Research on Questioning

and Discussion

Research illuminating J. T. DILLON

the use of questions in
classroom discussion o sum up, we do not know much on the more developed efforts rather
is fragmented about questioning and discus- than describing each individual study
sion. We have a volume of re-
and scarce. True search on questioning-but not in dis
on this or that detail

discussion (as cussion. We have a body of research

on discussion-but not in classrooms.
distinguished from What we have is bits and pieces; the Distinctions Between
recall-oriented rest of the picture is blank. Recitation and Discussion
recitation) is rarer Most of what we know is either not
known from research or is not public-
The first question is one of semantics.
What does discussion mean? To which
still. Iv known. The literature contains few classroom events shall we apply the
studies but plenty of opinions and free term?
advice in essav articles, methods texts, Picture a teacher and a group of
and manuals The greater part of students talking back and forth. This
knowledge is not contained in the interaction can take two generic
literature at all but is privately held by forms.
skilled teachers as intuitive, implicit, Recitation describes the familiar
knowledge-in -action. form, which is characterized by
In the face of bits and pieces of (among other aspects) recurring se-
research, this review will concentrate quences of teacher question plus stu-
dent answer, where students "recite"
T7 Dillon is Associate Professor, School of what they already know or are coming
Education, Uniersii, of California, River- to know through the questioning. Rec-
side itation is a rubric covering various
EL)l (CATIONAL LEADERSHIP
activities called review, drill. quiz, questions soliciting student opinions tioning and discussion are left to re-
guided discovery, inquirn teaching, and thoughts, not just right answers view.
Socratic method. (Stodolskv. Ferguson, and Wimpel-
Discussion describes group interac- berg, 1981, p. 123). For Dillon (1981a. Concepts of Discussion.
tion not of this character. Discussion is p. 2). a class was counted as a discus- W'hat is the nature and what are'the
a rubric, too, covering various activi- sion if the teacher planned to have a kinds of discussion?
ties in which teacher and students discussion, if the students rated it as a This is a theoretical question, and
"discuss" what thev don't know. discussion, and if students accounted few theories are available to answer it.
This review covers questioning dur- for at least 40 percent of the total talk. One articulate and encompassing con-
ing discussion; the companion review For an extensive specification of many ception has been worked out by
by Meredith Gall (pp 40-4') covers other differences between recitation Bridges (19'9) in Education, Democ-
questioning during recitation. and discussion, see Dillon. 1981c. raci' and DI)scrssion. Bridges asks,
More specific distinctions have been Most studies make no distinction at .What are the necessary and sufficient
drawn by scholars For Gall, recitation all but call an\r kind of teacher-student logical conditions for saving that peo-
is characterized bv teacher-student in- talk discussion One must therefore ple are engaged in the discussion of
teraction and discussion bv student- look at the thing being studied in something? His answer followvs:
student interaction; recitation depends order to find out what kind of thing it (a) Thev are putting forward more
on recall of curriculum content while is. As a result of doing just that, this than one point of view upon a subject:
discussion calls for complex thinking review excludes man\ studies on "dis- (b) The- are at least disposed to
processes and attitude change (Gall cussion' that actuallv turn out to studs examine and to be responsive to the
and Gall, 1976, p. 168). For Stodolskl, recitation and so more properli figure different points of view put forward:
discussion involves longer exchanges, in another review lJohnson, 19'9: with
exchanges among students as well as McGee. 1981: Nelson, 1973). One con- (c) The intention of developing
between teacher and students, and sequence is that few studies on ques- their knowledge, understanding and/
NOVEMBER 1984 51
"Questions can inhibit discussion and
alternatives (for instance, declarative
statements or deliberate silence) can
encourage it."

