality, student-initiated dialogue of moderate quality, and student-initiated dialogue of high quality. The four patterns describe differences between moderate- and high-quality dialogues in both teacher- and student-initiated educational discussions (see Figure 1). In moderate-quality educational dialogues (both teacher- and student-initiated ones), the teacher is predominantly responsible for scaffolding the discussion and students’ participation, and the teacher’s scaffolding comprises a relatively limited variety of scaffolding techniques and unitary forms of questioning. On the other hand, in high-quality dialogues (both teacher- and studentinitiated ones), both teacher and students participate actively and equally in the shared knowledge-building process, share thoughts, consider different alternatives, and ask questions. In addition, the teacher utilises diverse scaffolding strategies to support the shared knowledge building, synthesis of diverse ideas, and development of students’ conceptual thinking. For each identified episode of educational dialogue, one of the four pattern types Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 17 was determined (see examples of the four pattern types in Muhonen et al. 2016, 2018, 2022). As a result of this qualitative analysis phase, the quality of educational dialogue in each of the 151 video-recorded lessons was determined according to the occurrence of the patterns of dialogic teaching. (Insert Figure 1 here) Analysis of the Student–Teacher Relationship and Students’ Social Competence in Relation to the Quality of Educational Dialogue The second analysis phase focused on examining the associations of student–teacher relationship and students’ social competence with the quality of educational dialogue. The analysis was conducted with multilevel modelling, which considered variance at the classroom and individual student levels (between- and within-levels) (Heck and Thomas 2009; Muthén and Muthén 1998–2018). First, in order to determine how much of the variation in teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence was due to the classroom level (between-classroom variation) and due to the individual level (withinclassroom variation, differences between individual students), intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated. Next, correlations were calculated among the study variables of student–teacher relationship, students’ social competence, and educational dialogue. Third, multilevel path models were conducted. The moderate-quality dialogue and high-quality dialogue (including both teacher- and student-initiated ones) were investigated in their own separate models in relation to the two domains of the teacher–student relationship: closeness and conflict. In addition, moderate-quality dialogue and high-quality dialogue were investigated in their own separate models in relation to the four domains of student’s social competence: cooperation skills, empathy, disruptiveness, and impulsivity. Teacher work experience, class size, and child’s gender were controlled for in the analyses. This statistical Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 18 analysis phase was conducted with the Mplus statistical software package (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2018). Results In total, 212 episodes of educational dialogue were identified within the 151 videorecorded lessons. Therefore, on average, 1.4 dialogic episodes occurred per lesson (min = 0, max = 12 episodes). In terms of the quality of educational dialogue and the four patterns of dialogic teaching, the teacher-initiated dialogue of high quality was the predominant pattern type in the sample (n = 123 episodes). In addition, 58 dialogic episodes representing the teacher-initiated dialogue of moderate quality, six episodes representing the student-initiated dialogue of moderate quality, and 27 episodes representing the student-initiated dialogue of high quality were found within the lessons. Teacher–Student Relationship and Students’ Social Competence in Relation to the Quality of Educational Dialogue First, potential differences between classrooms regarding teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence were examined by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and variance estimates at the between- and within-levels (see Table 1). Regarding teacher–student relationship, in closeness 27.4% (p < .001) and in conflict 6.1% (p < .05) of the variance was due to classroom differences. Regarding students’ social competence, in students’ cooperation skills 17.3% (p < .001), in empathy 20.5% (p < .001), in impulsivity 11.5% (p < .01), and in disruptiveness 12.8% (p < .001) of the variance was due to classroom differences. Hence, the rest of the variance in teacher–student relationship and students’ social competence was due to within-classroom differences (between individual students). Next, as presented in Table 