Research on Questioningand Discussion

Research illuminatingthe use of questions inclassroom discussionis fragmentedand scarce. Truediscussion (asdistinguished fromrecall-orientedrecitation) is rarerstill.

J. T. DILLON

o sum up, we do not know muchabout questioning and discus-sion. We have a volume of re-

search on questioning-but not in discussion. We have a body of researchon discussion-but not in classrooms.What we have is bits and pieces; therest of the picture is blank.

Most of what we know is either notknown from research or is not public-Iv known. The literature contains fewstudies but plenty of opinions and freeadvice in essav articles, methods texts,and manuals The greater part ofknowledge is not contained in theliterature at all but is privately held byskilled teachers as intuitive, implicit,knowledge-in -action.

In the face of bits and pieces ofresearch, this review will concentrate

T 7 Dillon is Associate Professor, School ofEducation, U niersii, of California, River-side

on the more developed efforts ratherthan describing each individual studyon this or that detail

Distinctions BetweenRecitation and DiscussionThe first question is one of semantics.What does discussion mean? To whichclassroom events shall we apply theterm?

Picture a teacher and a group ofstudents talking back and forth. Thisinteraction can take two genericforms.

Recitation describes the familiarform, which is characterized by(among other aspects) recurring se-quences of teacher question plus stu-dent answer, where students "recite"what they already know or are comingto know through the questioning. Rec-itation is a rubric covering various

EL)l (CATIONAL LEADERSHIP

activities called review, drill. quiz,guided discovery, inquirn teaching,Socratic method.

Discussion describes group interac-tion not of this character. Discussion isa rubric, too, covering various activi-ties in which teacher and students"discuss" what thev don't know.

This review covers questioning dur-ing discussion; the companion reviewby Meredith Gall (pp 40-4') coversquestioning during recitation.

More specific distinctions have beendrawn by scholars For Gall, recitationis characterized bv teacher-student in-teraction and discussion bv student-student interaction; recitation dependson recall of curriculum content whilediscussion calls for complex thinkingprocesses and attitude change (Galland Gall, 1976, p. 168). For Stodolskl,discussion involves longer exchanges,exchanges among students as well asbetween teacher and students, and

questions soliciting student opinionsand thoughts, not just right answers(Stodolskv. Ferguson, and Wimpel-berg, 1981, p. 123). For Dillon ( 1981a.p. 2). a class was counted as a discus-sion if the teacher planned to have adiscussion, if the students rated it as adiscussion, and if students accountedfor at least 40 percent of the total talk.For an extensive specification of manyother differences between recitationand discussion, see Dillon. 1981c.

Most studies make no distinction atall but call an\r kind of teacher-studenttalk discussion One must thereforelook at the thing being studied inorder to find out what kind of thing itis. As a result of doing just that, thisreview excludes man\ studies on "dis-cussion' that actuallv turn out to studsrecitation and so more properli figurein another review lJohnson, 19'9:McGee. 1981: Nelson, 1973). One con-sequence is that few studies on ques-

tioning and discussion are left to re-view.

Concepts of Discussion.W'hat is the nature and what are'thekinds of discussion?

This is a theoretical question, andfew theories are available to answer it.One articulate and encompassing con-ception has been worked out byBridges (19'9) in Education, Democ-raci' and DI)scrssion. Bridges asks,.What are the necessary and sufficientlogical conditions for saving that peo-ple are engaged in the discussion ofsomething? His answer followvs:

(a) Thev are putting forward morethan one point of view upon a subject:

(b) The- are at least disposed toexamine and to be responsive to thedifferent points of view put forward:with

(c) The intention of developingtheir knowledge, understanding and/

NOVEMBER 1984 51

"Questions can inhibit discussion andalternatives (for instance, declarativestatements or deliberate silence) canencourage it."

or judgment on the matter under dis-cussion (p. 16).

