### Towards Discursive Instruction: From I-R

```TOWARDS DISCURSIVE
INSTRUCTION:
FROM I-R-E TO ACCOUNTABLE TALK
Sherice N. Clarke
Lauren B. Resnick
Carolyn Rosé
Gaowei Chen
Catherine Stainton
Sandra Katz
Gregory Dyke
Iris Howley
Jim Greeno
Samuel Spiegel
Rebecca Granger
OVERVIEW
WHY TALK MATTERS
THE EVIDENCE ON PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE
SC THRUST WORK
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
DISCUSSION
PROMOTING NEW DISCOURSE METHODS
Academically productive talk, e.g. Accountable Talk
( R e s n i ck , M i c h a e l s &
O’ C o n nor 2 0 1 0 )
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
Explain Other
Press for Reasoning
That the, ah I don't know.
Mr. NELSON
Why don't you start with a ratio of babies. Press for Reasoning
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…
Expand
9th GRADE BIO EXCERPT: Nelson Yr2, Period 7, Obs 31
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)
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)
 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
2 yrs (Topping & Trickey, 2007a, 2007b)
to
BUT…
PRODUCTIVE TALK?
INSTRUCTION IN BIOLOGY
Social and Communicative Factors Thrust
2-year design study on 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
Accountable Talk in 9th Grade Biology
Planning
Unit
pre-test
1
Teaching
Reflection
Target Lesson 1:
Accountable Talk
Discussion
Target Lesson 2:
Accountable Talk
Discussion
2
3
Unit Post-Test
PD
Macro Study
Intervention
Pre-test
Design
In Vivo Study
Intervention
Post
Intervention
discussion
post-test
test
4
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
Auto Predicted AT
TEACHER: ACCOUNTABLE TALK
YEAR 1
R = .36
Average Student
Words per Turn
STUDENT TALK
YEAR 1
R = .18
IN VIVO STUDIES
 3 in vivo studies in 9 th
 Other similar studies in math,
freshman engineering,
thermodynamics, and
chemistry
 Online small group
activities, support from
Conversational
Computer Agents
Example Intervention: Revoicing Agent
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”
YEAR 2 ITERATION: PD REDESIGN
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
Planning
Teaching
Reflection
Auto Predicted AT
TEACHER: ACCOUNTABLE TALK
COMPARING YEARS 1 AND 2
R = .45
R = .36
Average Student
Words per Turn
STUDENT TALK
COMPARING YEARS 1 AND 2
R = .59
R = .18
Agree/Disagree AT Move
12
AGREE/DiSAGREE
10
8
6
Series1
Post in vivo
4
Year 2 start
2
0
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 32
TIME (observations)
S i g ni fi c a n t e f f e c t o f i n v i v o s t u d i e s : F ( 1 , 2 8 ) = 3 . 4 9 , p < . 0 0 5 , e f f e c t s i z e 1 .1 s . d .
G r o w t h a n a l y s i s s h o w s s i g n i fic a n t l y d i f fe r e n t g r o w t h o v e r t i m e i n s e s s i o n s t h a t
a c c o m p a ny i n v i v o s t u d i e s v s . O t h e r s e s s i o n s
S e s s i o n s a c c o m pa ny in g i n v i v o s t u d i e s a r e h i g h e r o n av e r a g e w i t h l e s s v a r i a n c e
than in other sessions, and do not show growth over time
S e s s i o n s n o t a c c o m p a ny i ng i n v i v o s t u d i e s a r e l o we r o n av e r a g e , m o r e v a r i a b l e , a n d
s h o w s i g n i fi ca n t g r o w t h o v e r t i m e
AT AND IN VIVO STUDIES
Teacher AT
25.00
% TEACHER AT
20.00
15.00
Series1
10.00
Post in vivo
Year 2
5.00
0.00
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 32
TIME (observations)
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
THANKS!
Sherice N. Clarke
[email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName('script'),e=t.length;e--;)if(t[e].getAttribute('data-cfhash'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute('data-cfemail')){for(e='',r='0x'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+='%'+('0'+('0x'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */
```