1, descriptive statistics and the between- and within- Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 19 level correlations among the study variables were determined. The correlations showed that closeness in the teacher–student relationship was positively related to student-initiated high-quality dialogue (r = .200, p <.05). In addition, students’ cooperating skills correlated positively, albeit marginally significantly, with student-initiated high-quality dialogue (r = .270, p <.10). Student disruptiveness was associated negatively with student-initiated moderate (r = –.161, p <.05) and high-quality (r = –.329, p <.05) dialogues. (Insert Table 1 here) Next, multilevel models were run to determine to what extent the teacher–student relationship (closeness and conflict) and students’ social competence (cooperation skills, empathy, disruptiveness, and impulsivity) were associated with the quality of educational dialogue (moderate or high quality). In each model, the teacher’s teaching experience and number of students was controlled for at the classroom level, and student gender was controlled for at the individual student level. The results of multilevel models are shown in Table 2. In terms of the teacher–student relationship, closeness had a positive association with high-quality educational dialogue (β = .227, p = .031). The model fit the data well: [χ2 (4) (Nwithin = 713, Nbetween = 49) = 2.630, p = .6215; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000; SRMRbetween = .048, SRMRwithin = .000]. In addition, conflict in the teacher–student relationship was found to be negatively, albeit marginally significantly, associated with highquality dialogue (β = –.288, p = .090). The fit of the model was good: [χ2 (4) (Nwithin = 713, Nbetween = 49) = 2.433, p = .6567; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000; SRMRbetween = .046, SRMRwithin = .000]. In turn, neither closeness nor conflict was found to be associated with moderate-quality dialogue. In terms of students’ social competence, several associations with high-quality dialogue were found. Students’ disruptiveness was found to be negatively associated with the high- Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 20 quality educational dialogue (β = –.360, p = .011.). On the other hand, students’ cooperation skills were positively associated with high-quality educational dialogue (β = .341, p = .026). In addition, empathy had a marginally significant positive association with high-quality educational dialogue (β = .323, p = .052). The model, including students’ disruptiveness, fit the data well: [χ2 (4) (Nwithin = 713, Nbetween = 49) = 2.642, p = .6194; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000; SRMRbetween = .050, SRMRwithin = .000]. The model fit indices for the model, including students’ cooperation skills were: [χ2 (4) (Nwithin = 713, Nbetween = 49) = 2.018, p = .7323; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000; SRMRbetween = .046, SRMRwithin = .000]. In addition, the model including empathy fit the data well: [χ2 (4 ) (Nwithin = 713, Nbetween = 49) = 2.103, p = .7168; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000; SRMRbetween = .045, SRMRwithin = .000]. Student impulsivity was not found to associate significantly with the high-quality dialogue. Considering the associations between students’ social competence and moderate-quality dialogue, fewer associations were found. Disruptiveness was found to be negatively, albeit marginally significantly, related to moderate quality educational dialogue (β = –.157, p = .057). The model fit the data well: [χ2 (4) (Nwithin = 713, Nbetween = 49) = 6.411, p = .1705; CFI = .978; TLI = .939; RMSEA = .029; SRMRbetween = .085, SRMRwithin = .000]. No other statistically significant associations between domains of students’ social competence and moderate-quality dialogue were found. (Insert Table 2 here) In summary, the findings of multilevel modelling showed that the domains of teacher– student relationship and students’ social competence associated predominantly with the highquality educational dialogue in the classrooms. To demonstrate the high quality of educational dialogue in the study sample concretely, two examples of high-quality dialogues are included as an Appendix. