See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301290144

Discussion methods

Chapter · January 2009

CITATIONS READS
0 77,526

1 author:

Ian A. G. Wilkinson
The Ohio State University / University of Auckland
84 PUBLICATIONS 4,029 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian A. G. Wilkinson on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

― 330 ―

Discussion Methods
Discussion methods are a variety of forums for open-ended, collaborative exchange of
ideas among a teacher and students or among students for the purpose of furthering
students thinking, learning, problem solving, understanding, or literary appreciation.
Participants present multiple points of view, respond to the ideas of others, and reflect on
their own ideas in an effort to build their knowledge, understanding, or interpretation of
the matter at hand. Discussions may occur among members of a dyad, small group, or
whole class and be teacher-led or student-led. They frequently involve discussion of a
written text, though discussion can also focus on a problem, issue, or topic that has its
basis in a “text” in the larger sense of the term (e.g., a discipline, the media, a societal
norm). Other terms for discussions used for pedagogical purposes are instructional
conversations (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and substantive conversations (Newmann,
1990).
A defining feature of discussion is that students have considerable agency in the
construction of knowledge, understanding, or interpretation. In other words, they have
considerable “interpretive authority” for evaluating the plausibility or validity of
participants responses. To illustrate, the following excerpt is taken from a discussion
between a teacher and a small-group of second-grade students (from Eeds & Wells, 1989).
They are discussing the short story, “Me and Neesie,” by Eloise Greenfield. The story is
about a girl, Janell, and her imaginary friend, Neesie, and the teacher and students are
trying to understand why Neesie is at school with Janell for the day.
Austin: But nobody knew about her but Janell. And how could the teacher put her name
down on the thing outside for her to be in the classroom if she didnt know about her?
Ashley: Well, actually, if only Janell could see her, why would Neesie be in the other
classroom if Janell was the only one that could see her? Austin: But what if she didnt go
to school when Janell did? Beth: But she did go to school when Janell did. Chad: And
nobody can see her, only Janell. Ashley: Yeah, but why would they be in different classes
if Janells the only one that can see her? Why would she be in a different class? Austin: I
know. Teacher: I think youre all agreeing, really, that the question doesnt make sense.
Justin: But the one who put her in the class cant see her. Ashley: Yeah, but just Janell
can. Austin: The teacher wouldnt know about her. Justin: I know! She would have snuck
inif shes invisible.
The discourse is marked by many contributions from students and frequent student-
to-student exchanges without interruption by the teacher. In this example, the only
contribution from the teacher is to summarize the students contributions. For the most
part, students are responsible for constructing an understanding of why the imaginary
friend, Neesie, is in school with Janell and why the fictional teacher allows Neesie to attend
class for the day. The students ask questions they are genuinely

1 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

― 331 ―
interested in exploring and that evoke a variety of responses (“authentic questions”), they
build on each others responses by incorporating previous responses into their questions
(“uptake”), and they challenge each others views in a collective effort to make sense of the
text. Students contributions largely shape the discourse.

