Dan MacIsaac , Ph.D. SUNY- Buffalo State College Dept of Physics, <macisadl@buffalostate>

1. Fostering Learning of Introductory Physics via Intensive Student Discourse: Analyzing A Discourse-Rich Physics Teaching Sample Dan MacIsaac, Ph.D. SUNY- Buffalo State College Dept of Physics, <macisadl@buffalostate.edu> Kathleen Falconer, M.S. SUNY- Buffalo State College Depts of Physics and Mathematics, <falconka@buffalostate.edu>

2. Abstract We have been examining and producing1-3 video vignettes of physics teaching practices for some time with the intent of fostering better practices4-6 for student physics learning. In this session we will view and analyze a discourse-rich ASU Modeling Physics vignette taken from an unusually successful community college physics classroom together. A brief description of the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) will also be presented.

3. RTOP Video 4: Modeling via Intensive Student Discourse Falconer, K.A., Joshua, M., & Desbien D. (2003) (Authors & Producers; SUNY-BSC Production; MacIsaac analysis). RTOP Video 4: Modeling via Intensive Student Discourse. [QuickTime Web Streamed Video 10:15]. Buffalo, NY: Authors. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/pubs/AAPT/EdmontonDec2013>. Video of effective Instruction as measured by student conceptual score gain from pre- and post-testing with the Hestenes‘Force Concept Inventorydiscourse intensive mechanics learning by Arizona community college students

4. Guides to Observing this Video • What is going on in this classroom? • Which events are promoting learning? • Watch the video and make a few notes on striking behaviours that are taking place that you believe are promoting learning. • What can you observe / infer about teacher manipulation of this classroom activity & culture?

6. Video contains roughly three main sections: • student data gathering activity • student circle whiteboarding discourse, • teacher warranting knowledge and setting up next activity (relative lengths of 10 min vignette activity reflect % of time spent in typical classroom practice)

7. 1. Student data gathering activity • students enter class and go right to work cued from last class“model how a ball bounces” - rich underspecified PER activity • students obviously comfortable with activity without instructor guidance • student tools / representations are whiteboarding, SONAR and x-v-a vs. t plots (student“hammers” used on activity “nail”) • teacher is seeding different groups with different questions – pushing in different directions, different parts of the puzzle • unique tool to some groups – energy pie charts, students must explain to colleagues

8. 2. Student Circle Whiteboarding Discourse • Rich, underspecified, PER-informed activity • Whiteboard force/facilitate within group negotiation of shared meaning (anchor the discourse) • Students trained in taking turns and “sharing the air”(also can use balls, laser pointers) • explicit use of model building and selection is evident (nature of curriculum) • new tool (energy pie chart analysis) gets significant billing • jargon control (noun Nazis) profitably directs student thought (Orwellian 1984 NewSpeak; fragile knowledge)

9. 3. Teacher warranting knowledge / control • advanced language control -- vocabulary manipulation (grudgingly allows jargon on few but critical terms) constrains and focuses student thought • Careful use of PER-informed classroom locutions • warrants certain classroom learning – affirms or forces agreement; “we all agree that”plus nod) • sharply limited “closure” setting up next activity

10. Overall • Student discourse intensive (Vygotsky) • Student meaning-making centered class • highly motivated and on-task group (sense of student control and empowerment) • lots of active instructor manipulation of classroom activity, environment and student thought (deliberately deflated balls) • strong student scientific discourse – observational, phenomenological, theory building, prediction and testing yet to come • quite Machiavellian actually

11. References 1. M. Piburn, D. Sawada, K. Falconer, J. Turley, R. Benford, and I. Bloom. "Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)." ACEPT IN-003. (ACEPT, 2000). The RTOP rubric form, training manual, statistical reference manuals, and sample scored video vignettes are all available from <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.EduAZTEC/rtop/> under RESOURCES. 2. Falconer, K.A., Joshua, M., & Desbien D. (2003) (Authors & Producers; SUNY-BSC Production; MacIsaac analysis). RTOP Video 4: Modeling via Intensive Student Discourse. [QuickTime Web Streamed Video 10:15]. Buffalo, NY: Authors. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/pubs/AAPT/EdmontonDec2013>. 3. Falconer, K.A. & MacIsaac, D.L. (2004) (Authors & Producers; SUNY-BSC Production). Reformed Teaching Methods: Think Pair Share. [QuickTime Web Streamed Video 12:02]. Buffalo, NY: Authors. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/pubs/AAPT/EdmontonDec2013>. 4. D.L. MacIsaac and K. A. Falconer. "Reforming physics instruction via RTOP," Phys. Teach.40 (8), 479-485 (Nov 2002). 5. A.E. Lawson et al., “Reforming and evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: Reformed teaching improves student achievement,”J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31, 388–393 (March/April 2002). 6. Thornton, R.K. (2002). Uncommon knowledge: Student behavior correlated to conceptual learning. Unpublished manuscript available from the author.