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 21 Discussion Our study aimed to explore the associations between certain student-related factors and the quality of educational dialogue in Grade 2 classrooms. We examined to what extent the teacher–student relationship (closeness and conflict) and students’ social competence (cooperation skills, empathy, disruptiveness, and impulsivity) were associated with the quality of educational dialogue (moderate or high quality). The results of the multilevel modelling showed that in terms of teacher–student relationship, closeness associated positively, and conflict associated negatively with the high quality of educational dialogue. Regarding students’ social competence, cooperation skills and empathy were found to link positively with the high quality of educational dialogue. On the other hand, students’ disruptiveness was linked negatively with both high and moderate quality of dialogue. The first research question focused on the relationship between the teacher–student relationship and the quality of educational dialogue. In prior research, the associations between the teacher–student relationship and educational dialogue are scantly studied. However, if we look at classroom interactions in a broader sense (in terms of emotional and instructional supports), our study results are in line with prior research suggesting a positive link between closeness and high quality of interaction (in this study, educational dialogue) in the classroom. For instance, in the early school years setting, prior research has shown that a warm teacher–student relationship is associated with teachers’ higher instructional support (Hamre and Pianta 2005) and with higher emotional support and sensitivity (Ahnert, Pinquart, and Lamb 2006; Buyse et al. 2008; Cadima et al. 2015). In addition, we suggest that in terms of the proximity of the theoretical definitions of both teacher–student relationship and educational dialogue, there are indisputable links that support the empirical findings of our study. As presented earlier in the description of a supportive teacher–student relationship, Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 22 high closeness between teacher and student is characterised by warmth, open communication, and approachability (Birch and Ladd 1997; Pianta 1999). To our understanding, these three elements strongly concur with Alexander’s (2006, 2020) six principles of dialogic teaching that are required for educational dialogue to happen. The elements of warmth and approachability can be seen to merge with the dialogic principles (Alexander 2018, p. 566) of collectiveness (the classroom is a site of joint learning and inquiry) and supportiveness (participants feel able to express ideas freely, without risk of embarrassment over “wrong” answers). In addition, the element of good communication can be seen to cover the vital dialogic principles (Alexander 2018, p. 566) of reciprocity (participants share ideas, listen to each other and consider alternative views) and cumulation (participants build on their own and each other’s ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and understanding). Therefore, considering this proximity of the concepts of close teacher–student relationship and educational dialogue and based on the findings of our study, it seems reasonable to suggest that close teacher–student relationships can enable and support the higher quality of educational dialogue between the teacher and students. In terms of conflict in the teacher–student relationship, a marginally significant association with high-quality dialogue was found, but there was no association with moderate-quality dialogue. Since the association with high-quality dialogue was only marginally significant, caution is needed when interpreting the results. The finding may suggest that the conflicts in teacher–student relationships can negatively influence the quality of the educational dialogue between teachers and students, at least to some extent. In prior research, higher conflict has been found to be associated with lower emotional support provided by the teacher (Hamre et al. 2008) and with student outcomes, such as lower academic achievement (Hughes 2011; Mason et al. 2017; Pakarinen et al. 2021), behavioural challenges (e.g. Buyse et al. 2008; Doumen et al. 2008; Mejia and Hoglund 2016), and with Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 23 lower prosocial behaviour and lower cooperation skills (Birch and Ladd 1997). It should be kept in mind that, in general, conflicted relationships between the teacher and students are relatively rare in Finnish classrooms and most often concern a limited number of individual students. Therefore, conflicted teacher–student relationships may not have that significant of an effect on the overall whole-class educational dialogue, which we examined in our study. In the future, more fine-grained research is needed regarding the link between conflicted teacher–student relationships and individual students’ participation during educational dialogue. The second research question addressed the association between students’ social competence and the quality of educational dialogue. Our results showed that students’ cooperation skills associated positively with high-quality educational dialogue, and student empathy was linked marginally significantly with high-quality dialogue. These findings are in line with prior research considering classroom interaction in a broader sense (in terms of emotional and instructional supports), since prior studies have shown