DISCUSSION VERSUS RECITATION

Discussions stand in contrast to a more traditional classroom event called recitation, so
called because it provides a forum for the students and/or the teacher to recite what is
known, usually from the reading of a written text. The defining feature of recitations is that
the teacher controls the talk and has complete interpretive authority. To illustrate, the
following excerpt comes from an 11th-grade English classroom (adapted from Langer,
1993, pp. 3637). The teacher and the students have read the short story, “Tularecito,” by
John Steinbeck and they are talking about the character Pancho.
Teacher: Whos Pancho? Mario: The employee. Teacher: An employee, okay. Do you
know anything else about Pancho? Mariloo: Hes a Mexican Indian. Teacher: Hes a
Mexican Indian. Tarek: Hes always sober. Teacher: What else? Rock: When hes not in
jail. Teacher: When hes not in jail, okay. Matt: He doesnt drive when drunk. Teacher:
All right. Thats good. John: When he arrives at work hes always sleepy. Teacher: Yeah,
and thats important. Do you think he fools around? What gives you that impression?
In this case, the teacher contributed most to the talk. Indeed, in recitations, teachers
typically talk about two-thirds of the time (Cazden, 2001). The discourse is marked by a
pattern called the IRE (Mehan, 1979) or IRF (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975): the teacher
initiates a topic by asking a question (e.g., “Whos Pancho?”); students respond to the
question with an answer (e.g., “The employee”); and the teacher evaluates the students
response or gives feedback (e.g., “An employee, okay”). The questions are intended to test
or stimulate recall of what had been read (“known answer” or “test questions”). The
teacher determines the nature of the questions, the order of the questions, and the
correctness of students responses. Although the students offer their own responses, the
teacher does not allow them to explain what they mean about the character Pancho.
Instead, she steers the talk in the direction she wants the students to take. The teacher has
the ultimate interpretive authority and controls the discourse.
A criticism of recitation and the IRE/IRF pattern of discourse is that they can restrict
student talk in ways that are counter-productive to the collaborative construction of
knowledge, understanding, and interpretation. Students responses are typically no longer
than two- or three- word phrases and teachers rarely acknowledge the value of students
contributions by incorporating their responses into subsequent questions. Recitation can
play a useful role in classroom pedagogy (Mercer, 1995) and there are ways of using the
IRE/IRF to good effect (see Hicks, 1995; O'Connor & Michaels, 1996; Wells, 1993).
Nevertheless, the oft-cited concern is that this traditional interactional cycle constrains
students contributions and gives them little responsibility for shaping their own learning.
The relative incidence of discussion versus recitation is difficult to determine as there
are few surveys of these classroom events that draw from nationally representative
samples of classes, at least in the United States. Moreover, most of the research on

2 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

recitation has been conducted at the secondary level. The best available reports indicate
the discussions are rare in classrooms. A 1998 study by Commeyras and Degroff surveyed
the pedagogical practices of a random sample of 1,519 K-12 literacy teachers and related
professionals in the United States. They found that only 33% of respondents reported that
they frequently or very frequently had students meet in small groups to discuss literature
in their classrooms. They also found that such discussions were more common in
elementary and middle school classes than they were in high school classes. Nystrand
(1997) observed the instructional practices in 58 eighth-grade and 54 ninth-grade
language arts and English classes in eight Midwestern communities in the United States.
He found that open-ended, whole-class discussion averaged only 52 seconds per class in
eighth grade and only 14 seconds per class in ninth grade. By contrast to these figures,
recitation has a long and well-established history in U.S. classrooms (see Nystrand, 2006)
and anecdotal reports suggest that it is still a pervasive phenomenon (Almasi, 1994;
Cazden, 2001; Goldenberg, 1992; Tharp & Galli-more, 1988; Worthy & Beck, 1995).

METHODS AND DIMENSIONS

Discussion methods vary on a number of dimensions. Roby (1988) classifies types of
discussions primarily on a continuum that relates to whether the teacher or students, or
both, have interpretive authority. A secondary dimension is the content of the discussion.
Using these

― 332 ―
dimensions, he identifies three types of discussion. Problematical discussions focus on the
solutions to either complex or simple problems in which the teacher is dominant in the
discussions. Dialectical discussions focus on expressing, comparing, and refining students
(and the teachers) points of view, and the students play a dominant role in the discussions.
Informational discussions focus on controversial issues within an accepting atmosphere,
and students have considerable freedom to bring up issues they wish to discuss. At the
extremes are two types of what Roby calls “quasi-discussions”: Quiz Shows and Bull
Sessions. In the former, the teacher determines the questions to be asked and has almost
all the interpretive authority; in the latter, the students have control over the topic and
almost all the interpretive authority. In their 1949 study, Axelrod, Bloom, Ginsburg,
O'Meara, and Williams, which was one of the first empirical investigations of discussion,
also placed discussions on a continuum that related to whether the teacher or students had
interpretive authority.