Then he asks what moral disposi-tons (values, principles of conduct)are presupposed by these logical con-ditions-that is, what assumptions doparticipants share by force of commit-ting themselves to group discussionsThese are (a) reasonableness: (b)peaceableness and orderliness; (c)truthfulness; (d) freedom-no con-straint on offering sincerely held opin-ion; (e) equality-regard for the opin-ions and interests of each participant;and (f) respect for persons (pp. 21-24).

Without some adherence to theseprinciples and cultivation of these dis-positions, "discussion simply cannottake place" (p. 26) It cannot takeplace, for example, when students areafraid to speak freely; teachers thinkstudent opinions are not worth listen-ing to; participants feel it is improperto express a personal opinion: peopleconstantly interrupt opinions they dis-like; or people are not amenable tothe influence of reason, evidence, orargument (p 25).

One further precondition-open-ness-is necessarv for a discussion tobe proper or effective. Bridges de-scribes the ways in which a discussionmust be open: (a) the matter is openfor discussion; (b) the discussants areopen-minded; (c) the discussion isopen to all arguments; (d) the discus-sion is open to any person; (e) thetime limit is open; (f) the learningoutcomes are open, not predictable;(g) the purposes and practices of thediscussion are out in the open, notcovert; and (h) the discussion is open-ended, not required to come to asingle conclusion. Bridges also notesthat some otherwise desirable traits-self-chosen moral restraints such askindliness, consensus, loyalty, and

concern for 'getting it right" -can besubtle "enemies" of open discussion.

Bridges' conception goes still fur-ther, specifying the epistemologicalconditions of group discussion, thevarious learning possibilities andteaching processes for discussion, andthe educative and social benefits ofclassroom group discussion. Hence,Bridges gives a comprehensive, clear,and useful conceptual answer to thequestion, what is the nature of discus-sion?

What are the kinds of discussion?Gall (in press; Gall and Gall, 1976) listsfour types distinguished by instruc-tional objective: subject-matter mas-te'r discussions, issue-oriented ones,moral development discussions, andproblem-solving discussions. Hyman(1980) identifies policy discussions,problem-solving ones, explaining,predicting, and debriefing discussions.Dozens of such lists can be found inthe literature

Roby's (1981) scheme of five mod-els of discussion is particularly rele-vant here, since it comes from aconception of discussion and distin-guishes the types according to thequestioning involved (among otherthings). At the extremes of Roby'sscheme are two degenerate forms ofquasi-discussion-Quiz Show andBull Session Discussion in a QuizShow is text- or teacher-centered;there is a predetermined answer, andthe teacher has it. Discussants are toget the answer and get it right. A BullSession is student-centered, a,id every-one has a right answer. Discussantsvent their opinions and feelings andwrangle over who is right.

Between these two are the problem-atical and dialectical kinds of dis-cussion, healthy counterparts of theQuiz Show and Bull Session. In prob-lematical discussion, teachers and stu-

dents pursue a satisfying answer thatneither possesses. In dialectical dis-cussion thev resolve opposing opin-ions through inquiry and synthesis oftruth elements in each, questioningproffered opinions and then question-ing the opinion they themselves prof-fer. Informational discussion is a pre-liminarv to these two

For understanding and practicingdiscussion, Roby (1979) has alsoworked out "a rhetoric of questions."Discussion moves from the teacher'smodel of questioning to class reflec-tion on the use and benefits of ques-tions, then to student use of question-ing. Ten types of questions areidentified; each type is articulated foreach of the several terms of discus-sion, as well as for the five models ofdiscussion.

Quiz Shows, for example, are char-acterized by Informers and Prompters,and Bull Sessions by Stingers. Prob-lematical discussions are generated bythe Puzzler, Informational ones by theInviter. Dialectical discussion movesfrom the Controversial Turn (for ex-ample, "Jay, do you disagree with Dix-ie?") to the Devil's Advocate ("Jay,would you now disagree with your-self?"). All participants must learn touse questions adroitly, lest a dialecticaldiscussion move to a Bull Session atthe controversial turn, or a problemat-ical discussion turn into a Quiz Show.

