1. Sherice N. Clarke Lauren B. Resnick Carolyn Rosé Gaowei Chen Catherine Stainton Sandra Katz Gregory Dyke David Adamson Iris Howley Jim Greeno Samuel Spiegel Rebecca Granger TOWARDS DISCURSIVE INSTRUCTION: FROM I-R-E TO ACCOUNTABLE TALK

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

3. Academically productive talk, e.g. Accountable Talk (Resnick, Michaels & O’Connor 2010) PROMOTING NEW DISCOURSE METHODS Mr. NELSONSo then put it in your own words. Explain why she's right or wrong. DesmondShe’s, she is right because I don't know. Mr. NELSONWhat's it prove? Put it into words. DesmondThat the, ah I don't know. Mr. NELSONWhy don't you start with a ratio of babies. DesmondThe ratio of babies is fifty to fifty. Mr. NELSONShhhh. Come on go ahead. Stephen you're next. DesmondOne of the parents is white and the other is orange. I had this good explanation… Explain Other Press for Reasoning Expand 9 th GRADE BIO EXCERPT: Nelson Yr2, Period 7, Obs 31

4.  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

5.  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

6. BUT…

7. HOW DO WE SPREAD ACADEMICALLY PRODUCTIVE TALK?

8. 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 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 2-year design study on spreading discursive instruction in Biology

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

10.  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.htmlhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~emayfiel/side.html

11. TEACHER: ACCOUNTABLE TALK YEAR 1 Auto Predicted AT R =.36

12. STUDENT TALK YEAR 1 Average Student Words per Turn R =.18

13.  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

14. 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 1: LESSONS LEARNED

15. 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 YEAR 2 ITERATION: PD REDESIGN Planning Teaching Reflection

16. TEACHER: ACCOUNTABLE TALK COMPARING YEARS 1 AND 2 Auto Predicted AT R =.36 R =.45

17. STUDENT TALK COMPARING YEARS 1 AND 2 Average Student Words per Turn R =.18 R =.59

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 sessions Sessions accompanying in vivo studies are higher on average with less variance than in other sessions, and do not show growth over time Sessions not accompanying in vivo studies are lower on average, more variable, and show significant growth over time

19. AT AND IN VIVO STUDIES

20. 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

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