towards discursive instruction: from i-r-e to accountable talk
Post on 25-Feb-2016
59 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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 MATTERSTHE EVIDENCE ON PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE
SC THRUST WORKPRELIMINARY RESULTSDISCUSSION
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
BUT…
HOW DO WE SPREAD ACADEMICALLY PRODUCTIVE TALK?
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
2 3
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 (Mayfield 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
TEACHER: ACCOUNTABLE TALKYEAR 1
Auto
Pre
dict
ed A
TR = .36
STUDENT TALKYEAR 1
Aver
age
Stud
ent
Wor
ds p
er Tu
rn
R = .18
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-PD17 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
TEACHER: ACCOUNTABLE TALKCOMPARING YEARS 1 AND 2
Auto
Pre
dict
ed A
T
R = .36
R = .45
STUDENT TALKCOMPARING YEARS 1 AND 2
Aver
age
Stud
ent
Wor
ds p
er Tu
rn
R = .18
R = .59
Significant effect of in vivo studies: F(1,28) = 3.49, p<.005, effect s ize 1.1 s .d .
Growth analys is shows s ignificantly d ifferent growth over t ime in sess ions that accompany in vivo studies vs. Other sess ions
Sessions accompanying in vivo studies are higher on average with less var iance than in other sess ions, and do not show growth over t ime
Sessions not accompanying in vivo studies are lower on average, more var iab le, and show s ign ificant 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)
AGRE
E/D
iSAG
REE
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
EACH
ER A
T
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
THANKS!
Sherice N. Clarke sclarke@pitt.edu
top related