Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | leon-kennedy |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Sher ice N. C larkeLauren B. ResnickCarolyn Rosé Gaowei ChenCather ine Sta intonSandra KatzGregory DykeDavid AdamsonIr is HowleyJ im GreenoSamuel SpiegelRebecca Granger
TOWARDS DISCURSIVE
INSTRUCTION: FROM I-R-E TO ACCOUNTABLE TALK
WHY TALK MATTERS
THE EVIDENCE ON PRODUCTIVE
DIALOGUE
SC THRUST WORK
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW
Academically productive talk, e.g. Accountable Talk (Resnick, Michaels & O’Connor 2010)
PROMOTING NEW DISCOURSE METHODS
Mr. NELSON So then put it in your own words. Explain why she's right or wrong.
Desmond She’s, she is right because I don't know.
Mr. NELSON What's it prove? Put it into words.
Desmond That the, ah I don't know.
Mr. NELSON Why don't you start with a ratio of babies.
Desmond The ratio of babies is fifty to fifty.
Mr. NELSON Shhhh. Come on go ahead. Stephen you're next.
Desmond One of the parents is white and the other is orange. I had this good explanation…
Explain Other
Press for Reasoning
Press for Reasoning
Expand
9th GRADE BIO EXCERPT: Nelson Yr2, Period 7, Obs 31
Structure of talk, discursive positioning, and cognitive engagement (Greeno, in press)
Reverse hour glass study (Asterhan & Resnick, 2010)
2011 Conference on Socializing Intelligence through Talk and Dialogue (Resnick, Asterhan and Clarke, in press)
WHY ACADEMICALLY PRODUCTIVE TALK MATTERS
When highly skilled teachers of math, science, and reading teach to previously underachieving students using discursive approaches to instruction like Accountable Talk…
students show steep changes in standardized math scores, transfer to reading test scores, retention of transfer for up to 3 yrs (Bill, Leer, Reams & Resnick, 1992; Chapin & O’Connor, 2004)
students outperform control groups on national tests in science taken 3 years after the intervention (Adey & Shayer, 1993, 2001; Shayer, 1999)
Students perform better on the non-verbal reasoning tests of cognitive ability when compared to students from control classes (Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2004; Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999; Wegerif, Mercer & Dawes, 1999) and maintain this advantage for up to 2 yrs (Topping & Trickey, 2007a, 2007b)
KEY FINDINGS
Social and Communicative Factors Thrust
TOWARDS SPREADING DISCURSIVE INSTRUCTION IN BIOLOGY
District Context: 2008-2010
• 63% of district students performing below proficient in READING
• 56% below proficient in MATH, a large % of which are African American students
School context: • 5+ years failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress on
standardized tests
2-year design study on spreading discursive instruction in Biology
Accountable Talk in 9th Grade Biology
Macro StudyIn Vivo Study
Unit pre-test
Target Lesson 2: Accountable Talk Discussion
Unit Post-Test
Intervention post-
test
1
23
4PD
Planning
Teaching
Reflection
Design
Intervention Pre-test
Target Lesson 1: Accountable Talk Discussion
Intervention
Post discussio
n test
Automatic coding of transcripts of classroom talk using lightSIDE (Mayfi eld and Rosé, in press)
Analysis of teacher and student growth in dialogue over time
CASE: 1 teacher Dataset: 32 lessons, with
4 classes over 2 year period
ANALYSIS
Downloadable at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~emayfiel/side.html
3 in vivo studies in 9 th grade biology Other similar studies in
math, freshman engineering, thermodynamics, and chemistry
Online small group activities, support from Conversational Computer Agents
IN VIVO STUDIES
Example Intervention: Revoicing Agent
District-wide AT-PD
17 teachers in district6 AT-PD sessionsTeacher reflections after AT simulations in AT-
PD:“…but my kids can’t do this!”
“…I won’t be able to do this in my school!”
“…We [teachers] know more, that’s why WE can do AT”
YEAR 1: LESSONS LEARNED
REDESIGNTargeted PD in classrooms,
with teachers
FOCUS: supporting teachers in planning, implementing and reflecting on how to use AT with their curriculum, with their students, in their classes
YEAR 2 ITERATION: PD REDESIGN
Planning
Teaching
Reflection
Signifi cant eff ect of in v ivo studies: F(1,28) = 3.49, p<.005, eff ect s ize 1.1 s.d.
Growth analysis shows s ignifi cant ly diff erent growth over t ime in sessions that accompany in v ivo studies vs. Other sessions
Sessions accompanying in v ivo studies are higher on average with less var iance than in other sessions, and do not show growth over t ime
Sessions not accompanying in v ivo studies are lower on average, more var iable, and show signifi cant growth over t ime
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320
2
4
6
8
10
12
Agree/Disagree AT Move
Series1
TIME (observations)
AG
REE/D
iSA
GR
EE
Post in vivo
Year 2 start
AT AND IN VIVO STUDIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Teacher AT
Series1
TIME (observations)
% T
EA
CH
ER
AT
Post in vivo
Year 2
Changing discursive culture of instruction Convergence of teacher and student expectations in dialogue Teacher and student support for dialogue, co-construction
in dialogue, and the functions of co-construction in talk
NEXT STEPS: Further analysis of teacher growth in dialogue, PD and impact of
in vivo studies on teacher led discussions
Automatic analysis of student growth in the quality utterances
Analysis of individual growth in dialogue and learning outcomes
YEAR 3 iteration Continued work with existing teachers and new student cohorts
Training teachers of Algebra and studying impact on student dialogue and learning
CONCLUSION