Gall and Gall (1976) classify discussions according to the instructional objectives: to
achieve subject mastery, to bring about a change in attitude or opinion about an issue, or
to solve a problem. An example of a subject-mastery discussion method is Manzo and
Casales (1985) Listen-Read-Discuss Strategy. In this method, the students listen to the
teacher give a short lecture on the material to be learned, they read the pages of the text on
which the lecture was based, and they then discuss questions raised by the text. An
example of an issue-oriented discussion method is found in Roby (1983): Devils Advocate
Strategy. In this method, students articulate their positions on an issue and then take an

3 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

opposing position and argue against themselves. An example of a problem-solving

discussion method is Maiers (1963) Developmental Discussion Strategy. In this method,
the teacher and students identify a problem, break it into manageable parts, and work on
the parts in small groups. The small groups then reconvene as a whole class to discuss
their solutions with the teacher.
Discussions about and around texts vary on a large number of dimensions. These
approaches serve various purposes depending on the goals teachers set for their students,
defined in terms of the stance towards the text: to acquire and retrieve information (an
efferent stance), to make spontaneous, emotive connection to the text (an aesthetic or
expressive stance), or to interrogate or query the text in search of the underlying
arguments, assumptions, worldviews, or beliefs (a critical-analytic stance). Each approach
comprises some type of instructional frame that describes the role of the teacher, the
nature of the group, type of text, and so forth. Although the goals of these approaches are
not identical, all have the potential to help students develop high-level thinking and
comprehension of text.
Most variation across text-based discussion approaches is in the degree of control
exerted by the teacher versus the students in terms of who has control of topic, who has
interpretive authority, who controls turns, who chooses the text, and the relative standing
on the three stances. Moreover, there is a relationship between degree of control exercised
by teachers versus students and the stance toward the text. Discussions in which students
have the greatest control tend to be those that give prominence to an aesthetic or
expressive stance. These approaches are Book Club (Raphael & McMahon, 1994), Grand
Conversations (Eeds & Wells, 1989), and Literature Circles (Short & Pierce, 1990). These
discussions are often peer-led. Conversely, discussions in which teachers have the greatest
control tend to be those that give prominence to an efferent stance. These approaches are
Instructional Conversations (Goldenberg, 1992), Questioning the Author (Beck &
McKeown, 2006; Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997), and Junior Great Books
shared inquiry (Great Books Foundation, 1987). It should be noted that Questioning the
Author is the only discussion approach that was designed specifically to help students
grapple with the meaning of informational text. Finally, discussions in which students and
teachers share control tend to give prominence to a critical-analytic stance. In these
approaches, the teacher has considerable control over text and topic, but students have
considerable interpretive authority and control of turns. The approaches that fall into this
category are Collaborative Reasoning (Anderson, Chinn, Waggoner, & Nguyen, 1998),
Paideia Seminars (Billings & Fitzgerald, 2002), and Philosophy for Children (Sharp, 1995).
Other approaches to text-based discussion, not included in the above, are less easy to
classify and there is less research on them. These are Conversational Discussion Groups
(O'Flahavan, 1989), Dialogical-Reading Thinking Lesson (Commeyras, 1993), Idea Circles
(Guthrie & McCann, 1996, and Point-Counterpoint (Rogers, 1990). There are also
text-based discussions that have less consistency of application, so they cannot be readily
labeled. These include the general class of literature discussion groups based on reader-
response theory (see Gambrell & Almasi, 1996), discussion-based envision-ments of
literature (Langer, 1993, 1995, 2001), and instructional integrations of writing, reading,
and talk (Nystrand, Gamoran, & Carbonaro, 2001; Sperling & Woodlief, 1997).
Accountable talk is another approach to conducting intellectually stimulating discussions
that, although not specifically designed for discussions about text, has applicability for

4 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

promoting reading comprehension (Wolf, Crosson, & Resnick, 2004). It comprises a set of
standards for productive conversation in academic contexts and forms part of the New
Standards Project developed by Lauren Resnick and colleagues at the University of
Pittsburgh.