students’ prosocial behaviour, such as cooperation among peers, as being associated with higher classroom interaction quality (e.g. Pakarinen, Lerkkanen, and von Suchodoletz 2020; Penttinen, Pakarinen, and Lerkkanen 2022; Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker 2006; Siekkinen et al. 2013). However, in terms of educational dialogue, the associations between students’ social competence and dialogue have been predominantly studied through interventions suggesting that students’ communication skills can be trained and improved when teachers actively scaffold students and invite them to participate in the dialogue (see e.g. Alexander,2018; Mercer and Littleton 2007; van der Veen et al. 2017). For instance, through his dialogic teaching-focused intervention, Alexander (2018) showed that students’ skills in argumentation, justification, and challenging each other’s views improved. These prior findings are encouraging and of a high importance, but on the other hand, they consider less Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 24 the possibility that students’ already existing communication skills and prosocial behaviour may contribute to the quality of educational dialogue in the authentic classroom situation. Therefore, the findings of our study are important by suggesting that students’ already existing social competence, in terms of prosocial behaviour, can support the high quality of educational dialogue in an authentic classroom setting. Our findings also showed a negative association between students’ disruptiveness and the high quality of educational dialogue. In addition, we found a marginally significant association between disruptiveness and moderate-quality dialogue. In terms of classroom interaction as a broader concept, students’ lower social competence and disruptiveness have been found to have a connection with lower classroom interaction quality (Brophy-Herb et al. 2007; Thomas et al. 2008). Therefore, our findings appear to be in line with broader interaction research, but at the same time, they provide additional knowledge regarding the negative association between student disruptiveness and the quality of educational dialogue in the authentic classroom setting. It is widely acknowledged that it is the teacher who has a vital role in scaffolding the dialogue and in opening the dialogic space for the students to share their thoughts and explore, negotiate, and confront different ideas in an open and constructive environment (Wegerif 2007). However, especially in high-quality educational dialogue, in which the students are treated as equal and active participants of the shared knowledge building, students also have a vital responsibility as participants in the dialogue (Muhonen et al. 2016; Webb at al. 2019). This type of responsibility requires students to respect each other’s thoughts, views, and turn-taking. Therefore, students who display antisocial behaviours, such as disruptiveness, low emotion expressions skills or emotional regulation (Denham 2006), may have a negative impact on the quality of the dialogue, which ideally should reflect the six principles of dialogic teaching (Alexander 2006, 2020): collectiveness, reciprocity, supportiveness, deliberativeness, cumulativeness, and Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 31 Denham, S. A. 2006. “Social-Emotional Competence as Support for School Readiness: What Is It and How Do We Assess It?” Early Education and Development 17: 57–89. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4 Domínguez, X., V. E. Vitiello, J. M. Fuccillo, D. B. Greenfield, and R. J. Bulotsky-Shearer. 2011. “The Role of Context in Preschool Learning: A Multilevel Examination of the Contribution of Context-Specific Problem Behaviours and Classroom Process Quality to Low-Income Children’s Approaches to Learning.” Journal of School Psychology 49 (2): 175–195. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.11.002 Doumen, S., K. Verschueren, E. Buyse, V. Germeijs, K. Luyckx, and B. Soenens. 2008. “Reciprocal Relations Between Teacher–Child Conflict and Aggressive Behaviour in Kindergarten: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 37: 588–599. doi:10.1080/15374410802148079 Eisenberg, N., R. A. Fabes, and T. L. Spinrad. 2006. “Prosocial Development.” In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner, 646–718. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Gazelle, H. 2006. “Class Climate Moderates Peer Relations and Emotional Adjustment in Children with an Early History of Anxious Solitude: A Child × Environment Model.” Developmental Psychology 42 (6): 1179–1192. doi:0.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1179 Gillies, R. 2014. “Cooperative Learning: Developments in Research.” International Journal of Educational Psychology 3 (2): 125–140. doi:10.4471/ijep.2014.08 Guralnick, M. J. 2010. “Early Intervention Approaches to Enhance the Peer-Related Social Competence of Young Children with Developmental Delays.” Infants and Young Children 23: 73–83. doi:10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181d22e14 Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 32 Hamre, B. K., and R. C. Pianta. 