or judgment on the matter under dis- concern for 'getting it right" -can be dents pursue a satisfying answer that
cussion (p. 16). subtle "enemies" of open discussion. neither possesses. In dialectical dis-
Then he asks what moral disposi- Bridges' conception goes still fur- cussion thev resolve opposing opin-
tons (values, principles of conduct) ther, specifying the epistemological ions through inquiry and synthesis of
are presupposed by these logical con- conditions of group discussion, the truth elements in each, questioning
ditions-that is, what assumptions do various learning possibilities and proffered opinions and then question-
participants share by force of commit- teaching processes for discussion, and ing the opinion they themselves prof-
ting themselves to group discussions the educative and social benefits of fer. Informational discussion is a pre-
These are (a) reasonableness: (b) classroom group discussion. Hence, liminarv to these two
peaceableness and orderliness; (c) Bridges gives a comprehensive, clear, For understanding and practicing
truthfulness; (d) freedom-no con- and useful conceptual answer to the discussion, Roby (1979) has also
straint on offering sincerely held opin- question, what is the nature of discus- worked out "a rhetoric of questions."
ion; (e) equality-regard for the opin- sion? Discussion moves from the teacher's
ions and interests of each participant; What are the kinds of discussion? model of questioning to class reflec-
and (f) respect for persons (pp. 21- Gall (in press; Gall and Gall, 1976) lists tion on the use and benefits of ques-
24). four types distinguished by instruc- tions, then to student use of question-
Without some adherence to these tional objective: subject-matter mas- ing. Ten types of questions are
principles and cultivation of these dis- te'r discussions, issue-oriented ones, identified; each type is articulated for
positions, "discussion simply cannot moral development discussions, and each of the several terms of discus-
take place" (p. 26) It cannot take problem-solving discussions. Hyman sion, as well as for the five models of
place, for example, when students are (1980) identifies policy discussions, discussion.
afraid to speak freely; teachers think problem-solving ones, explaining, Quiz Shows, for example, are char-
student opinions are not worth listen- predicting, and debriefing discussions. acterized by Informers and Prompters,
ing to; participants feel it is improper Dozens of such lists can be found in and Bull Sessions by Stingers. Prob-
to express a personal opinion: people the literature lematical discussions are generated by
constantly interrupt opinions they dis- Roby's (1981) scheme of five mod- the Puzzler, Informational ones by the
like; or people are not amenable to els of discussion is particularly rele- Inviter. Dialectical discussion moves
the influence of reason, evidence, or vant here, since it comes from a from the Controversial Turn (for ex-
argument (p 25). conception of discussion and distin- ample, "Jay, do you disagree with Dix-
One further precondition-open- guishes the types according to the ie?") to the Devil's Advocate ("Jay,
ness-is necessarv for a discussion to questioning involved (among other would you now disagree with your-
be proper or effective. Bridges de- things). At the extremes of Roby's self?"). All participants must learn to
scribes the ways in which a discussion scheme are two degenerate forms of use questions adroitly, lest a dialectical
must be open: (a) the matter is open quasi-discussion-Quiz Show and discussion move to a Bull Session at
for discussion; (b) the discussants are Bull Session Discussion in a Quiz the controversial turn, or a problemat-
open-minded; (c) the discussion is Show is text- or teacher-centered; ical discussion turn into a Quiz Show.
open to all arguments; (d) the discus- there is a predetermined answer, and How all this works in practice is
sion is open to any person; (e) the the teacher has it. Discussants are to deftly rendered by Roby's (1984) ac-
time limit is open; (f) the learning get the answer and get it right. A Bull count of discussions in a college class-
outcomes are open, not predictable; Session is student-centered, a,id every- room. Thus his conception articulates
(g) the purposes and practices of the one has a right answer. Discussants and interrelates a typology of discus-
discussion are out in the open, not vent their opinions and feelings and sions, a rhetoric of questions, and a
covert; and (h) the discussion is open- wrangle over who is right. practice for using questions during
ended, not required to come to a Between these two are the problem- discussion.