How all this works in practice isdeftly rendered by Roby's (1984) ac-count of discussions in a college class-room. Thus his conception articulatesand interrelates a typology of discus-sions, a rhetoric of questions, and apractice for using questions duringdiscussion.

The conceptions developed by Robyand Bridges can be artfully used inconjunction. For example, Bridges'three logical conditions for discussion

Et) ICAnTONAL I.FADER.HIP52

can be combined with Robv's fivemodels, revealing that a Quiz Showfails conditions "a" and "b" (presenceand tolerance of variant viewpoints),and that a Bull Session fails "b" and"c" (tolerance of variant viewpointsand intention of discovering truth).Combining the two conceptions in thisway would produce three beneficialeffects.

We would gain a clearer theoreticalunderstanding o(f classroom discus-sion and of questioning and discus-sion. We could then perceive anddistinguish discussions at work inclassrooms and do empirical researchon their various elements and interre-lations as specified in the conceptions.As a result we would know how toinform the classroom practice of ques-tioning and discussion.

Character of DiscussionThe character of discussion is an em-pirical question, one of describing theobserved characteristics (features,qualities, properties, attributes) ofclassroom discussion

How w idelv is discussion used inclassrooms? At what level? In whichsubjects? In terms of his distinctionbetween recitation and discussion,Gall (in press; Gall and Gall, 1976)reported the impression-he foundlittle research-that discussion is notat all prevalent Stodolskv observeddiscussion as she defined it duringonly 3 percent of all time blocks in 175th grade social studies lessons visitedover nine consecutive days (Stodolskv,

Ferguson, and Wimpelberg, 1981, p.124). In the 1,000 classroomrs-129 ele-mentarv and 88' secondanr-ob-served for A .Stud of Schooling. Good-lad (1984, p. 107 ) estimated theprobabilitv of finding discussion (notdefined) as from 4 to 8 percent at thevarious levels of schooling. Theseoverall figures do not vary appreciablyfor the individual subject matters ob-served (see also Sirotnik, 1983)

Glimpses of other characteristicsare found in a series of studies of highschool discussion classes. These in-clude the different participation ratesin social studies and religion discus-sions (Dillon, 1981b) and the similarparticipation rates by males and fe-males (1982c): the positive relationbetween duration of talk and complex-int of thought (1983a); the predom-inance of higher cognitive questionsand the demi-correspondence be-tween question-answer levels (1982b);the equivalent length of responses to(a) teacher statements as to questions,and to (b) various npes of questions(1981a); the positive relation betweenlength of teacher utterance and stu-dent response and the negative rela-tion between rate of questions andduration of answers ( 1981a); and thecomparatively greater and better dis-cussion that follows from using alter-native, nonquestioning techniques(1984).

Of far greater significance thanthese bits and pieces is the knowledgewe need to get from studies vet to beconducted A programmatic studv I am

directing is expected to yield firmergrounds for knoving something aboutquestioning and discussion. It gatherstwo dozen scholars from various disci-plines, each of w hom has analyzedfrom his or her own perspective thesame set of classroom discussions, andall of whom are now revising theiranalyses in light of one another's con-ceptions and findings. The results willbe reported in an AERA symposium inChicago in 1985 and in a subsequentbook, both under the project title."The Multidisciplinary Study of Class-room Questioning and Discussion

Conduct of DiscussionThe pedagogical questions are impor-tant but difficult to answer: First, howis a classroom discussion effectivelyconducted? Specifically, how shouldquestioning be used during discus-sion? Second, how can teachers learnto conduct effective discussions?

Research does not offer many an-svers to these questions Teachersmanuals offer mans answvers-thoughfew are based on research. Some use-ful answers come from sensitive ac-counts hb skilled and experiencedteachers Finally. some effective an-swers come from teacher training pro-grams that combine what is knownfrom research and practice and teachit to teachers

Discussions are hard to conduct.and thes are hard to learn how toconduct. Contrary to common sense.questioning is a complex skill. What ismore, the skills of questioning in reci-

NOVE,4BFR 1984

"To conceive an educative questionrequires thought; to formulate itrequires labor; and to pose it, tact."

tation are useless in discussion-an-other set of complex questioning skillsmust be used.

