This comparative study on the implementation of the group discussion time in two kindergarten classrooms both using project approach aimed to investigate the curriculum development, the contents and the functions for group discussion and sharing; to illustrate the teacher's roles and teacherchild interaction during the time for group discussion and sharing; to compare the questioning skills, group-order managing skills, and other teaching skills used by the teachers during group time; and to recommend some practical and appropriate guidelines for improvement and better implementation of group discussion and sharing time in kindergarten classrooms. Teachers J and G, both with eight years of experience and Teacher Y and H, respectively with twenty and six years of experience, from two projectapproach classrooms from different kindergartens were involved in this study. Videotaping was used to collect data at different times in the two kindergarten classrooms. For Teachers J and G's classroom, videotaping started from January 7, 1997 and ended in January 17, 1997 for seven days, from 10:00 to 11:30 am. The theme of learning for that week was “highways”. For Teachers Y and H, videotaping lasted for two weeks, from November 19 to 29, 1996, from 10:30 to 11:30 am, Tuesday through Friday. Each teacher was videotaped for four mornings in total. “Flying” was the central theme of children' project activities. Common features shared by the two project-approach classrooms included: (1) A complete session of time was helpful for the implementation of project activities. (2) A morning session of the implementation of the project approach was scheduled in three steps: group discussion, free-choice time for project work, and sharing. (3) The curriculum of the classrooms both took a problem-solving approach, which followed the procedure of inspecting the progress of the project, the showing of the children's project work, children's sharing of the problems they encountered, and the discussion of how to solve the problems among the class. (4) Teachers shared common roles as a conductor, a project monitor, a guide, a facility supplier, a time controller, a questioner of children's suggestions, a supporter of children's continuous involvement in the project. The differences between the two projectapproach classrooms lay in the following aspects. (1) There was more than one project going on in Teachers J and G's classroom. (2) Teachers J and G stressed the design of a blueprint for each child's project work. (3) The implementation of the project in Teachers J and G's classroom tended to lack the review and a look on the future development of the project, the use and sharing of project-related books with the children, voting for different proposals to a controversial issue in the class, the negotiation of children's quarrels during group discussion and sharing. (4)Teachers J and G put an emphasis on the showing of each child's project work and the discussion of his/her problems related to the project work in the class. (5) The lack of both teachers' involvement during the time for group discussion and sharing was observed in Teachers Y and H's classroom. (6) Both Teachers Y and H emphasized the rule to raise your hand for speaking during the group time, and frequently used group-order managing skills. In addition, Teacher Y was a subtle question-raiser, who was very skillful at construction a humorous atmosphere for discussion, and had a unique tendency to let children become the center of discussion, and thus diluted her role as the conductor of the group discussion and sharing. Recommendations were made based upon the findings of the study.