Synthesis of Researchon Teachers' Questioning

MEREDITH GALL

he hundreds of questions thetypical American teacher asks ona typical day reflect the great

popularity of the recitation method Arecitation is basically a series of teach-er questions (usually about textbookcontent), each eliciting a student re-sponse and sometimes a teacher reac-tion to that response.

The prevalence of teaching by reci-tation has been found in previousreviews of research on teachers' ques-tions. which include studies goingback to the turn of the century (Gall,1970; Hoetker and Ahlbrand, 1969).Recent studies of classroom teaching(Dillon, 1982a; Durkin, 1978; Sirotnik,1983) confirm that the recitation meth-od is still widely used.

Because questions occur so fre-quenthl in classroom teaching, we areled to wonder about their effects on

students Do teachers' questions helpstudents learn the curriculums Dothey promote the development ofthinking skills' Are some questioningpractices more effective than others?Research prior to 1970 provided fewanswers to these important questions;since then, however, many relevantinvestigations have been carried out

Effects of Fact and HigherCognitive QuestionsResearchers have developed many sys-tems for classifying teacher questions(Gall, 1970), but they usually simplifytheir data analyses by classifying all

teacher questions into just two catego-ries: fact and higher cognitive Factquestions require students to recallpreviously presented information,whereas higher cognitive questionsrequire students to engage in inde-pendent thinking

Meredith D Gall bi Professor, D ision ofTeacher Education, College of Education.Uni ersint of Oregon, Eugene

El)l(AmliONAI. LIMU)FRSFIIP

sM�n

Do students learn more when teach-ers emphasize fact questions or whenthev emphasize higher cognitive ques-tions? When l)unkin and Biddle(1974) and Rosenshine (1971) re-viewed early studies on this problem(most of them from the 1960s). theycould find no clear trends in the re-search results Heath and Nielsen(1974) strongly criticized these studiesfor their methodological flaws

Rosenshine (1976) subsequently re-viewed a set of three large correlation-al studies completed in the early1970s. fHe interpreted their results asindicating that students learn bestwhen teacher questions "tend to benarrow, pupils are expected to knowrather than guess [the I answer, and theteacher immediately reinforces an an-swer as right or wrong" (p 365)."Narrow" was Rosenshine's term for afact question

In addition to the correlational stud-ies reviewed bv Rosenshine, experi-ments have been conducted on theeffects of emphasizing fact or highercognitive questions in recitations.These experiments were reviewed bvWinne (1979), who concluded that"whether teachers use predominantlyhigher cognitive questions or predom-inantly fact questions makes little dif-ference in student achievement" (p.43).

The same set of 18 experimentsreviewed by Winne, plus rwo addition-al experiments, were subsequently re-viewed by Redfield and Rousseau(1981 ) Instead of using Winne's "vot-ing method" to pool results acrossexperiments, they turned to the moresophisticated method of meta-analvsis.Redfield and Rousseau concluded that"predominant use of higher levelquestions during instruction has a pos-itive effect on student achievement"(p. 241). They did not dehne 'pre-dominant use,' hut it probably meant

a recitation in which at least '5 per-cent of the questions are at the highercognitive level. Student achievementin the experiments was measured bytests requiring fact recall and demon-stration of thinking skills.

Thus, the Rosenshine review andthe Redfield and Rousseau reviewreached firm but contradictory conclu-sions about the effectiveness of factand higher cognitive questions. Thecontradiction, can be resolved. I think.bv analyzing the student populationsrepresented in the two reviews. Eachstudy reviewed bv Rosenshine in-volved disadvantaged primary gradechildren The studies reviewed bvRedfield and Rousseau involved stu-dents representing a much widerrange of ability and grade levels. Tak-ing this difference into account. Iwould conclude that (1) emphasis onfact questions is more effective forpromoting young disadvantaged chil-dren's achievement, which primarilyinvolves mastery of basic skills. and (2)emphasis on higher cognitive ques-tions is more effective for students ofaverage and high ability, especially asthev enter high school. where moreindependent thinking is required.While empbasizing fact questions,teachers of young disadvantaged chil-dren should take care to include somehigher cognitive questions to stimu-late development of their thinkingskills

Additional evidence favoring highercognitive questions is found in re-search on the effects of hav ing stu-dents answer questions that are insert-ed evern few paragraphs in a textbookpassage Andre (1979) reviewed thisresearch and concluded that highercognitive questions generally facilitatebetter textbook learning than do factquestions.