single conclusion. Bridges also notes atical and dialectical kinds of dis- The conceptions developed by Roby
that some otherwise desirable traits- cussion, healthy counterparts of the and Bridges can be artfully used in
self-chosen moral restraints such as Quiz Show and Bull Session. In prob- conjunction. For example, Bridges'
kindliness, consensus, loyalty, and lematical discussion, teachers and stu- three logical conditions for discussion
52 Et) ICAnTONAL I.FADER.HIP
can be combined with Robv's five Ferguson, and Wimpelberg, 1981, p. directing is expected to yield firmer
models, revealing that a Quiz Show 124). In the 1,000 classroomrs-129 ele- grounds for knoving something about
fails conditions "a" and "b" (presence mentarv and 88' secondanr-ob- questioning and discussion. It gathers
and tolerance of variant viewpoints), served for A .Stud of Schooling. Good- two dozen scholars from various disci-
and that a Bull Session fails "b" and lad (1984, p. 10 7 ) estimated the plines, each of whom has analyzed
"c" (tolerance of variant viewpoints probabilitv of finding discussion (not from his or her own perspective the
and intention of discovering truth). defined) as from 4 to 8 percent at the same set of classroom discussions, and
Combining the two conceptions in this various levels of schooling. These all of whom are now revising their
way would produce three beneficial overall figures do not vary appreciably analyses in light of one another's con-
effects. for the individual subject matters ob- ceptions and findings. The results will
We would gain a clearer theoretical served (see also Sirotnik, 1983) be reported in an AERA symposium in
understanding o(f classroom discus- Glimpses of other characteristics Chicago in 1985 and in a subsequent
sion and of questioning and discus- are found in a series of studies of high book, both under the project title.
sion. We could then perceive and school discussion classes. These in- "The Multidisciplinary Study of Class-
distinguish discussions at work in clude the different participation rates room Questioning and Discussion
classrooms and do empirical research in social studies and religion discus-
on their various elements and interre- sions (Dillon, 1981b) and the similar Conduct of Discussion
lations as specified in the conceptions. participation rates by males and fe- The pedagogical questions are impor-
As a result we would know how to males (1982c): the positive relation tant but difficult to answer: First, how
inform the classroompractice of ques- between duration of talk and complex- is a classroom discussion effectively
tioning and discussion. int of thought (1983a); the predom- conducted? Specifically, how should
inance of higher cognitive questions questioning be used during discus-
Character of Discussion and the demi-correspondence be- sion? Second, how can teachers learn
The character of discussion is an em- tween question-answer levels (1982b); to conduct effective discussions?
pirical question, one of describing the the equivalent length of responses to Research does not offer many an-
observed characteristics (features, (a) teacher statements as to questions, svers to these questions Teachers
qualities, properties, attributes) of and to (b) various npes of questions manuals offer mans answvers-though
classroom discussion (1981a); the positive relation between few are based on research. Some use-
How w idelv is discussion used in length of teacher utterance and stu- ful answers come from sensitive ac-
classrooms?At what level? In which dent response and the negative rela- counts hb skilled and experienced
subjects? In terms of his distinction tion between rate of questions and teachers Finally. some effective an-
between recitation and discussion, duration of answers ( 1981a); and the swers come from teacher training pro-
Gall (in press; Gall and Gall, 1976) comparatively greater and better dis- grams that combine what is known
reported the impression-he found cussion that follows from using alter- from research and practice and teach
little research-that discussion is not native, nonquestioning techniques it to teachers
at all prevalent Stodolskv observed (1984). Discussions are hard to conduct.
discussion as she defined it during Of far greater significance than and thes are hard to learn how to
only 3 percent of all time blocks in 17 these bits and pieces is the knowledge conduct. Contrary to common sense.
5th grade social studies lessons visited we need to get from studies vet to be questioning is a complex skill. What is
over nine consecutive days (Stodolskv, conducted A programmatic studv I am more, the skills of questioning in reci-
NOVE,4BFR 1984
I

