Towards discursive instruction: from I-R-E to Accountable Talk

1. Towards discursive instruction: from I-R-E to Accountable Talk Sherice N. Clarke Lauren B. Resnick Carolyn Rosé GaoweiChen Catherine Stainton Sandra Katz Gregory Dyke David Adamson Iris Howley Jim Greeno Samuel Spiegel Rebecca Granger

2. overview • WHY TALK MATTERS • THE EVIDENCE ON PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE • SC THRUST WORK • PRELIMINARY RESULTS • DISCUSSION

3. Promoting new discourse methods Academically productive talk, e.g. Accountable Talk (Resnick, Michaels & O’Connor 2010) Explain Other Press for Reasoning Press for Reasoning Expand 9th GRADE BIO EXCERPT: Nelson Yr2, Period 7, Obs 31

4. Why academically productive talk matters • 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)

5. KEY FINDINGS • 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) • Studentsperformbetter on thenon-verbalreasoningtests of cognitiveabilitywhencomparedtostudentsfromcontrolclasses(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)

6. BUT…

7. How do we spreadacademically productive talk?

8. Towards spreading discursive instruction in biology Social and Communicative Factors Thrust 2-year design study on spreading discursive instruction in Biology • Accountable Talk Professional Development (PD) • Training in-service teachers • Observation of Classroom Discussions • Tracking teacher and individual student growth in dialogue • Studying impact of PD on instruction and student learning • Student learning – dialogic reasoning • In Vivo studies targeted towards developing students use of Accountable talk • 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

9. Accountable Talk in 9th Grade Biology Target Lesson 1: Accountable Talk Discussion Target Lesson 2: Accountable Talk Discussion 1 2 3 Unit Post-Test 4 • PD Macro Study In Vivo Study Intervention post-test Unit pre-test Intervention Design Intervention Pre-test Post discussion test

10. analysis • 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 Downloadable at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~emayfiel/side.html

11. Teacher: Accountable TalkYear 1 Auto Predicted AT R = .36

12. Student talkYear 1 Average Student Words per Turn R = .18

13. In vivo studies • 3 in vivo studies in 9th grade biology • Other similar studies in math, freshman engineering, thermodynamics, and chemistry • Online small group activities, support from Conversational Computer Agents Example Intervention: Revoicing Agent

14. Year 1: Lessons Learned District-wide AT-PD • 17 teachers in district • 6 AT-PD sessions • Teacher 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”

15. Year 2 iteration: PDredesign REDESIGN • Targeted 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

16. Teacher: Accountable TalkComparing Years 1 and 2 Auto Predicted AT R = .45 R = .36

17. Student talkComparing Years 1 and 2 Average Student Words per Turn R = .59 R = .18

18. Significant effect of in vivo studies: F(1,28) = 3.49, p<.005, effect size 1.1 s.d.Growth analysis shows significantly different growth over time in sessions that accompany in vivo studies vs. Other sessionsSessions accompanying in vivo studies are higher on average with less variance than in other sessions, and do not show growth over timeSessions not accompanying in vivo studies are lower on average, more variable, and show significant growth over time

19. AT and In vivo studies

20. Conclusion 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

21. THANKS! Sherice N. Clarke sclarke@pitt.edu