Teachers' questionsthat requirestudents to thinkindependently andthose that requirerecall ofinformation areboth useful butserve differentpurposes. Thechallenge forteachers is to useeach type to its bestadvantage.

NOVEMBER 1984

Despite the demonstrated effective-ness of higher cognitive questions,most teachers do not emphasize themin pracuce. In an earlier research re-view, I concluded: "About 60 percentof teachers' questions require studentsto recall facts; about 20 percent re-quire students to think; and the re-maining 20 percent are procedural"(Gall, 1970, p 713). This conclusioncontinues to be supported by recentobservational studies of classroomteaching (Hare and Pulliam, 1980). Itappears that teachers emphasize factquestions, whereas research indicatesthat an emphasis on higher cognitivequestions would be more effective.

The Process of AnsweringTeacher QuestionsThe research reviewed above does notexplain the process by which fact andhigher cognitive questions-affect learn-ing. Recent efforts to conceptualizeand study this process (Gall, 1983)have shed new light on why questionsof a certain type may facilitate learningin some students, but not in others.

The typical teacher question occursin a recitation after students have beenexposed to new curriculum content,usually by reading the textbook. An-swering such a question appears toinvolve five steps.

1 Attend to the Question. The firststep is to listen to the question as it isasked. Students who are off-task whenthe question is asked will be unable togenerate a response or to profit fromlistening to another student's re-sponse The need for attending mayexplain why research on young, slow-learning students has found that it iseffective for teachers to ask narrow,easily answered questions and to useinstructional behaviors that engagestudents' attention (Rosenshine, 1976).

2. Decipher the Mleaning of theQuestion If the student has attendedto the teacher's question, the next stepis to decipher its syntax to determinewhat is being asked. Gullo (1983)found that young children often can-

"Recitationsgenerally have agreater positiveeffect on students'intentional learningthan on theirincidentallearning."

not figure out what the question asksthem to do For example, when theword what appeared as the objectterm of a question, 85 percent of thechildren in his research sample couldanswer it correctly. When uhat appeared as the subject term, however,only 21 percent of the children couldanswer it correctly

The ways teachers phrase questionscan create difficulties for older stu-dents, too. Because teachers often gen-erate questions spontaneously, somequestions are likely to be poorlyphrased. In everyday discourse, wecan handle the problem by asking forclarification. In classroom situations,however, students mav feel awkwardabout making such a request becauseit may be seen as criticism of theteacher.

3. Generate a Covert Response. Stu-dents need to think of an answerbefore they can put it into words. Togenerate the covert response, studentsmust have relevant information storedin memory or available in curriculummaterials; and they must possess ap-propriate cognitive abilities for manip-ulating this information

An indirect measure of students'ability to generate a covert response isthe degree of congruence between thecognitive level of the teacher's ques-tion and the cognitive level of thestudent's response Several studies(Dillon, 1982a; Mills and others, 1980;Willson, 1973) found that only abouthalf of students' responses were at thesame cognitive level as the teachers'questions. Of the incongruent re-sponses, Dillon and Willson found thatfrom one-third to one-half were at alower cognitive level than the teach-er's question.

These results run counter to thepopular belief, "Ask a higher-level

42ED)Ic~rIONAL LFADERSHIP

question, get a higher-level answer"(Lamb, 1976) Instead, a higher cogni-tive question poses a cognitive chal-lenge that the student may or may notbe able to meet Training teachers inquestioning techniques has beenshown to reduce the incidence ofquestion-answer cognitive incongruity(Klinzing-Eurich and Klinzing, 1982),but the process bv which the reduc-tion occurs is unclear.

Cognitive level is just one aspect ofthe student's response to a question.Gall (1970) and Rvan (1972) identifiedadditional aspects, including whethereach assertion contained in the re-sponse is clear, plausible, original,supported, and conditional.