"To conceive an educative question

requires thought; to formulate it
requires labor; and to pose it, tact."

tation are useless in discussion-an- for helping students learn how to dis- and appalled by the low quality of
other set of complex questioning skills cuss. It also provides resources and discussion. They began a program to
must be used. materials for using discussion in class- train teachers in "strategies for engen-
Yet the techniques are secondary. rooms and appends the reports of the dering true discussions" (Gooding,
What is essential is the teacher's atti- teachers involved. Hence it is a com- Swift, and Swift, 1983; Swift, Swift, and
tudes, dispositions, and commitments prehensive and useful source for Gooding, 1984).
to classroom discussion-those, for learning about questioning and dis- Ten teachers volunteered. First the
example, that Bridges (1979) identifies cussion. investigators carefully listened to the
as presuppositions of discussion. In But Francis (1984) cautions that the teachers' fears and concerns about
addressing the pedagogical question, written descriptions cannot convey the changing their way of handling discus-
therefore, we will emphasize what is subtlety of the approach. The teachers, sion-concern for content coverage,
involved in using and learning to use who have now become associates in student motivation, discipline prob-
questioning and discussion. the project, 'are sceptical about shar- lems, and concern over not knowing
ing information about discussion pro- how to conduct discussions. Then in a
Practice and Training grammes in written form" (p. 23). workshop at schxool the investigators
Learning to Discuss reports the work They feel that a teacher must partici- showed the teachers, through actual
of Francis' (1982) Discussion Develop- pate in a group that experiences dis- transcripts and practice in wait-time,
mem Group, an inservice training pro- cussion processes. Videotapes from how their concerns could be satisfied
gram based on wide experience with the project are available for both the They gave to each teacher an inge-
practice and grounded in fields such teachers' group and their classroom nious electronic device for monitoring
as communication research and group efforts, and Francis invites interested wait-time, The device flashed a red
dynamics. The teachers learn to use teachers to 'contact us directly so that light (wait!) until three seconds of
discussion by experiencing discussion we can flesh out the comments" (p. pausing had elapsed, then turned to
group processes; they personally com- 21). IFor the address, see the refer- green (talk!). On Fridays the investiga-
mit themselves to a year-long working ence to Francis, 1982.] tors would come by to collect tape
group that operates by the very pro- recordings of the classes; they ana-
cesses thev are to use with students. Research and Training lyzed the tapes over the weekend; and
The hardest thing for the teachers to Over the past ten years, a solid body of they returned to the school on Mon-
learn is discussion leadership style. In research on "wait-time" and question- days to give each teacher "supportive
the training sessions they again find ing has shown that a few seconds of intervention" in a private session over
leadership style the hardest thing to pausing by the teacher can have re- the tape, an analysis that the investiga-
accommodate. They expect the leader markable effects on discussion. As a tors had taken much care to make
to use a "directive, questioning, and good example of this kind of research, encouraging rather than critical.
didactic" style and find it "disconcert- Swift (1983) and associates have con- After one month of this training plus
ing" to participate in a meeting con- ducted a series of studies based on 600 supportive intervention, the teachers
ducted without such a style. Then, in discussions in middle school science tripled the duration of their wait-time
their classrooms they continually slip classes, observed over a full semester while questioning, and the students
back into a didactic teaching style (p. In an award-winning study, Swift doubled the amount of their relevant
15). and Gooding (1983) demonstrated talk while responding or volunteering
In addition to describing the proc- that when teachers wait for 2-3 sec- contributions. As for other concerns,
ess of this work group, Learning to onds after asking a question-and the frequency of disciplinary com-
Discuss explains the concepts and again before asking the next one- ments dropped drastically.
techniques of discussion-including both the amount and the quality of
the way in which questions can inhibit student discussion increase. More stu- Recommendations and
discussion and alternatives can en- dents talk, and students talk more; Research
courage it (pp. 68-69). The report also their talk is more relevant to the topic Like wait-time, "deliberate silence" is
sets forth a curriculum development and more elevated in cognitive level. one of seven alternatives to question-
model for implementing and assessing Listening to the tapes of the 600 ing suggested by Dillon (1979, 1981c,
discussion in schools and a program classes, the researchers were bored 1983b) for use during discussion. At
El,I(ATIONAI . LFA)EFRSHIP
 l

