Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

It's good to talk especially in lectures!final2

324 views

Published on

Talk given at Moray House, Department of Education, University of Edinburgh on 1st Nov 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

It's good to talk especially in lectures!final2

  1. 1. Anna K. Wood It's Good to Talk - Especially in Lectures!
  2. 2. ● Lectures Traditional: ‘Passive’, Monologic, Didactic, Teacher Centred Purpose: content delivery. Image from teddy-rised on Flickr
  3. 3. ● Lectures Reformed: ‘Active’, Engagement, Student Centred Purpose: Subject mastery.
  4. 4. Active Learning ≡ Interactive Engagement ……….heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors... Socio-cultural perspective R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 1998
  5. 5. Talk in Lectures - 3 Perspectives: 1. Quantitative analysis of talk: (Framework for Interactive Learning in Lectures). 1. Lecturer-Student interactions. 1. Peer-discussions.
  6. 6. ● Acknowledgements Judy Hardy, Ross Galloway (Edinburgh Physics Education Research Group (EdPER)) Christine Sinclair (Moray House)
  7. 7. ● Context ● 1st year Physics Lectures ● 200-300 students (80:20 Male:Female) ● ‘Flipped’ Approach • Pre-readings and Quiz ● Active Learning Approach (Peer Instruction)
  8. 8. Peer-Instruction ●
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. ●Method Data Collection: Lecture Capture Videos. 16 lectures, 8 from each course (1A and 1B). Coding Constructivist grounded theory approach. Activities coded on a continuous (per second) basis. Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Physics 1A Physics 1B Part 1: Quantitative Analysis Average Time on Lecturer Talking = 55%
  13. 13. ● Quantitative Conclusions ● ● FILL framework useful for characterising interactions in lectures. ● 55% of time is spent on non-interactive (passive) activities. Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
  14. 14. Part 2: Lecturer-Student interactions Part 2: Lecturer-Student Interactions Research Questions 1) What are the purposes of lecturer-student dialogue? 1) What is the nature of the dialogue? (e.g. dialogic vs authoritative)
  15. 15. ● Peer-Instruction
  16. 16. ● 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-Student Interactions
  17. 17. ● Triadic Dialogue (IRF): Initiation (I) Teacher Response (R) Student Feedback (F) Teacher Part 2: Lecturer-Student Interactions Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975)
  18. 18. ● Triadic Dialogue (IRF): Initiation (I) Teacher Pose Clicker Q Response (R) Student Student’s Vote Feedback (F) Teacher Lecturer shows graph Part 2: Lecturer-Student Interactions
  19. 19. Peer-Instruction●
  20. 20. Type of Activity Interactivity Type Lecturer 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
  21. 21. ● 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-Student Interactions
  22. 22. Example 1 (continued) Lecturer: Why is it 7 Joules, how did you calculate that? Student: area under the graph ….. Lecturer: yep, Part 2: Lecturer-Student Interactions
  23. 23. ● 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-Student Interactions
  24. 24. ● 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-Student Interactions
  25. 25. ● 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-Student Interactions
  26. 26. ● Types of Lecturer-Student Interaction 1. Feedback 1. Involving Students in Sense Making (Peer- Instruction) 1. Guided Expert Thinking/Problem Solving 1. Wonderment Questions Part 2: Lecturer-Student Interactions
  27. 27. ● Lecturer-Student Conclusions  4 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-Student Interactions
  28. 28. Part 3: Peer-discussions. Part 3: Peer-Discussions
  29. 29. ● Part 3: Peer-Discussions Smart Pens Electronic Voting System Data Collection
  30. 30. 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.
  31. 31. Resource Activation Part 3: Peer-Discussions
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. Activation through knowledge elements Activation through linkages between resources Activation through control structures (epistemic games) Types of Activation Part 3: Peer-Discussions
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. Activation through links Part 3: Peer-Discussions The Big Bang Theory, Season 1 Episode 2 The Big Bran Hypothesis.
  36. 36. Activation through links Part 3: Peer-Discussions The Big Bang Theory, Season 1 Episode 2 The Big Bran Hypothesis.
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. ● ‘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
  39. 39. ● Epistemic Games (Recursive Plug and Chug) Part 3: Peer-Discussions
  40. 40. ● Epistemic Games Part 3: Peer-Discussions
  41. 41. ● 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
  42. 42. 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’
  43. 43. Course Design Part 3: Peer-Discussions Final Thoughts Studying 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
  44. 44. ● For more details: ● E-mail: annakwood@physics.org Twitter: @annakwood References: 1. Wood et al. ‘Characterizing interactive engagement activities in a flipped introductory physics class’ Phys. Rev. Phys.Educ. Res. 12, 010140 (2016) 1. Wood et al. ‘Analyzing learning during Peer Instruction dialogues: A resource activation framework’ Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 10.2 (2014): 020107. 1. Wood et al. ‘Teacher-Student Discourse in Active Learning Lectures: A Case Study from Undergraduate Physics’ Submitted
  45. 45. Part 1: Quantitative Analysis
  46. 46. ● Theoretical Approach R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 1998

×