The complexity of these responsecharacteristics suggests that teachersshould give students sufficient time tothink before expecting a verbal re-sponse Rowe (1974) found, however,that most teachers wait only one sec-ond for a response before repeatingthe question, calling on another stu-dent, or making a comment. Recentstudies (Swift and Gooding, 1983; To-bin and Capie, 1982) found that ex-tending wait time for several secondshas beneficial effects, including im-proved student engagement and long-er verbal responses. In related re-search, Dillon (1981a) found thatlength of student responses increasedwhen teachers asked fewer questionsper minute

These research findings argueagainst the common practice of rapid-fire questioning, which gives studentslittle time to generate a substantialcovert response followed by a substan-tial overt response.

4. Generate an O ert Response. Gen-erating a coven response to the teach-er's question does not ensure that thestudent will generate an overt re-sponse. A student may compete for

"About 60 percent of teachers'questions require students to recallfacts; about 20 percent require studentsto think; and the remaining 20 percentare procedural."

"air time" with other students but notbe called on to respond. Also, somestudents maintain a low profile so theteacher won't call on them.

Researchers have investigatedwhether there is sv'stematic bias inwho gives overt responses to teacherquestions. Jackson and Cosca (1974)found that teachers of ethnicallymixed classes were more likely toaddress questions to white studentsthan to Mexican-American students.Also, white students responded moreoften to teacher questions, and morefrequently initiated remarks of theirown.

Lockheed and Hall (1975) conclud-ed from their review of research thatboys are more likely than girls tospeak in class discussions. However,recent studies (Dillon, 1982b; Good,Cooper, and Blakey, 1980) have foundslight or no differences in boys' andgirls' opportunities to respond inclass.

The consequences of teacher bias ingiving students the opportunity to re-spond are not well understood. Covertresponses evoked by the teacher'squestions, or listening to another stu-dent's overt response, mav be mostcritical for learning. If so, the studentwho listens carefully during the recita-tion or who answers each questioncovertly would learn as much informa-

tion as students who give oral respons-es. On the other hand, the student'sown thoughts may not be fully clan-fied and developed until put intowords.

5. Rerise tbe Responrse. The studentmay rethink a covert or overt responseto the teacher's question dependingon what happens next. If the teacherredirects the same question to some-one else, some students will revisetheir response in light of their class-mate's contributions. Another optionfor the teacher is to ask one studentprobing questions that lead to improv-ing the original response

Wright and Nuthall (1970) foundthat teacher redirection of questionswas positively correlated with studentlearning gains, but subsequent experi-mental research by Hughes (1971)failed to replicate this effect. In otherresearch Rilev (1981) found a positiveeffect for teacher redirection, but mycolleagues and I found no effect forteacher redirection used in conjunc-tion with probing questions (Gall andothers. 19'8).

The reason for these inconsistentfindings may lie in how teacher redi-rection and probing were conductedin each study. That is, these instruc-tional behaviors mav have no effectunless they are explicitly focused onimproving particular response criteria

NOVEMBER 1984 43

II

I

(for example, clarity, plausibility, andaccuracy).

Redirection and probing do not ex-haust the possibilities for teacher re-sponse following the student's answer.Duffy (1983) suggested that teacherscan facilitate learning by providingexplanations that clarify and correctthe student's response. Another optionis to acknowledge the student's re-sponse by accepting and building onit. Researchers have conducted manystudies of this technique as it wasconceptualized by Flanders (1970).Gage (1978) concluded from his re-view of this research that teacher ac-ceptance of student ideas is positivelycorrelated with student learning gains.

The Effectiveness ofRedtationsMost research on teacher questionsover the past two decades has investi-gated the effectiveness of recitations inwhich questions vary in cognitive lev-el. A more basic issue, however, iswhether recitations, irrespective ofcognitive level, are effective. Wouldstudents learn as much if teachers didnot use the recitation method to helpthem review a section of the textbookthat they have just read?

Few researchers have addressedthis question directly. One relevantstudy (Gall and others, 1978) com-pared the learning of students whoparticipated in a series of recitationswith the learning of other students.Both groups had read the same text-book passages beforehand. The re-searchers found that students who par-ticipated in the recitations performedbetter than the no-recitation group onvarious measures of fact and highercognitive learning.