― 333 ―

Another dimension on which discussions vary is small-group versus whole-class

discussions. In a 1991 study of 58 12th grade students, Sweigart found that student-led
small-group discussions produced greater effects on students recall and understanding of
essays they had read than did lecture or whole-class discussion. Morrow and Smith, in a
1990 study of kindergarten students who engaged in discussions of stories that were read
aloud, reported similar benefits of small-group discussions compared to one-on-one
discussions with the teacher or whole-class discussions. Smaller groups provided more
opportunities for students to speak, interact, and exchange points of view. Taking into
account all available evidence, the best generalization that can be made is that smaller
groups are better but they should not be so small as to limit the diversity of ideas necessary
for productive discussions (Wiencek & O'Flahavan, 1994).
Yet another dimension is teacher-led versus studentled discussions. The relative merits
of these formats have been the subject of debate and some research. On the one hand, the
teacher can play an important role in discussion by keeping students on topic and
modeling and scaffolding the talk to enhance the quality of their learning opportunities
(O'Flahavan, Stein, Wiencek, & Marks, 1992; see also Wells, 1989). On the other hand,
student-led discussions can enable students to collectively explore topics more fully and to
have more control and interpretive authority (Almasi, 1994). Most probably the question
as to who should lead the group is the wrong question. The issue is not so much who leads
the group but how much structure and focus is provided while giving students the
flexibility and responsibility for thinking and reasoning together (Mercer, 1995).
Productive discussions need to be structured and focused, but flexible enough to foster
generative learning—and these can be teacher-led or student-led.

DISCUSSION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Nystrand and Gamoran conducted possibly the largest study ever of the relationship
between discussion and student achievement (Gamoran & Nystrand, 1991; Nystrand, 1997;
Nystrand & Gamoran (1991). As described earlier, they observed the practices used in 58
eighth-grade and 54 ninth-grade language arts and English classes in eight Midwestern
communities in the United States. They observed each class four times per year and
assessed students' understanding and interpretation of literature at the end of each year,
collecting data on over 1,895 students. Their results indicated that the features of
open-ended, whole-class discussion were positively associated with students' reading
comprehension, as measured by both recall and depth of understanding, as well as
response to aesthetic aspects of literature.
These results were largely replicated in a 2003 follow-up study by Applebee, Langer,
Nystrand, & Gamo-ran of 974 students in 64 middle- and high-school English classrooms.

5 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

Results showed that discussion-based practices, used in the context of academically

challenging tasks, were positively related to students' reading comprehension and
literature achievement.
Other correlational studies have shown similar benefits of discussion. A 2001 study by
Langer, for example, studied the characteristics of instruction that accompanied student
achievement in 25 schools, involving 44 teachers and 88 classes. She found that
whole-class and small-group discussion was one of the characteristics of instruction in
schools that showed higher than expected achievement in reading, writing, and English.
In a quasi-experimental study, Fall, Webb, and Chu-dowsky (2000) analyzed
10th-grade students' performance on language arts tests in which students either
discussed or did not discuss a story they were required to read and interpret. Results
showed that allowing students to engage in a 10-minute discussion of the story in three-
person groups was positively related to students' understanding of the story.
Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, and Alexander (2007) conducted a
meta-analysis of quantitative studies that provided evidence of the effects of different
approaches to text-based discussions on measures of teacher and student talk and/or of
individual student comprehension and reasoning outcomes. Included were single-group
pretest-posttest design studies and multiple-group studies. Three major findings emerged
from the meta-analysis. One major finding was that the approaches to discussion
differentially promoted high-level comprehension of text. Many of the approaches were
highly effective at promoting students' comprehension, especially those that were more
efferent in nature, namely Questioning the Author, Instructional Conversations, and
Junior Great Books shared inquiry. Moreover, some of the approaches were effective at
promoting students' critical-thinking, reasoning, argumentation, and metacognition about
and around text, especially Collaborative Reasoning and Junior Great Books.
A second major finding was that increases in student talk did not necessarily result in
concomitant increases in student comprehension. Rather, it seemed that a particular kind
of talk was necessary to promote comprehension. This is consistent with observations from
other research that the success of discussion hinges not on increasing the amount of
student talk per se, but in enhancing the quality of the talk (Wells, 1989). A third major
finding was that effects varied by students' academic ability. Results showed that the
approaches exhibited greater effects when employed with below-average

― 334 ―
and average ability students and weaker effects with above-average students. It appears
that above-average ability students could understand a text and think independently about
the nuances of meaning even without participating in discussion.

