it's good to talk especially in lectures!final2
TRANSCRIPT
Anna K. Wood
It's Good to Talk - Especially in Lectures!
● Lectures
Traditional:
‘Passive’, Monologic, Didactic, Teacher Centred
Purpose: content delivery.
Image from teddy-rised on Flickr
● Lectures
Reformed:
‘Active’, Engagement, Student Centred
Purpose:
Subject mastery.
Active Learning ≡ Interactive Engagement
……….heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activitieswhich yield immediate feedback through discussion with
peers and/or instructors...
Socio-cultural perspective
R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 1998
Talk in Lectures - 3 Perspectives:
1. Quantitative analysis of talk: (Framework for Interactive Learning in Lectures).
2. Lecturer-Student interactions.
3. Peer-discussions.
●
Acknowledgements
Judy Hardy, Ross Galloway(Edinburgh Physics Education Research Group (EdPER))
Christine Sinclair(Moray House)
● Context
● 1st year Physics Lectures
● 200-300 students (80:20 Male:Female)
● ‘Flipped’ Approach• Pre-readings and Quiz
● Active Learning Approach (Peer Instruction)
Peer-Instruction●
Part 1: Quantitative analysis of talk
Research Questions: 1. What types of interactions take place?2. To what extent is each used in a lecture?
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
●Method Data Collection: Lecture Capture Videos.16 lectures, 8 from each course (1A and 1B). CodingConstructivist grounded theory approach.Activities coded on a continuous (per second) basis.
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
Type of Activity
Lecturer talking, students listening
Lecturer question, student answer
Student question, lecturer answer
Student silent thinking
Student-student discussion
Feedback on PI voting, students listening
Inter-rater Reliability = 91%
Cohen’s kappa = 0.74
Framework for Interactive Learning in Lectures (FILL)
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
Physics 1A Physics 1B
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
Average Time on Lecturer Talking = 55%
● Quantitative Conclusions●
● FILL framework useful for characterising interactions in lectures.
● 55% of time is spent on non-interactive (passive) activities.
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
Part 2: Lecturer-Student interactions
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
Research Questions
1) What are the purposes of lecturer-student dialogue?
2) What is the nature of the dialogue? (e.g. dialogic vs authoritative)
● Peer-Instruction
●
Example 1
Lecturer:
Ok, so what did you say, so here’s what we said (shows graph), that’s an 80% win for option B and roughly equal for A and C as well there. So option B, 7 Joules , 7 Joules work done during that expansion.
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
● Triadic Dialogue (IRF):
Initiation (I) TeacherResponse (R) StudentFeedback (F) Teacher
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975)
● Triadic Dialogue (IRF):
Initiation (I) TeacherPose Clicker QResponse (R) StudentStudent’s VoteFeedback (F) TeacherLecturer shows graph
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
Peer-Instruction●
Type of Activity Interactivity TypeLecturer talking, students listening Non-Interactive
Lecturer question, student answer Vicarious Interactive
Student question, lecturer answer Vicarious Interactive
Student silent thinking Interactive
Student-student discussion Interactive
Feedback on PI voting, students listening Interactive
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
● Dialogic or Authoritative?
Dialogic Interaction:
More than one voice is heard and there is an exploration or ‘interanimation’ (Bahktin 1935) of ideas.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making In Secondary Science Classrooms.
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
Example 1 (continued)
Lecturer: Why is it 7 Joules, how did you
calculate that?
Student: area under the graph …..
Lecturer: yep,
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
● Example 2
Lecturer:
Why might someone say option C? What led you to think there is no heat transferred in this situation?
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
● Example 2
Lecturer:Why might someone say option C? What led you to think there is no heat transferred in this situation?
Lecturer:
Anyone disagree with that, anyone agree with it? ….What do you think?
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
● Dialogic or Authoritative?
‘Ideologically Dialogic’
Equal social relationships, intellectual openness and opportunities for creative thought. But can be discursively monologic.
E.g. Re-voicing, Higher order follow-up questions
O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When Is Dialogue “Dialogic”? Human Development, 50(5), 275–285.
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
● Types of Lecturer-Student Interaction
1. Feedback
2. Involving Students in Sense Making (Peer-Instruction)
3. Guided Expert Thinking/Problem Solving
4. Wonderment Questions
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
● Lecturer-Student Conclusions4 purposes of dialogue in large lectures
classes identified
Dialogue can be technology mediated
Interactions predominantly ‘authoritative’ …..
….but overall these are ‘ideologically dialogic’
Part 2: Lecturer-StudentInteractions
Part 3: Peer-discussions.
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
●
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Smart Pens Electronic Voting System
Data Collection
Resources Model
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Hammer, D. 1996a. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127.Redish, E. F. 2004. Research on Physics Education, vol.156.
Resource Activation
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Student 1: The work done on the gas, that means the work done by the gas is negative
Student 2: I think you’re probably right, oh, yeah, I’m a fool.Yep
Resource Activation
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Activation through knowledge elements
Activation through linkages between resources
Activation through control structures (epistemic games)
Types of Activation
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Student 1: The work done on the gas, that means the work done by the gas is negative
Student 2: I think you’re probably right, oh, yeah, I’m a fool.Yep
Activation through knowledge elements
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Activation through links
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
The Big Bang Theory, Season 1 Episode 2 The Big Bran Hypothesis.
Activation through links
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
The Big Bang Theory, Season 1 Episode 2 The Big Bran Hypothesis.
Activation through links
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Student 1:
Sin 30 is a half, I remember that from the Big Bang Theory when they were trying to push it up the stairs
Student 2: oh yeah it was about half the work because it was 30 degrees
●
‘An activation of a pattern of resources that can be associated with a collection of resources’From: J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
Epistemic Games
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
● Epistemic Games(Recursive Plug and Chug)
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
● Epistemic Games
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
●
Student 1: yep it is A!Student 2: It is A!Student 3: yep yep yep yep yep got it!
Epistemic Games (2)(Pictorial Analysis)
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Course Design
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Peer-Discussion Conclusions
● Peer discussions help students to:• Activate knowledge connections• Make links to other ideas• Try different approaches to problem solving
● Student-student discussions are more than just ‘one student teaches another’
Course Design
Part 3: Peer-Discussions
Final ThoughtsStudying the way talk is used in active learning lectures:
Highlights the importance of lecturer talk used in combination with student-centred activities
Shows the variation in lecturer-student interactions (and the challenges of generating productive talk)
Gives insights into the thinking processes during peer-discussion
● For more details:●
E-mail: [email protected]: @annakwood
References:
1. Wood et al. ‘Characterizing interactive engagement activities in a flipped introductory physics class’ Phys. Rev. Phys.Educ. Res. 12, 010140 (2016)
2. Wood et al. ‘Analyzing learning during Peer Instruction dialogues: A resource activation framework’ Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 10.2 (2014): 020107.
3. Wood et al. ‘Teacher-Student Discourse in Active Learning Lectures: A Case Study from Undergraduate Physics’ Submitted
Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
●
Theoretical Approach
R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 1998