"Discussion ...
cannot tike place if
students are afraid
to speak fireely; [or
the juncture whlere a student has os- related but independent studies with if] teachers thnk
tensibly finished speaking, the teacher
may, instead of asking another ques-
preschool and elementanr children,
Wood and Wood (1983. 1984) discov-
student opinions
tion, choose to: ered that by contrast to questions, the are not worth
1. Make a declarative statement (for use of statements and phatics resulted
example, give an opinion) in longer responses and greater pupil listening to."
2 Make a reflective restatement initiative in conversation (elaborated
(give the sense of what the student has answers, volunteered contributions.
said ). and questions). Whether any of this
3 Describe his or her state of mind means that students learn more has
('I'm sorryn I m not quite getting your not been asked
point").
4. Invite the student to elaborate In my short manual on questioning
(' Id like to hear more of your views Manuals in recitation and discussion (Dillon.
on that") Several reliable manuals are available 1983b). I also recommend careful
5. Encourage the student to ask a for helping teachers learn to conduct preparation of the question for discus-
question discussions or lead groups (Hill. 19'-. sion. To conceite an educaitre ques-
6. Encourage other students to ask a Miles. 1959: Ruddick, 19'9). But, in tion requires thought: to formulate it
question. general, some of the recommenda- requires labor. and to pose it, tact" (p.
7 Maintain deliberate, appreciative tions about questioning in discussion 8). A single, well-formulated question
silence (until the student resumes or mav be less reliable. Then. there are is sufficient for an hour's discussion.
another enters into the discussion). many helpful manuals on questioning The rule of thumb during discussion is
As for questions, I recommend that (for example. Blosser, 193. Carin and not to ask questions but to use various
the discussion leader ask a question Sund, 1978) But the recommenda- alternative techniques. The notion is
only when he or she is perplexed and tions for questioning in discussion that alternatives will foster discussion
needs and wants to know the answer. may be less helpful. In contrast. only a processes. whereas questions will foil
Used together, these few "perplexity few manuals are grounded in experi- discussion by turning it into a recita-
questions" and the various alternatives ence (practice and/or research) with tion (see Dillon. 19'8. 1981c. 1984). A
should foster students' cognitive, affec- both questioning and discussion. variant rule of thumb is to ask ques-
tive, and expressive processes during In his discussion manual. Hyman tions only vwhen perplexed and genu-
discussion. (1980)-who also has a manual on inelv needing to know. One or two
These alternatives. which have been questioning (1979)-recommends care- perplexed questions in the midst of
elaborated from theoretical study of fully planning the question for discus- manv alternatives is likely to have a
questioning, have scarcely been exam- sion, writing it out to make it clear, positive effect on discussion
ined in empirical research One study precise, short, relevant. and under-
of 26 high school discussions (Dillon, standable (pp. 30-31) Further. he sug- Accounts
1981a) found that students responded gests writing out an ordered set of One of the most instructive ways to
at least as much to statements as to central questions that must be raised learn how to conduct classroom dis-
questions, if not more A case study of during the discussion. whether by cussion is to read sensitive accounts by
ten of these discussions (Dillon. 1984) teacher or students (p. 35) He gives experienced teachers. A few accounts
found that hb contrast to questions, the examples of these sets for various render the feel and fabric of a discus-
use of the various alternatives together types of discussion (pp. 45-4'). Then sion in such an artful way that the
resulted in more and better discus- he gives guidelines for using the skill reader can appreciate the sense of the
sion: more student talk. more students of questioning during the discussion proceedings while at the same time
participating, more student-student itself, such as adopting a tone of seek- apprehending the valuable lessons
references, more contributed topics ing information, mixing other skills that underlie its success
and experience from outside the les- along with questioning. and pausing Masterly accounts conveying both
son, more exploration, speculation. after the question to allow time for conceptual and experiential senses of
and student questions. In a series of thought (p. 7). discussion are given by Thelen (1972)
NOVEMBER 1984
of a classroom group investigation, by ing and Discussion I1. Non-Questioning Nelson. M. A. "Discussion Strategies and
Schwab (1954) of the affective/intellec- Techniques Journal of Teacher Educa- Learning Science Principles." Journal of
tive aspects of teacher-student rela- tion 32, 5 & 6 (1981c): 51 55, 15-20. Research in Science Teaching 10 (1973):
tions during discussion, and by Mills Dillon, J T 'The Effect of Questions in 25-38
(1964) of the transformation of a Education and Other Enterprises 'Journal Robv, T. W A Rhetoric of Questions for
of Curriculum Studies 14 (1982a): 127- Teaching Philosophy" Paper presented at
learning group. Roby's (1984) account 152 the fall meeting of the Association for the
shows how a rhetoric of questions was Dillon, J T. Cognitive Correspondence Development of Philosophy Teaching,
used to turn a wrangling controversy Between Question/Statement and Re- Springfield, Ill, October 1979
over racism into an educative deliber- sponse American Educational Research Roby, T W "Bull Sessions, Quiz Shows
ation. Journal 19 (1982b): 540-951 and Discussions' Paper presented at the