Yet the techniques are secondary.What is essential is the teacher's atti-tudes, dispositions, and commitmentsto classroom discussion-those, forexample, that Bridges (1979) identifiesas presuppositions of discussion. Inaddressing the pedagogical question,therefore, we will emphasize what isinvolved in using and learning to usequestioning and discussion.

Practice and TrainingLearning to Discuss reports the workof Francis' (1982) Discussion Develop-mem Group, an inservice training pro-gram based on wide experience withpractice and grounded in fields suchas communication research and groupdynamics. The teachers learn to usediscussion by experiencing discussiongroup processes; they personally com-mit themselves to a year-long workinggroup that operates by the very pro-cesses thev are to use with students.

The hardest thing for the teachers tolearn is discussion leadership style. Inthe training sessions they again findleadership style the hardest thing toaccommodate. They expect the leaderto use a "directive, questioning, anddidactic" style and find it "disconcert-ing" to participate in a meeting con-ducted without such a style. Then, intheir classrooms they continually slipback into a didactic teaching style (p.15).

In addition to describing the proc-ess of this work group, Learning toDiscuss explains the concepts andtechniques of discussion-includingthe way in which questions can inhibitdiscussion and alternatives can en-courage it (pp. 68-69). The report alsosets forth a curriculum developmentmodel for implementing and assessingdiscussion in schools and a program

for helping students learn how to dis-cuss. It also provides resources andmaterials for using discussion in class-rooms and appends the reports of theteachers involved. Hence it is a com-prehensive and useful source forlearning about questioning and dis-cussion.

But Francis (1984) cautions that thewritten descriptions cannot convey thesubtlety of the approach. The teachers,who have now become associates inthe project, 'are sceptical about shar-ing information about discussion pro-grammes in written form" (p. 23).They feel that a teacher must partici-pate in a group that experiences dis-cussion processes. Videotapes fromthe project are available for both theteachers' group and their classroomefforts, and Francis invites interestedteachers to 'contact us directly so thatwe can flesh out the comments" (p.21). IFor the address, see the refer-ence to Francis, 1982.]

Research and TrainingOver the past ten years, a solid body ofresearch on "wait-time" and question-ing has shown that a few seconds ofpausing by the teacher can have re-markable effects on discussion. As agood example of this kind of research,Swift (1983) and associates have con-ducted a series of studies based on 600discussions in middle school scienceclasses, observed over a full semester

In an award-winning study, Swiftand Gooding (1983) demonstratedthat when teachers wait for 2-3 sec-onds after asking a question-andagain before asking the next one-both the amount and the quality ofstudent discussion increase. More stu-dents talk, and students talk more;their talk is more relevant to the topicand more elevated in cognitive level.

Listening to the tapes of the 600classes, the researchers were bored

and appalled by the low quality ofdiscussion. They began a program totrain teachers in "strategies for engen-dering true discussions" (Gooding,Swift, and Swift, 1983; Swift, Swift, andGooding, 1984).

Ten teachers volunteered. First theinvestigators carefully listened to theteachers' fears and concerns aboutchanging their way of handling discus-sion-concern for content coverage,student motivation, discipline prob-lems, and concern over not knowinghow to conduct discussions. Then in aworkshop at schxool the investigatorsshowed the teachers, through actualtranscripts and practice in wait-time,how their concerns could be satisfied

They gave to each teacher an inge-nious electronic device for monitoringwait-time, The device flashed a redlight (wait!) until three seconds ofpausing had elapsed, then turned togreen (talk!). On Fridays the investiga-tors would come by to collect taperecordings of the classes; they ana-lyzed the tapes over the weekend; andthey returned to the school on Mon-days to give each teacher "supportiveintervention" in a private session overthe tape, an analysis that the investiga-tors had taken much care to makeencouraging rather than critical.

