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