Research on questions inserted inthe text has yielded similar resultsFaw and Waller (1976) and Andre(1979) reviewed research on the effec-tiveness of having the students readtextbook passages with and withoutinserted questions. They concludedthat students generally learn morewhen the passages contain insertedquestions.

Questions apparently are moreeffective than no questions, but theyare not necessarily the most effectiveinstructional alternative. Dillon (1978)strongly criticized the effectiveness ofteacher questions and proposed sever-al nonquestioning alternatives such as"declaration of perplexity" and "delib-erate silence" (1981b). The effective-

Ii"Improving the quality of teachers'questions is not sufficient. Students alsoneed to learn the response requirementsof different types of questions."

ness of these techniques relative totraditional recitation, however, has notbeen tested.

Why is recitation effective? Analysisof the recitation process suggests fourreasons.

Practice and Feedback Effect. Stu-dents usually participate in a recitationimmediately or soon after readingtextbook content The recitation givesstudents an opportunity to practicerecalling the content and thinkingabout it. They also receive feedbackabout the accuracy and quality of theiranswers. Thus, recitation incorporatestwo processes, practice and feedback,which are of proven effectiveness instrengthening knowledge and skills.

Cueing Fffect Recitation questionsprovide cues that may focus students'attention on particular information inthe text. Evidence for this function ofquestions comes from research onintentional and incidental learning. In-tentional learning involves the learn-ing of textbook content that is re-hearsed by recitation questions,whereas incidental learning involvesthe learning of textbox)k content that isnot rehearsed.

Recitations generally have a greaterpositive effect on students' intentionallearning than on their incidental learn-ing (Gall and others, 1978) In otherwords, students perform better onend-of-unit test items that have beenasked previously as recitation ques-tions than they do on test questionsthey have not heard before. This sug-gests that when students hear a ques-tion during recitation, they are likelyto rehearse the answer carefully. Stu-dents do this because they develop anexpectation, based on experience, thatthe same question will be included ona subsequent test Conversely, theydevote low study effort, or none at all,to textbook content not covered in therecitation

44 Fii oxlio',,sl LEADERŽ,HIP

I 1

44 EI)UCATIONAL LEADEL.sHIP

The hypothesized cueing effect ofquestions may explain a perplexingeffect obtained in two experiments(Gall and others, 1978; Riley, 1981). Inboth experiments, students who par-ticipated in recitations containing 50percent higher cognitive questionslearned less well than did studentswhose recitations contained either amuch lower or much higher percent-age of higher cognitive questions.Since the 50 percent recitations didnot emphasize either fact or highercognitive questions, students may havebecome confused about the recita-tions' objective-was it to rehearsefacts or to think about them? In con-trast, students whose recitations em-phasized one type of question or theother rehearsed the textbook contentwithout the distraction of having tosecond-guess the teacher's intent.

Instruction and Test Simdilai,. Thequestion-and-answer format of recita-

tion parallels closely the conventionaltest format for determining theamount of student learning at the endof a curriculum unit. This format con-sists of written test questions requiringa multiple-choice or short-answer re-sponse. Thus, the student perform-ance elicited by recitation transfersdirectly to the performance requiredon most school tests. The practiceprovided by recitation certainly ap-pears more relevant to subsequenttesting than the practice provided bysuch instructional methods as lectureand inquiry teaching.

ModaliOt) Effect. Researchers havefound that elementary school studentsare more engaged during teacher-ledactivities than during seatwork activi-ties (Rosenshine, 1980). And they aremost engaged when teacher-led activi-ties involve recitations with an aca-demic focus.

One explanation for these findingsis that recitations involve speaking andlistening, whereas seatwork involvesreading and writing. For many stu-dents, speaking and listening may bemore motivating and less demandingthan reading and writing. This expla-nation is speculative but sufficientlycompelling to warrant further re-search on the effectiveness of recita-tion and how it can complement in-structional methods that emphasizeother communication modalities.

Implications of Research forPracticeThe research on teacher questionschallenges typical classroom practicein several respects. For example, re-searchers have found that emphasis onhigher cognitive questions generallyproduces better learning than empha-sis on fact questions. There is no lackof books and pamphlets encouragingteachers to ask more higher cognitivequestions, but apparently their admo-

ii". . . teacheracceptance ofstudent ideas ispositivelycorrelated withstudent learninggains."