After one month of this training plussupportive intervention, the teacherstripled the duration of their wait-timewhile questioning, and the studentsdoubled the amount of their relevanttalk while responding or volunteeringcontributions. As for other concerns,the frequency of disciplinary com-ments dropped drastically.

Recommendations andResearchLike wait-time, "deliberate silence" isone of seven alternatives to question-ing suggested by Dillon (1979, 1981c,1983b) for use during discussion. At

El ,I(ATIONAI . LFA)EFRSHIP

I

the juncture whlere a student has os-tensibly finished speaking, the teachermay, instead of asking another ques-tion, choose to:

1. Make a declarative statement (forexample, give an opinion)

2 Make a reflective restatement(give the sense of what the student hassaid ).

3 Describe his or her state of mind('I'm sorryn I m not quite getting yourpoint").

4. Invite the student to elaborate(' Id like to hear more of your viewson that")

5. Encourage the student to ask aquestion

6. Encourage other students to ask aquestion.

7 Maintain deliberate, appreciativesilence (until the student resumes oranother enters into the discussion).

As for questions, I recommend thatthe discussion leader ask a questiononly when he or she is perplexed andneeds and wants to know the answer.Used together, these few "perplexityquestions" and the various alternativesshould foster students' cognitive, affec-tive, and expressive processes duringdiscussion.

These alternatives. which have beenelaborated from theoretical study ofquestioning, have scarcely been exam-ined in empirical research One studyof 26 high school discussions (Dillon,1981a) found that students respondedat least as much to statements as toquestions, if not more A case study often of these discussions (Dillon. 1984)found that hb contrast to questions, theuse of the various alternatives togetherresulted in more and better discus-sion: more student talk. more studentsparticipating, more student-studentreferences, more contributed topicsand experience from outside the les-son, more exploration, speculation.and student questions. In a series of

related but independent studies withpreschool and elementanr children,Wood and Wood (1983. 1984) discov-ered that by contrast to questions, theuse of statements and phatics resultedin longer responses and greater pupilinitiative in conversation (elaboratedanswers, volunteered contributions.and questions). Whether any of thismeans that students learn more hasnot been asked

ManualsSeveral reliable manuals are availablefor helping teachers learn to conductdiscussions or lead groups (Hill. 19'-.Miles. 1959: Ruddick, 19'9). But, ingeneral, some of the recommenda-tions about questioning in discussionmav be less reliable. Then. there aremany helpful manuals on questioning(for example. Blosser, 193. Carin andSund, 1978) But the recommenda-tions for questioning in discussionmay be less helpful. In contrast. only afew manuals are grounded in experi-ence (practice and/or research) withboth questioning and discussion.

In his discussion manual. Hyman(1980)-who also has a manual onquestioning (1979)-recommends care-fully planning the question for discus-sion, writing it out to make it clear,precise, short, relevant. and under-standable (pp. 30-31) Further. he sug-gests writing out an ordered set ofcentral questions that must be raisedduring the discussion. whether byteacher or students (p. 35) He givesexamples of these sets for varioustypes of discussion (pp. 45-4'). Thenhe gives guidelines for using the skillof questioning during the discussionitself, such as adopting a tone of seek-ing information, mixing other skillsalong with questioning. and pausingafter the question to allow time forthought (p. 7).

"Discussion ...cannot tike place ifstudents are afraidto speak fireely; [orif] teachers thnkstudent opinionsare not worthlistening to."