Possibly the most stringent test of the benefits of discussions come from experimental
and quasi-experimental studies that have examined the effects of a discussion approach,
relative to a control condition, on commercially available, standardized measures (rather
than researcher-developed measures). Murphy and colleagues (2007) found only five such
studies: Mizerka's 1999 study of the effects of Literature Circles; Bird's (1984) study of the
effects of Junior Great Books; and Banks (1987), Chamberlain (1993), and Lipman's (1975)
studies of the effects of Philosophy for Children. Among these studies, the strongest effect

6 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

was found by Lipman for Philosophy for Children, as measured by students'

comprehension scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, with an effect size of 0.55. The
effect sizes for the other studies averaged approximately 0.20.
An important finding from research on discussion methods is that they can benefit
both fluent and limited-English-proficient (LEP) students. Saunders and Goldenberg
(1999) conducted an experimental study of the effects of Instructional Conversations, in
combination with literature logs, on 116 fourth and fifth grade LEP and English-proficient
students. Results showed both fluent and LEP students who participated in the
Instructional Conversations + literature logs condition scored significantly higher on
factual and interpretive comprehension than did students in other conditions. Other
studies of Instructional Conversations have reported similar benefits for LEP students.
Nystrand (2006) noted a number of studies that provided evidence of the benefits of
discussions for L2 as well as L1 speakers.
SEE ALSO Collaborative Learning; Questioning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almasi, J. F. (1994). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led
and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly 30, 314–351.
Alvermann, D. E., Dillon, D. R., & O'Brien, D. G. (1987). Using discussion to promote
reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, J., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually
stimulating story discussions. In J. L. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in
teaching and learning (pp. 170–186). New York: Guilford Press.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based
approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance
in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40,
685–730.
Axelrod, J., Bloom, B. S., Ginsburg, B. E., O'Meara, W., & Williams, J. C. Jr. (1949).
Teaching by discussion in the college program. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Banks, J. C. R. (1987). A study of the effects of the critical thinking skills program,
philosophy for children, on a standardized achievement test. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the
author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, NJ:
International Reading Association.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the
author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.
Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the paideia seminar.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907–941.
Bird, J. B. (1984). Effects of fifth graders' attitudes and critical thinking/reading skills
resulting from a junior great books program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French

7 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

(Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education (pp. 23–46). New York:
Harper.
Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy, and discussion. Winsor, England: NFER
Publishing.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chamberlain, M. A. (1993). Philosophy for children program and the development of
critical thinking of gifted elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., et al. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of
literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.
Commeyras, M. (1993). Promoting critical thinking through dialogical-thinking
reading lessons. The Reading Teacher, 46(6), 486–494.
Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals perspectives on
professional development and pedagogy: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly,
33, 434–472.
Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership,
42, 50–56.
Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning
construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 4–29.
Fall, R., Webb, N. & Chudowsky, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language
arts assessment: Effects on students' comprehension. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(4), 911–942.
Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (1990). Outcomes of the discussion method. In W. W. Wilen
(Ed.), Teaching and learning through discussion (pp. 25–44). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Gall, M. D. (1987). Discussion methods. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 232–237). Oxford, England:
Pergamon.

― 335 ―

Gall, M. D., & Gall, J. P. (1976). The discussion method. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),
Psychology of teaching methods. National Society for the Study of Education.
Seventy-Fifth yearbook, Part 1 (pp. 166–216). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gall, M. D., & Gillett, M. (1980). The discussion method in classroom teaching. Theory
into Practice, 19, 98–103.
Gambrell, L. B., & Almasi, J. F. (Eds.). (1996). Lively discussions! Fostering engaged
reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gamoran, A., & M. Nystrand (1991). Background and instructional effects on
achievement in eighth-grade English and social studies. Journal of Research on
Adolescence 1, 277–300.
Goldenberg, C. (1992). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through
discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316–326.