Dillon,J T ''Male-Female Similarities in annual meeting of the American Educa-
Class Participation '"Journal of Education- tional Research Association, Los Angeles,
al Research 5 (1982c): 350-353 April 1981
Conchusion Dillon, J. T 'Cognitive Complexity and Roby, T W 'Deliberation and the Arts of
To start with, we need to ask some Duration of Classroom Speech. Inutruc- Teaching." Paper presented at the Ameri-
questions about questioning and dis- ionalScience 12 (1983a): 59-66 can Educational Research Association. New
cussion. The three generic questions Dillon, J. T Teaching and the Art of Orleans. April 1984
are pedagogical. empirical, and theo- Questioning. Bloomington. Ind: Phi Delta Rudduck, J. ed. Learning to Teach
retical ones: How does one teach by Kappa, 1983h (Fastback No 194). Through Discussion Norwich, England:
discussion? What is the character of Dillon. J T '"Using Questions to Foil Centre for Applied Research in Education
discussion? What are its nature and Discussion, Manuscript submitted for (University of East Anglia), 1979
kinds? The answers are knowledge in publication, 1984 Schwab, J J "Eros and Education: A
Francis. E Learning to Discuss Edin Discussion of One Aspect of Discussion"
action, observation, and conception.
burgh, Scotland: Moray Hlouse College of Journal of General Education 8 (1954):
For each of these kinds of questions Education, Holyrood Road. 1982 54-71 (Reprinted in Science. Curriculum,
there are any number of specific ques- Francis, E "Discussion Across the Cur- and Liberal Education Edited hb I West-
tions. Most of the answers are un- riculum." Teaching English (Spring 1984): bury and N J Wilkof Chicago: University
known, since most of the questions 20-23 of Chicago, 1978)
remain unasked by researchers. Gall. M D 'Discussion Methods of Sirotnik, K A. "What You See Is What
When researchers begin to ask Teaching. InternationalFncyclopedia of You Get-Consistency, Persistency, and
these questions as widely and pointed- Education, in press Mediocritv in Classrooxms" llanard Edu-
lv as teachers do, then we shall all Gall. M D. 'Svnthesis of Research on cational Retieu 53 (1983): 16-31
enjoy a measure of groun'led knowl- Questioning in Recitation Educational Stodolskv, S S., Ferguson. T L, and
Leadersbip 42, 3 (194) Wimpelberg, K '"The Recitation Persists,
edge about questioning id discus-
Gall, M. D., and Gall.J P The Discussion But What Does It Look Like?" Journal of
sion. At that point a fut. re reviewer Method" Psvchology of Teaching Methods Curriculum Studies 13 (1981): 121-130
will have more research to review and (NSSE 75th Yearbook. Part 1) Edited hy N Swift. J N., ed. "Research on Teacher
can begin by' savying what I could not: L Gage Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Questioning Behavior and Wait Time in
We know a good deal about question- Press. 1976 Classroom Discussion." Anthology of sev-
ing and discussion.[l Gooding. C T, Swift, P R.. and Swift,J. N en papers presented at the annual meeting
"Improving and Encouraging Discussions of the New England Educational Research
References in the Classroxm.' Paper presented at the Organization, Rockport, Maine, April 1983
annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Swift,J. N. Swift, P R. and Gooding, C T.
Blosser. P E Handbook of Effectite Research Association. Baltimore, Md., Feb- "Observed Changes in Classroom Behav-
Questioning Techniques. Worthington, ruary 1983. (ERIC ED 229 338). ior Utilizing Supportive Intervention ' Pa-
Ohio: Education Associates, 1973 Goodlad,J I. A Place Called.chool.New per presented at the annual meeting of the
Bridges. D. Education, Democracy and York: McGraw-lHill, 1984 National Association for Research in Sci-
Discussion Windsor, England: NFER, 1979 Hill, W F Learning Through Discussion, ence Teaching. New Orleans, April 1984
Carin. A A., and Sund, R. B. Creatite 2nd ed. rev Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage, Swift, J N. and Gooding, C T "Interac-
Questioning and Listening Techniques. 1977 tion of Wait Time Feedback and Question
2nd ed Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1978 Hyman, R T. Strategic Questioning En- ing Instruction on Middle School Science
Dillon,J T. '"UsingQuestions to Depress glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979 Teaching." Journal of Research in Science
Student Thought" School Retieu 87 Hyman. R T Improving Discussion Teaching 20 (1983): 721-730
(1978): 50-63 Leadership New York: Teachers College. Thelen. Ii A. Education andthe Iluman
Dillon, J. T 'Alternatives to Question- 1980 Quest Chicago: nversirt of Chicago,
ing.' High School ournal 62 (1979): 217- Johnson, M C Discussion fD1namics 1972.
222 Rowley, Mass.: Newbury, 1979 Thelen, I1 A The Classroom Society
Dillon, J T 'Duration of Response to McGee, C. F "Classroom Questioning London: Croom Helm. 1981
Teacher Questions and Statements." Con- and Discussion" SET Research Informa- Wood. fl, and W(x)d, D "Questioning
temporary Educational Psvchology 6 tionfor Teachers 1 (1981): Item 9 the Pre-School Child.' EducationalReview
(1981a): 1-11 Miles, M. B. Learningto Work in Groups 35 (1983): 149-162
Dillon. J T 'Discussion Characteristics A Program GuideforEducationalLeaders Wood, 11., and Wood, D An Experimen-
in a Sample of Religion and Social Studies New York: Teachers College. 1959 (Re- tal Evaluation of the Effects of Five Styles of
Classes. ' CharacterPotential: A Record of printed 1973) Teacher Conversation on the Language of
Research 9 (1981b): 203-205 Mills, T M Group Transformation An Hearing-Impairing Children" Journal of
Dillon, J. T "To Question and Not to Analisis of a Learning Group Englewood ChildPsychology andPsvchiatry 25 (1984):
Question During Discussion I Question- Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-lall, 1964 45-62

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

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