In my short manual on questioningin recitation and discussion (Dillon.1983b). I also recommend carefulpreparation of the question for discus-sion. To conceite an educaitre ques-tion requires thought: to formulate itrequires labor. and to pose it, tact" (p.8). A single, well-formulated questionis sufficient for an hour's discussion.The rule of thumb during discussion isnot to ask questions but to use variousalternative techniques. The notion isthat alternatives will foster discussionprocesses. whereas questions will foildiscussion by turning it into a recita-tion (see Dillon. 19'8. 1981c. 1984). Avariant rule of thumb is to ask ques-tions only vwhen perplexed and genu-inelv needing to know. One or twoperplexed questions in the midst ofmanv alternatives is likely to have apositive effect on discussion

AccountsOne of the most instructive ways tolearn how to conduct classroom dis-cussion is to read sensitive accounts byexperienced teachers. A few accountsrender the feel and fabric of a discus-sion in such an artful way that thereader can appreciate the sense of theproceedings while at the same timeapprehending the valuable lessonsthat underlie its success

Masterly accounts conveying bothconceptual and experiential senses ofdiscussion are given by Thelen (1972)

NOVEMBER 1984

l

of a classroom group investigation, bySchwab (1954) of the affective/intellec-tive aspects of teacher-student rela-tions during discussion, and by Mills(1964) of the transformation of alearning group. Roby's (1984) accountshows how a rhetoric of questions wasused to turn a wrangling controversyover racism into an educative deliber-ation.

ConchusionTo start with, we need to ask somequestions about questioning and dis-cussion. The three generic questionsare pedagogical. empirical, and theo-retical ones: How does one teach bydiscussion? What is the character ofdiscussion? What are its nature andkinds? The answers are knowledge inaction, observation, and conception.For each of these kinds of questionsthere are any number of specific ques-tions. Most of the answers are un-known, since most of the questionsremain unasked by researchers.

When researchers begin to askthese questions as widely and pointed-lv as teachers do, then we shall allenjoy a measure of groun'led knowl-edge about questioning id discus-sion. At that point a fut. re reviewerwill have more research to review andcan begin by' savying what I could not:We know a good deal about question-ing and discussion.[l

References

Blosser. P E Handbook of EffectiteQuestioning Techniques. Worthington,Ohio: Education Associates, 1973

Bridges. D. Education, Democracy andDiscussion Windsor, England: NFER, 1979

Carin. A A., and Sund, R. B. CreatiteQuestioning and Listening Techniques.2nd ed Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1978

Dillon,J T. '"Using Questions to DepressStudent Thought" School Retieu 87(1978): 50-63

Dillon, J. T 'Alternatives to Question-ing.' High School ournal 62 (1979): 217-222

Dillon, J T 'Duration of Response toTeacher Questions and Statements." Con-temporary Educational Psvchology 6(1981a): 1-11

Dillon. J T 'Discussion Characteristicsin a Sample of Religion and Social StudiesClasses. ' Character Potential: A Record ofResearch 9 (1981b): 203-205

Dillon, J. T "To Question and Not toQuestion During Discussion I Question-

ing and Discussion I1. Non-QuestioningTechniques Journal of Teacher Educa-tion 32, 5 & 6 (1981c): 51 55, 15-20.

Dillon, J T 'The Effect of Questions inEducation and Other Enterprises 'Journalof Curriculum Studies 14 (1982a): 127-152

Dillon, J T. Cognitive CorrespondenceBetween Question/Statement and Re-sponse American Educational ResearchJournal 19 (1982b): 540-951

Dillon,J T ''Male-Female Similarities inClass Participation '"Journal of Education-al Research 5 (1982c): 350-353

Dillon, J. T 'Cognitive Complexity andDuration of Classroom Speech. Inutruc-ional Science 12 (1983a): 59-66

Dillon, J. T Teaching and the Art ofQuestioning. Bloomington. Ind: Phi DeltaKappa, 1983h (Fastback No 194).

