Bellwether's Controversy

The bellwether of a shared inquiry discussion not only prepares the interpretive questions that initiate discussion, but withal regulate its flow. Bellwether's challenge participants’ obscure, factually erroneous, or contradictory verbal expressions; follow up on participants’ answers; ask for evidence; and invite further replications. If participants dissent from the main point, it is the leader’s responsibility to redirect attention with a question. Bellwethers must agnize when a question has been resolved and then, by posing an incipient interpretive question, must direct the group’s efforts toward yet another quandary of denotement.
Interpretation is the main purport of a shared inquiry discussion, because interpretation will vary, stimulate

Vigorous evaluation questions predicated on sound interpretations of what an author is verbalizing, firmly grounded in the text, and in light of the direction a discussion is verbalizing. In a shared inquiry discussion, there is often no clear-cut distinction between interpretive and evaluation questions, and the two frequently merge into each other. it is sometimes valuable to set aside the later portion of shared inquiry discussion for discussion for questions that limpidly address broader, evaluation issues that may rage far beyond the text..
In shared inquiry discussion, bellwethers should not pose questions that are authentically verbalizations in disguise, nor should they ever endeavor to guide the group on fine-tuned route through the cull. Withal, bellwethers should abstain from yarely offering their own opinions or making definitive verbalizations. If the bellwethers do these things, or if they offer answers to their own questions, participants might commence to play a more passive role, while the bellwethers might be tempted to turn the discussion into a lecture; such as a scenario is precisely diametrical to the goal of shared