NOVEMBER 1984 45

NOVEMBER 1984 45

"In classroom situations ...students may feel awkward about[asking for clarification of aquestion] because it might be seenas criticism of the teacher."

nitions have had little influence onclassroom instruction. Educators needto search for more effective ways toinfluence teachers' instructional be-havior.

Another challenge for practicecomes f;om research on the question-answering process. The findings dem-onstrate clearly that teacher questionsdo not necessarily elicit good studentanswers. Improving the quality ofteachers' questions, then, is not suffi-cient. Students also need to learn theresponse requirements of differenttypes of questions. Recent work onthis problem has yielded promisingresults. For example, Raphael and Mc-Kinnev (1983) found that elementaryschool students were able to learnseveral question-answer relationshipsand use this knowledge to improvetheir reading comprehension.

Finally, educators need to come togrips with the question posed byHoetker and Ahlbrand: "If the recita-tion is a poor pedagogical method, asmost teacher educators have long be-lieved, why have they not been able todeter teachers from using it?" (1969, p.163). Part of the answer may be in theresearch findings reviewed here:teachers use recitation because it iseffective in helping students learn thecurriculum, which is largely textbook-based. Since there are few signs thatthis curriculum approach is changing,teachers will continue to use thismethod. Rather than trying to deterteachers from using recitation, there-fore, teacher educators mav be betteradvised to help them learn use itwell. E

References

Andre, T. "Does Answering Higher-LevelQuestions While Reading Facilitate Produc-tive Learning?" Review of Educational Re-search 49 (1979): 280-318

Dillon,J T. Using Questions to DepressStudent Thought." School Reviewu 87(1978): 50-63

Dillon, J T "Duration of Response toTeacher Questions and Statements." Con-temporarv Educational Psychology 6(1981a): 1-11.

Dillon, J. T "To Question and Not toQuestion During Discussions, II. Non-Questioning Techniques" Journal ofTeacherEducation 32 (1981b): 15-20

Dillon, J T "Cognitive CorrespondenceBetween Question/Statement and Re-sponse." American Educational ResearchJournal 19 (1982a): 540-551

Dillon, J T. "Male-Female Similarities inClass Participation."Journal of Education-al Research 75 (1982b): 350-353.

Duffy, G. G. "From Turn Taking to SenseMaking: Broadening the Concept of Read-ing Teacher Effectiveness. "Journal of Edu-cational Research 76 (1983): 134-139

Dunkin, M J., and Biddle, B. J. The Studyof Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 1974.

Durkin, D "What Classroom Observa-tions Reveal About Reading Comprehen-sioi Instruction."' Reading Research Quar-terly 15 (1978-79): 481-533

Faw, H. W., and Waller, T. G "Mathema-genic Behaviors and Efficiency in LearningFrom Prose Materials: Review, Critique,Recommendations." Review of Education-al Research 46 (1976): 691-720

Flanders, N. A. Analyzing Teaching Be-havior. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1970

Gage, N. L. The Scientific Basis of the Artof Teaching. New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1978

Gall, M. D "The Use of Questions in

Teaching." Revtew of Educational Re-search 40 (1970): 707-721.

Gall, M. D. "Reactions to Recent Re-search on Questions." Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Association, Montreal, April 1983.

Gall, M. D,; Ward, B A.; Berliner, D C;Cahen, L. S.; Winne, P. H.; Elashoff, J D;and Stanton, G. C. "Effects of QuestioningTechniques and Recitation on StudentLearning." American Educational Re-searchJournal 15 (1978): 175-199.