Dillon. J T '"Using Questions to FoilDiscussion, Manuscript submitted forpublication, 1984

Francis. E Learning to Discuss Edinburgh, Scotland: Moray Hlouse College ofEducation, Holyrood Road. 1982

Francis, E "Discussion Across the Cur-riculum." Teaching English (Spring 1984):20-23

Gall. M D 'Discussion Methods ofTeaching. International Fncyclopedia ofEducation, in press

Gall. M D. 'Svnthesis of Research onQuestioning in Recitation EducationalLeadersbip 42, 3 (194)

Gall, M. D., and Gall.J P The DiscussionMethod" Psvchology of Teaching Methods(NSSE 75th Yearbook. Part 1) Edited hy NL Gage Chicago: Universitv of ChicagoPress. 1976

Gooding. C T, Swift, P R.. and Swift,J. N"Improving and Encouraging Discussionsin the Classroxm.' Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Eastern EducationalResearch Association. Baltimore, Md., Feb-ruary 1983. (ERIC ED 229 338).

Goodlad,J I. A Place Called.chool. NewYork: McGraw-lHill, 1984

Hill, W F Learning Through Discussion,2nd ed. rev Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage,1977

Hyman, R T. Strategic Questioning En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979

Hyman. R T Improving DiscussionLeadership New York: Teachers College.1980

Johnson, M C Discussion fD1namicsRowley, Mass.: Newbury, 1979

McGee, C. F "Classroom Questioningand Discussion" SET Research Informa-tionfor Teachers 1 (1981): Item 9

Miles, M. B. Learning to Work in GroupsA Program Guidefor Educational LeadersNew York: Teachers College. 1959 (Re-printed 1973)

Mills, T M Group Transformation AnAnalisis of a Learning Group EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-lall, 1964

Nelson. M. A. "Discussion Strategies andLearning Science Principles." Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching 10 (1973):25-38

Robv, T. W A Rhetoric of Questions forTeaching Philosophy" Paper presented atthe fall meeting of the Association for theDevelopment of Philosophy Teaching,Springfield, Ill, October 1979

Roby, T W "Bull Sessions, Quiz Showsand Discussions' Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Los Angeles,April 1981

Roby, T W 'Deliberation and the Arts ofTeaching." Paper presented at the Ameri-can Educational Research Association. NewOrleans. April 1984

Rudduck, J. ed. Learning to TeachThrough Discussion Norwich, England:Centre for Applied Research in Education(University of East Anglia), 1979

Schwab, J J "Eros and Education: ADiscussion of One Aspect of Discussion"Journal of General Education 8 (1954):54-71 (Reprinted in Science. Curriculum,and Liberal Education Edited hb I West-bury and N J Wilkof Chicago: Universityof Chicago, 1978)

Sirotnik, K A. "What You See Is WhatYou Get-Consistency, Persistency, andMediocritv in Classrooxms" llanard Edu-cational Retieu 53 (1983): 16-31

Stodolskv, S S., Ferguson. T L, andWimpelberg, K '"The Recitation Persists,But What Does It Look Like?" Journal ofCurriculum Studies 13 (1981): 121-130

Swift. J N., ed. "Research on TeacherQuestioning Behavior and Wait Time inClassroom Discussion." Anthology of sev-en papers presented at the annual meetingof the New England Educational ResearchOrganization, Rockport, Maine, April 1983

Swift,J. N. Swift, P R. and Gooding, C T."Observed Changes in Classroom Behav-ior Utilizing Supportive Intervention ' Pa-per presented at the annual meeting of theNational Association for Research in Sci-ence Teaching. New Orleans, April 1984

Swift, J N. and Gooding, C T "Interac-tion of Wait Time Feedback and Questioning Instruction on Middle School ScienceTeaching." Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 20 (1983): 721-730

Thelen. Ii A. Education and the IlumanQuest Chicago: nversirt of Chicago,1972.

Thelen, I1 A The Classroom SocietyLondon: Croom Helm. 1981

Wood. fl, and W(x)d, D "Questioningthe Pre-School Child.' Educational Review35 (1983): 149-162

Wood, 11., and Wood, D An Experimen-tal Evaluation of the Effects of Five Styles ofTeacher Conversation on the Language ofHearing-Impairing Children" Journal ofChild Psychology and Psvchiatry 25 (1984):45-62

56 Erll T(llTON)A. I FA)ERSHIP

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.