8 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

Great Books Foundation. (1987). An introduction to shared inquiry. Chicago: Author.

Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1996). Idea circles: Peer collaboration for conceptual
learning. In L. B. Gambrell and J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged
reading (pp. 87–105). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning and teaching. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of
research in education, Vol. 21 (pp. 49–95). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. Jr. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.
Langer, J. (1993). Discussion as exploration: Literature and the horizon of possibilities.
In G. E. Newell & R. K., Durst (Eds.), Exploring texts: The role of discussion and writing
in the teaching and learning of literature (pp. 23–43). Norwood, MA: Christopher-
Gordon.
Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature
instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to
read and write well. American Educational Research Journal 38, 837–80.
Lipman, M. (1975). Philosophy for children. Monclair, NJ: Monclair State College.
Maier, N. R. F. (1963). Problem solving discussions and conferences: Leadership
methods and skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Manzo, A. V., & Casale, U. P. (1985). Listen-read-discuss: A content heuristic. Journal
of Reading, 28, 732–734.
Mehan, H. (1979) Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and
learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mizerka, P. M. (1999). The impact of teacher-directed literature circles versus
student-directed literature circles on reading comprehension at the sixth-grade level.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Morrow, L. M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive storybook
reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 213–231.
Discussion Methods Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A., Hennessey, M. N., &
Alexander, J. F. (2007) Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students'
high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript. State College,
PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Newmann, F. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for
the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 41–56.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and
learning in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of discussion as it affects reading
comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392–412.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and
literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Carbonaro, W. (2001). On the ecology of classroom

9 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

instruction: The case of writing in high school English and social studies. In P. Tynjala, L.
Mason, and K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice
(pp. 57–81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating
thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and
schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Flahavan, J. F. (1989). Second-graders' social, intellectual, and affective
development in varied group discussions about narrative texts: An exploration of
participation structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
O'Flahavan, J. F., Stein, S., Wiencek, J., & Marks, T. (1992). Interpretive development
in peer discussion about literature: An exploration of the teacher's role. Urbana, IL: Final
report to the trustees of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Raphael, T. E., & McMahon, S. I. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework for
reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102–116.
Roby, T. (1983). The other side of the question: Controversial turns, the devil's
advocate, and reflective responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Roby, T. (1988). Models of discussion. In J. T. Dillon (Ed.), Questioning and
discussion: A multidisciplinary study (pp. 163–191). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rogers, T. (1990). A point, counterpoint response strategy for complex short stories.
Journal of Reading, 34(4), 278–282.
Saunders, W. M., & C. Goldenberg (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and
literature logs on limited- and fluent-English-proficient students' story comprehension
and thematic understanding. The Elementary School Journal 99, 277–301.
Sharp, A. M. (1995). Philosophy for children and the development of ethical values.
Early Child Development and Care, 197, 45–55.
Short, K. G., & Pierce, K. M. (Eds.) (1990). Talking about books: Creating literature
communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

― 336 ―

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse: The English used
by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Sperling, M., & Woodlief, L. (1997). Two classrooms, two writing communities: Urban
and suburban tenth graders learning to write. Research in the Teaching of English, 31,
205–239.
Sweigart, W. (1991). Classroom talk, knowledge development, and writing. Research in
the Teaching of English, 25, 497–509.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (1989). Language in the classroom: Literacy and collaborative talk. Language
and Education, 3, 251–273.

10 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia http://ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/xtf-ebc/view?doc...

Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of
theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the
classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–38.
Wiencek, J., & O'Flahavan, J. F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions about
literature: Suggestions for making the shift. Language Arts, 71, 488–498.
Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2004). Classroom talk for rigorous
reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27–53.
Worthy, J., & Beck, I. L. (1995). On the road from recitation to discussion in
large-group dialogue about literature. In K. Hinchman & C. Kinz, (Eds.), Perspectives on
literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the national reading conference
(pp. 312–324). Chicago: The National Reading Conference.
Ian A. G. Wilkinson

11 of 11 4/14/16, 10:40 AM
View publication stats