2001. “Early Teacher–Child Relationships and the Trajectory of Children’s School Outcomes through Eighth Grade.” Child Development 72: 625– 638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301 Hamre, B. K., and R. C. Pianta. 2005. “Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First- Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure?” Child Development 76: 949–967. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x Hamre, B. K., R. C. Pianta, J. T. Downer, and A. J. Mashburn. 2008. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Conflict with Young Students: Looking beyond Problem Behaviours.” Social Development 17 (1): 115–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00418.x Hargreaves, A. 2000. “Mixed Emotions: Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Interactions with Students.” Teaching and Teacher Education 16: 811–826. doi:10.1016/S0742- 051X(00)00028-7 Heck, R. H., and S. L. Thomas, 2009. An introduction to multilevel modeling technique (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hobson, P. 2002. The Cradle of Thought: Exploring the Origins of Thinking. London: Macmillan. Howe, C., and M. Abedin. 2013. “Classroom Dialogue: A Systematic Review across Four Decades of Research.” Cambridge Journal of Education 43: 325–356. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024 Howe, C., S. Hennessy, N. Mercer, M. Vrikki, and L. Wheatley. 2019.” Teacher–Student Dialogue during Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes?” Journal of the Learning Sciences 28 (4–5): 462–51. doi:10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730 Hughes, J. N. 2011.” Longitudinal Effects of Teacher and Student Perceptions of Teacher- Student Relationship Qualities on Academic Adjustment.” The Elementary School Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 33 Journal 112: 38–60. doi:10.1086/660686 Hymes, D. 1972. “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by J. J. Gumperz, and D. Hymes, 35–71. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Johnson, D., and R. Johnson. 2002. “Learning Together and Alone: Overview and Metaanalysis.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22: 95-105. doi:10.1080\0218879020220110 Junttila, N., M. Voeten, A. Kaukiainen, and M. Vauras. 2006. “Multisource Assessment of Children’s Social Competence”. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66: 874– 895. doi:10.1177/0013164405285546 Kaukiainen, A., N. Junttila, R. Kinnunen, and M. Vauras. 2005. MASK- Monitahoarviointi Oppilaan Sosiaalisesta Kompetenssista [MASCS - Multisource Assessment of Social Competence Scale, the manual]. University of Turku, Finland: Center for Learning Research and Teacher Education Department. Lerkkanen, M.-K., and E. Pakarinen. 2016-2022. Teacher and Student Stress and Interaction in Classroom (TESSI). doi:10.17011/jyx/dataset/77741 Mashburn, A. J., R. C. Pianta, B. K. Hamre, J. T. Downer, O. A. Barbarin, D. Bryant, M. Burchinal, D. M. Early, and C. Howes. 2008. “Measures of Classroom Quality in Prekindergarten and Children’s Development of Academic, Language, and Social Skills.” Child Development 79 (3): 732–749. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x Mason, B. A., D. B. Hajovsky, L. A. McCune, and J. J. Turek. 2017. “Conflict, Closeness, and Academic Skills: A Longitudinal Examination of the Teacher–Student Relationship.” School Psychology Review 46: 177–189. doi:10.17105/SPR-2017- 0020.V46-2 Mejia, T. M., and W. L. G. Hoglund. 2016. “Do Children’s Adjustment Problems Contribute Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 34 to Teacher–Child Relationship Quality? Support For A Child-Driven Model.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 34: 13–26. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.08.003 Mercer, N. 2000. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203464984 Mercer, N. 2008. “Talk and the Development of Reasoning and Understanding.” Human Development 51 (1): 90–100. doi:10.1159/000113158 Mercer, N., and L. Dawes. 2008. “The Value of Exploratory Talk.” In Exploring Talk in School, edited by N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson, 55–71. SAGE Publications Mercer, N., and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. Routledge. Michaels, S., C. O’Connor, and L. B. Resnick. 2008. “Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in The Classroom and Civic Life.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 27 (4): 283–297. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1 Muhonen, H., E. Pakarinen, A-M. Poikkeus, M-K. Lerkkanen, and H. Rasku-Puttonen. 2018. ”Quality of Educational Dialogue and Association with Students’ Academic Performance.” Learning and Instruction 55: 67–79. