all teachers have experience organizing and leading classroom discussions; in fact, along with lecture and questioning, discussion is one of the most prominent instructional techniques used in classrooms—especially secondary classrooms. By looking at the research on classroom discussion, it’s easy to see why.
What Research Says About Classroom Discussion
In an experimental study that examines the effect of collaborative classroom discussion on the quality of students’ essay writing by randomly assigning students to two groups either with or without discussion, Alina Reznitskaya et al. (2001) find that students who participate in collaborative discussion use a significantly greater number of relevant arguments, counterarguments, rebuttals, formal argument devices, and text information than students who do not engage in discussion. Another experimental study by Clark Chinn, Angela O’Donnell, and Theresa Jinks (2000) finds that both content and structure of the discussion matter for collaborative discussion learning. By diagramming the discourse structures that emerge during small-group discussion in science classes, the authors characterize these structures as a network of arguments and counterarguments with varied degrees of complexity and depth. They also find that student content learning is associated with the quality of those argument structures: the more complex the discourse structures, the better the student learning.
Karen Murphy, Ian Wilkinson, Anna Soter, Maeghan Hennessey, and John Alexander (2009) reviewed empirical research to determine the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension and learning of text. Results reveal that discussion approaches produce substantial increases in the amount of student talk and reductions in teacher talk, as well as considerable improvement in text comprehension. However, there is no consistent evidence that discussion can increase students’ inferential comprehension and critical thinking and reasoning, and the effects are mediated by factors such as the nature of the outcome measure. Table 1.1 presents the specific effect sizes of various discussion approaches on a number of student outcome measures.
What we conclude from the review of studies reported here is that discussion has an overall positive impact on advancing students’ learning; however, the effectiveness of discussion is contingent on how the discussion is structured and how sensitive it is to the instructional goals. For instance, if the purpose is for general comprehension or comprehension of explicit meaning of texts, instructional conversation in which teachers and students respond to each other’s provocative ideas and experiences would be a better option. If the learning goal is to enhance students’ critical-thinking skills, then collaborative reasoning would be a more appropriate approach, as students would have to engage in reasoned argumentation.
How to Move From Research to Practice
Despite the ubiquitous nature of discussions, there are guidelines that effective teachers should consider as they seek to improve their skills as discussion designers and facilitators. Ronald Hyman (1980) proposes four major types of discussion for use in classrooms.
1. Policy discussion: This type of discussion focuses on students’ reactions toward certain issues and requires the group to take a stand.
2. Problem-solving discussion: This type of discussion requires groups of learners to seek an answer to a problem or conflict.
3. Explaining discussion: This type of discussion asks students to analyze and articulate causes and effects.
4. Predicting discussion: This type of discussion prompts students to predict the probable consequences of a given situation or position.
Teachers determine which discussion approach to use based on the learning objectives. For instance, they can use a problem-solving discussion for more sophisticated learning processes and can include all the major components of problem identification, problem analysis, potential solutions, solution evaluation, decision making, and even solution implementation. On the other hand, discussion can be streamlined to involve only formulating hypotheses and predicting probable consequences.
Ways to Start a Discussion
There are many ways to start a classroom discussion. Murphy et al. (2009) review nine such approaches (the effect sizes of which can be seen in table 1.1).
First is collaborative reasoning. In this strategy,
the teacher poses a central question deliberately chosen to evoke varying points of view. Students adopt a position on the issue and generate reasons that support their position. Using the text, as well as personal experiences and background knowledge, students proceed to evaluate reasons, to consider alternative points of view, and to challenge the arguments of others. (Murphy et al., 2009, p. 742)
Table 1.1: Effect Sizes of Discussion Approaches
Text-Explicit Comprehension: Comprehension requiring information that is explicitly stated, usually within a sentence
Text-Implicit Comprehension: Comprehension requiring integration of information across sentences, paragraphs, or pages
Scriptally Implicit Comprehension: Comprehension requiring considerable use of prior knowledge in combination with information in text
Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Reasoned, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do, drawing inferences or conclusions
Argumentations: Taking a position on an issue and arguing for that position on the basis of evidence
Metacognition: Students’ understanding of their own thinking
Source: Murphy et al., 2009.
Next is philosophy for children, in which students share reading, listening, or viewing with their teacher and devise their own questions. They choose one question that interests them, and with the teacher’s help, discuss it together. The teacher encourages students to welcome the diversity of initial views and then involves them in questioning assumptions, developing opinions with supporting reasons, analyzing significant concepts, and applying good reasoning and judgment.
Third is the Paideia seminar. This strategy fosters critical and creative thinking through seminar dialogue, intellectual coaching, and mastery of information. It usually involves three steps: (1) a preseminar content preparation session, (2) a seminar to discuss the ideas, and (3) a postseminar process to assess participation and application of ideas.
Fourth is questioning the author, which aims to engage students deeply in the process of deriving meaning from text and in questioning the author’s position as an expert. The teacher encourages students to pose queries to the author while reading a given text, rather than after reading. The queries may look like “What is the author trying to say?” “Why does the author use the following phrase?” or “Does the author explain this clearly?”
Fifth is instructional conversation. This strategy resembles a paradox. It is instructional and aims to promote learning but is also conversational in quality, with natural and spontaneous language interactions free from the didactic language normally used in teaching. In an instructional conversation, the teacher listens carefully, makes guesses about students’ intended meanings, and adjusts responses to help students better construct knowledge.
Sixth is junior great