Good, T. L; Cooper, H M; and Blakey, SL. "Classroom Interaction as a Function ofTeacher Expectations, Student Sex, andTime of Year" Journal of EducationalPsycholoogy 72 (1980): 378-385

Gullo, D F. "Cognitive Responses toQuestioning." Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Montreal, April 1983

Hare, V C., and Pulliam, C A. "TeacherQuestioning A Verification and an Exten-sion" Journal of Reading Behavior 12(1980): 69-72

Heath, R. W., and Nielson, M A. "TheResearch Basis for Performance-BasedTeacher Education " Review of Education-alResearch 44 (1974): 463-484

Hoetker, J., and Ahlbrand, W P, Jr. "ThePersistence of the Recitation" AmericanEducational Research Journal 6 (1969):145-67

Hughes, D C 'The Effects of CertainConditions of Pupil Participation andTeacher Reacting on the Achievement ofForm 2 Pupils." Educational ResearchNewsletter 4 (1971): 12-14

Jackson, G, and Cosca, C "The Inequal-it' of Educational Opportunity in theSouthwest: An Observational Study of Eth-nically Mixed Classrooms'' American Edu-cational Research Journal 11 (1974): 219-229

Klinzing-Eurich, G, and Klinzing, H. G"Reducing the Incongruities BetweenTeacher Questions and Student Responses:The Effects of a Training Program." Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAustralian Association for Research inTeaching, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,1982.

Lamb, W G. "'Ask a Higher-l~evel Ques-tion, Get a Higher-Level Answer" ScienceTeacher 43 (1976): 22-23

Lockheed, M E, and Hall, K. P "Sex as aStatus Characteristic-The Role of FormalTheory in Developing Leadership TrainingStrategies." Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Sociological Asso-ciation, San Francisco, August 1975.

Mills, S R.; Rice, C. T; Berliner, D C.;and Rousseau, E W "The CorrespondenceBetween Teacher Questions and StudentAnswers in Classroom Discourse." Journalof Experimental Education 48 (1980):194-204

Raphael, T E, and McKinney, J "An

Erll WATIONAI. LEADERsIIIP

I

I

46

Examination of Fifth and Eighth-GradeChildren's Question-Answering Behavior:An Instructional Studs in MetacognitionJournal of Reading FBeIarior 15 (1983):6--86

Redheld, D L, and Rousseau, E W'Meta-Analvsis of Experimental Research

on Teacher Questioning Behavior " Reviewof Educational Re.scarch S1 (1981) 23 7 -

24iSRiles, I P l'Ihe Effects of Presersice

Teachers Cognitive Questioning Level andRedirecting on Student Science Achieve-ment" lournal of Researh in ScienceTeaching 18 (1981) 303 309

Rosenshine. B leaching Behar'iors andStudentAchieteiment Slough, England: Na-tional Foundation foir Educational Re-search in England and Wales. 19'1

Rosenshine. B Classroom Instruction."In Psi.chologli' O? Teadching Met:lods. TheSe ent lo-Fifth Yearbook of the National So-ciet, for the Studr of Education, Part IEdited hb N L Gage Chicago: 'niversity ofChicago Press, 19-6

Rosenshine, B V I low Time Is Spent inElementan' Classrxims In Time to LearnEdited bh Carolyn Denham and Ann Lie-herman Washington. D C ' S Depart-ment of Education and National Institute ofEducation. 1980

Rowe, M B "Wait-Time and Rewards asInstructional 'Variables Their Influence onLanguage, Logic, and Fate Control Part IWait-Time Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 11 (19'74): 81-94

Rytan, F L. "Analy7ing the QuestioningActivits of Students and Teachers." CollegeSttdent Journal 6 ( 19'2): 116-123

Sirotnik, K A "What You See is WhatYou Get-Consistenc., Persistenc', andMediocrity in Classrooms" Harard Edu-cational Rerieu, 53 (1983): 16-31

Swift. J N. and Gooding, C T. 'lnterac-tion of Wait Time Feedback and Question-ing Instruction on Middle School ScienceTeaching. Journal of Research on ScienceTeaching 20 (1983): -21-'30

Tobin, K G. and Capie, W 'Relation-ships Between Classroom Process Varia-bles and Middle Sch(x)l Science Achieve-ment ''ournafl of Educational Pschology,' (1982): 441 4S4

Willson. I A "Changes in Mean Levels ofThinking in Grades 1-8 Through LUse of anInteraction Analysis Svstem Based onBloom's T':xonomn' .Journal of Fduca-tional Research ,6 ( 19-3) 423 429

Winne, P II 'Experiments RelatingTeachers tUse of Itigher Cognitive Ques-tions to Student Achievement Revieuw ofEducational Research, 49 (19'9) 13-50.

