1. Robert Zisk, Elana Resnick, Eugenia Etkina Rutgers University Students have difficulties comprehending science texts. The interrogation method, which prompts students to read sentences from the text and answer, “Why is this true?” has been developed to enhance students’ ability to read and comprehend science texts. To enact this method, instructors must choose sentences that are both important conceptually and can be interrogated. However not every sentence in a textbook is important or can be interrogated. Can instructors choose the sentences productively? To answer this question, we analyzed the sentences that the teaching assistants (pre-service teachers), learning assistants (undergraduates who took the course last year), and the course coordinator chose for interrogation in the course where this reading comprehension method was used. We analyzed the conceptual importance of the sentences and their interrogatability, as well as their underlying epistemologies. Based on analysis of the chosen sentences, we developed a model for choosing productive sentences to interrogate. Why is this sentence true? Helping students read the textbook Choosing highly interrogatable sentences requires an in depth knowledge of the textbook and the subject matter. When choosing an interrogatable sentence the instructor must be aware of all of the epistemologies the students may implement in order to respond to the sentence. While all the groups frequently chose sentences that allowed for reasoning through multiple representations to respond, there were very few instances of reasoning through evidence. Opportunities for the future: Analyze student responses to the sentences to further enhance the model of choosing sentences to interrogate. Develop training to enhance instructors’ abilities to choose productive sentences to interrogate. Implications for Instruction Results The sentences chosen by the instructor, TA’s and LA’s most frequently required students to reason through authority or the use of multiple representations. Among the highly interrogatable sentences, most could be responded to using multiple representations. However, very few could be answered using reasoning through evidence. The groups differed significantly on interrogatability but not on importance. The instructor’s sentences were significantly more interrogatable than sentences chosen by the TA’s and LA’s. Comparing Interrogatability and Importance Epistemologies Coding Scheme To enact the interrogation method properly, chosen sentences should be: - Important Conceptually - Deeply interrogatable (how much additional information one can provide explaining why this sentence is true) - Force students to use productive forms of reasoning -Reasoning with multiple representations -Reasoning through evidence Productive Sentences Epistemological Ideas Comparing Interrogatability and Importance When the elevator is at rest or moving at a constant speed the scale reading is the same as the magnitude of the force that the Earth exerts on you. Model Sentence References 1.N. Podolefsky, and N. Finkelstein. “The perceived value of college textbooks: Instructors and students may not see eye to eye.” TPT. 44(6) (2006). 2.J.P. Gee. “Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy.” In: E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 383 – 394). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association (2004). 3.B. Smith, W. Holliday, and H. Austin. “Student’s comprehension of science textbooks using a question- based reading strategy.” JRST, 47(4), 363-379. (2009). 4.A. Van Heuvelen. “Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research based instructional strategies.” AJP, 59(10), 891-897 (1991). 5.D. May,& E. Etkina. “College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning.” AJP, 70 (12), 1249-1258 (2002). 6.E. Etkina, M. Gentile, and A. Van Heuvelen. Physics, the process approach. Pearson. Trial edition (2012). -Introductory Physics for non-physics science majors. -Instructors: -Teaching Assistants (TA’s): pre- service physics teachers -Learning Assistants (LA’s) : Undergraduates who have previously taken the course -Course Coordinator: Full time instructor in the Physics Department Course Textbook Used in Course Highly Interrogatable Sentences Epistemology Totals Physics: A Process Approach E. Etkina, M. Gentile, A. Van Heuvelen Pearson, 2012 Sentence 1: The line shown on a kinematics graph is not a picture of the actual path that the object takes as it moves. Sentence 2: These two forces are exerted on the same object and are of different types, so they cannot be a Newton’s third law pair of forces. Example Sentences Codes for Sentences Reasoning through evidence The students can observe this experiment being performed. Math Students can use a mathematical equation. Multiple Representations Student can use motion diagrams and force diagrams in order to answer the question. High interrogatability This sentence requires the use of high levels of cognitive processes in order to completely answer the question. High importance This sentence represents several conceptually important ideas in physics: system choice, Newton’s three laws, motion diagrams, and force diagrams. Corresponding Codes Epistemological Value Interrogatability/ Importance InterrogatabilityCode None0 Low1 High2 ImportanceCode None0 Low1 High2 GroupLATA Course Coordinator Interrogatability0.9711.071.54 Importance1.621.671.82 Source of VariationSSdfMSFP Between Groups.05020.0251.0080.396 Within Group.273110.025 Total.32313 ContrastsValueTP Course Coordinator vs. TA and LA0.51822.810.017 Source of VariationSSdfMSFP Between Groups.2852.1424.5070.037 Within Group.347110.032 Total.63213 EpistemologyCode Reasoning through EvidenceRE MathM AuthorityA Reasoning with Multiple RepresentationsMR SkillS Sentence 1Sentence 2 Importance22 Interrogatability20 EpisemologiesA, MR, SA -Only 37 percent of students self report that they regularly complete their assigned reading -The lack of thorough reading limits students’ mastery of new science topics -Reading and learning from science texts is a critical component of learning and success after college -Professionals who regularly read science texts tend to be higher achievers compared to those who report reading less. Motivation - Each week, the TA’s and LA’s were asked to read the textbook chapter assigned to the students. -They were then presented with the following prompt: -“As you read the textbook be on the lookout for sentences that would be interesting to ask ‘why is this sentence true?’ As you come across these sentences fill them in below (do at least 2). Also include the section, page, and paragraph where each sentence is located. Choose sentences from sections that have the fewest sentences already chosen so there is even coverage throughout the chapter.” Data Collection -Developed to enhance students’ ability to read textbooks. -Students read a sentence from the text and answer “Why is this sentence true?” -Instructors need to be able to choose productive sentences to interrogate - What type of sentences do instructors choose for students to interrogate? Interrogation Method Summary of mean interrogatability and importance ratings ANOVA table for interrogatablilty ANOVA table for importance Contrast comparing assistants with course coordinator for interrogatability