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.007 Muhonen, H., E. Pakarinen, H. Rasku-Puttonen, and M-K. Lerkkanen. 2022. “Educational Dialogue of Preschool Teachers Experiencing Different Levels of Stress.” Research Papers in Education. doi:10.1080/02671522.2022.2034926 Muhonen, H., H. Rasku-Puttonen, E. Pakarinen, A-M. Poikkeus, and M-K. Lerkkanen. 2016. ”Scaffolding Through Dialogic Teaching in Early School Classrooms.” Teaching and Teacher Education 55: 143–154. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.007 Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 1998–2012. Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed). Muthén and Muthén. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 35 Myhill, D. 2006. “Talk, Talk, Talk: Teaching and Learning in Whole Class Discourse.” Research Papers in Education 21 (1): 19–41. doi:10.1080/02671520500445425 Newman, R. 2017. “Let's Talk Talk: Utilising Metatalk for the Development of Productive Collaborative Dialogues.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 26: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.006 Nystrand, M. 1997. Opening Dialogue. Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. Teachers College Press. O’Connor E. 2010. “Teacher-Child Relationships as Dynamic Systems.” Journal of School Psychology 48 (3): 187–218. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.01.001 Odom, S. L., S. R. McConnell, and W. H. Brown. 2008. “Social Competence of Young Children: Conceptualization, Assessment and Influences.” In Social Competence of Young Children: Risk, Disability, and Intervention, edited by W. H. Brown, S. L. Odom, and S. R. McConnell, 3–29. Brookes. Pakarinen, E., M-K. Lerkkanen, J. Viljaranta, and A. Suchodoletz. 2021. ”Investigating Bidirectional Links Between the Quality of Teacher-Child Relationships and Children’s Interest and Pre‐Academic Skills in Literacy and Math.” Child Development 92 (1): 388– 407. doi:10.1111/cdev.13431 Pakarinen, E., M-K. Lerkkanen, and A. von Suchodoletz. 2020. ”Teacher Emotional Support in Relation to Social Competence in Preschool Classrooms.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 43 (4): 444–460. doi:10.1080/1743727x.2020.1791815 Penttinen, V., E. Pakarinen, and M-K. Lerkkanen. 2022. The Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions, Teachers’ Work Engagement, and Students’ Social Competence: Associations in First Grade Classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 36 Pianta, R. C. 1999. Enhancing Relationships between Children and Teachers. American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10314-000 Pianta, R. C. 2001. Student–Teacher Relationship Scale–Short Form. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Pianta, R. C., K. M. La Paro, C. Payne, M. J. Cox, and R. Bradley. 2002. “The Relation of Kindergarten Classroom Environment to Teacher, Family, and School Characteristics and Child Outcomes.” The Elementary School Journal 102 (3): 225– 238. doi:10.1086/499701 Rasku-Puttonen, H., M-K. Lerkkanen, A-M. Poikkeus, and M. Siekkinen. 2012. “Dialogical Patterns of Interaction in Pre-School Classrooms.” International Journal of Educational Research 53 (3): 138–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.03.004 Raver, C. C., and J. Knitzer. 2002. “Ready to Enter: What Research Tells Policymakers about Strategies to Promote Social and Emotional School Readiness among Three- and Four- Year-Old Children.” Promoting the Emotional Well-Being of Children and Families. Policy Paper No. 3. National Center for Children in Poverty. doi:10.7916/D82V2QVX Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., and Y-J. E. Chiu. 2007. “Promoting Social and Academic Competence in the Classroom: An Intervention Study Examining the Contribution of the Responsive Classroom Approach.” Psychology in the Schools 44: 397– 413. doi:10.1002/pits.20231 Rojas-Drummond, S., O. Torreblanca, H. Pedraza, M. Vélez, and K. Guzmán. 2013. “Dialogic Scaffolding: Enhancing Learning and Understanding in Collaborative Contexts.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2 (1): 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.003 Rommetveit, R., & R. M. Blakar (Eds.). 1979. Studies of Language, Thought and Verbal Communication. London: Academic Press. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 37 Roorda, D. L., H. M. Koomen, J. L. Spilt, and F. J. Oort. 2011. “The Influence of Affective Teacher–Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach.” Review of Educational Research 81: 493–529. doi:10.3102/ 0034654311421793 Rose-Krasnor, L. 1997. “The Nature of Social Competence: A Theoretical Review.” Social Development 6: 111–135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00097.x Rubin, K. H., W. M. Bukowski, and J. G. Parker. 2006. “Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups.” In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner, 571-645. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Rudasill, K. M., and S. E. Rimm-Kaufman. 2009. “Teacher-Child Relationship Quality: The Roles of Child Temperament and Teacher-Child Interactions.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2): 107–120. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.12.003 Sedova, K., M. Sedlacek, R. Svaricek, M. Majcik, J. Navratilova, A. Drexlerova, J. Kychler, and Z. Salamounova. 2019.” Do Those Who Talk More Learn More? The Relationship between Student Classroom Talk and Student Achievement.” Learning and Instruction 63: 101217. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217 Siekkinen, M., E. Pakarinen, M-K. Lerkkanen, A-M. Poikkeus, J. Salminen, E. Poskiparta, and J-E. Nurmi. 2013. “Social Competence among 6-Year-Old Children and Classroom Instructional Support and Teacher Stress.” Early Education and Development 24 (6): 877–897. doi:10.1080/10409289.2013.745183 Spilt, J. L., H. M. Y. Koomen, and J. T. Thijs. 2011. “Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher–Student Relationships.” Educational Psychology Review 23: 457–477. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 38 Stone, C. A. 1998. “The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 (4): 344–364. doi:10.1177/002221949803100404 Thomas, D. E., K. L. Bierman, C. Thompson, and C. J. Powers. 2008. “Double Jeopardy: Child and School Characteristics That Predict Aggressive-Disruptive Behaviour in First Grade.” School Psychology Review 37: 516–532. doi:10.1080/02796015.2008.12087865 Van der Veen, C., L. de Mey, C. van Kruistum, and B. van Oers. 2017. “The Effect of Productive Classroom Talk and Metacommunication on Young Children’s Oral Communicative Competence and Subject Matter Knowledge: An Intervention Study in Early Childhood Education.” Learning and Instruction 48: 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.001 Verschueren, K., and H. M. Koomen. 2012. “Teacher-Child Relationships from an Attachment Perspective.” Attachment and Human Development 14 (3): 205–211. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672260 Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Webb, N. M. 2009. “The Teacher’s Role in Promoting Collaborative Dialogue in the Classroom.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1348/000709908X380772 Webb, N., M. Franke, M. Ing, A. Turrou, N. Johnson, and J. Zimmerman. 2019. “Teacher Practices That Promote Productive Dialogue and Learning in Mathematics Classrooms.” International Journal of Educational Research 97: 176–186. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 39 Wegerif, R. 2007. Dialogic education and technology expanding the space of learning. Springer. Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University Press. Running Head: STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE 40 Appendix Sample extract 1: Teacher-initiated dialogue of high quality. Context: Students have been learning to memorise number sequences in pairs. Teacher: How did it go this time? How did you learn it this time or how did you remember? Dan. Student 1: I first just repeated those four first numbers, and then I just glanced at those last ones. And straight away I knew all of them. Teacher: Then, you remembered then? Student 1: Yeah. Teacher: You like learned these 4, 3, 7, 6 and then you glanced at those other ones? And then the information went from your eyes to your brain and you remembered it that way. Student 2: Yeah, we did it the same way! Teacher: Very efficient! Teddy. Student 3: We did it so that I looked at the numbers up to 6, and Alice looked at the rest of the numbers. And then we combined them. Student 4: Yeah, we did it that way, too! Teacher: There is power in cooperation! You had the same strategy, too, Kelly. Student 5: Simon had the numbers up to 6, and I took the numbers until 10. But I did glance at the beginning part, too. Teacher: Just in case you look at the beginning part, too. Just to make sure? Student 5: Yeah, and then I just tried to remember the whole thing. Context: The discussion regarding memorising continues. Sample extract 2: Student-initiated dialogue of high quality. Context: Teacher has asked students to have a look at the study book page about Finland’s reptiles. Student 1: Oh no, they are scary . . . Teacher: You are not alone in your reaction. For some reason, snakes can cause that kind of escape reaction in us. It must be a very primitive intuition in us humans. Student 1: Ugh, ugh . . . Teacher: Though actually we see them quite seldom. But where do you think snakes are now at this time of year? Student 1: Well, they are now waking up from hibernation after the winter. Teacher: Yes! In southern Finland, the spring is ahead of us, but we still have snow here and the ground is still quite frozen. But I am guessing that after last weekend, since it was so warm, some snakes started waking up from