Wright. C I, and Nuthall, G 'Relation-ships Between Teacher Behaviors and Pu-pil Achievement in Three ExperimentalElementary Science Lessons." AmericanEducational Researcd, ournlal - (1970):4'"-491

CHARLES C THOMAS * PUBLISHERNew! EDUCATING HISPANICSTUDENTS: Cultural Implications forInstruction, Classroom Management,Counseling and Assessment by HerbertGrossman. Based on a survey of 500 in-dividuals, this text offers educators andcounselors a clear picture of the culturalcharacteristics of Hispanics living in theUnited States and suggests methods foreffectively working with Hispanic stu-dents and parents. The core of the bookdiscusses the survey results in light oftheir impact on instruction, classroommanagement, counseling, and assess-ment Dec '84, about $29 50

New! THE TEACHING OF WRIT-ING: A Practical Program to the Com-posing Process That Works by John H.Bushman. Here is an activity-orientedprogram for teaching writing to studentsin the fifth through twelfth grades. Theauthor conveys an understandingof the process approach to writing, andhe furnishes numerous activities withwhich to apply it The readability of thetext reflects well on the author's grasp ofhis subject, and the content, while pos-sessed of a solid theoretical foundation,is practical rather than ponderous '84S19 75

New! EFFECTIVE READING IN-STRUCTION by Richard A. Thompsonand Irene A. Allen. Directed primarilyto reading consultants, this book ex-amines such topics as the role of ad-ministration in the reading program.characteristics of successful in-serviceprograms, and functions of the consul-tant The authors provide four modelprograms, lay out the organization ofthe total reading program, and suggestways to develop reading skills in generaland in content areas. 84. $16 75

New! 200 SELECTED FILM CLAS-SICS FOR CHILDREN OF ALL AGES:Where to Obtain Them and How toUse Them by Phillip 1. Sleeman,Bernard Queenan and Francelia Butler.This guide to selecting, scheduling andprogramming quality feature films in-cludes descriptions of over 200 filmclassics Film quality and the literaryquality of the books on which the filmsare based receive attention as do filmrental, distributors, film care, and pro-jector use. '84, $19 75

New! WRITING A PUBLISHABLERESEARCH REPORT: In Education,Psychology, and Related Disciplines byRonald P. Carver. Although designedexpressly for inceptive researchers, theformat and content of this book also willappeal to veteran researchers and tostudents. The author conveys to all theskills and techniques that boost thechances for acceptance. He detailseach part of the manuscript, shows howto organize the whole, and identifiespitfalls. 84. $78 75

New! METHODS AND TECH-NIQUES OF HOLISTIC EDUCATIONedited by Isadore L. Sonnier. Contribu-tors explore, among other topics, therole of brain lateralization in learningand behavior modification, nature ofhuman brain hemispheres, pedagogy ofneuroeducation, schooling's uncon-scious bias against the right-brainedchild, holistic teaching, holistic educa-tion in social studies/Spanish, relatingPiagetian theory with hemisphericity,teaching children that they can deter-mine their own destinies, and self-directed holistic education Nov. 84,about $19.50

New! COPING WITH TODAY'SKIDS by Leslie 1. Chamberlin. A wealthof information on behavior and disci-pline is offered in this handbook. Theauthor explains why discipline breaksdown, shows how to prevent the prob-lem, offers an approach that empha-sizes the positive aspects of varioussituations, and describes how to correctthose situations that get out of hand.Topics covered include understandingtoday's kids: the origins, sources, andcauses of problems; and improving totalschool discipline. '84. $19 75

New! WHY MANY COLLEGETEACHERS CANNOT LECTURE: Howto Avoid Communication Breakdownin the Classroom by Ion G. Penner.Ways to prepare and present lecturesthat hold students' attention and getthem involved in the teaching-learningprocess are described in this text. Theauthor discusses diverse aspects ofclassroom communication, identifiescommon obstacles to communication,and suggests specific methods to im-prove communication. 84, $21.75

NOVEMBFR 1984 4-

Order direct for fastest results · Write or call (217) 789-980 · Books sent on approvalMlailrCard 0tia & prepaid order. sent p4o(pald · Calalog wnl on reqUet

2600 South First Street . Springfield . Illinois · 62717

1

NOVEMBER 1984 4'

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