Implementing - Arizona State University



Implementing

Modeling Discourse Management

In High School Physics

An Action Research Project

By John Crookston

July 17, 2006

7:30 pm

PSH 356

Abstract

Modeling discourse management is a second-generation classroom management technique developed to augment first generation Socratic modeling. Socratic modeling promotes student discourse through Socratic dialogue in which the teacher leads students to a deeper understanding through persistent questioning. Modeling discourse, also referred to as discourse management, is a classroom management technique that promotes student discourse through “seeding” and the creation of a learning community. Seeding is a questioning technique where the teacher seeds small collaborative groups with a question or hint and a learning community is where knowledge is socially constructed. Discourse management has been found to enhance student understanding, problem solving skills, and student views of science in regular and honors university classes where it has been tried. This action research project chronicles a two-year effort to implement discourse management in the high school setting. The implementation was designed to promote richer student-to-student discourse, improve student engagement, change student views about learning and science, and enable the teacher to function and be perceived more as facilitator of learning and less as an authority. A contrasting alternatives survey was designed to measure the use of discourse management techniques. Results indicate some success at using modeling discourse management and point to the need for further investigation.

Context

Forest Hills High School is a three-year public high school located in the rural community of Sidman, Pennsylvania. The Forest Hills School District is located ten miles northeast of Johnstown and both communities are situated in west-central PA about 90 miles east of Pittsburgh. The high school’s seven hundred students are 99.1% Caucasian, 0.7% Black, and 0.2% Hispanic and 36.4% of the students come from economically disadvantaged households. In 2000-2001, 70% of the graduates intended to enroll in post-secondary degree programs, 4% in non-degree programs, 23% intended to seek employment and 3% intended to join the military. In 2005, the high school made adequate yearly progress as defined by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. The high school follows a 4 x 4 block schedule with regular classes running 80 minutes a day for eighteen weeks. I teach Physics 1 on this schedule with class size ranging from 14 to 28 students. The physics students are typically college bound, and have passed Algebra II and Chemistry 1 with at least a “C” average. On average my Physics 1 classes are 40% female, 60% male and 65% juniors, 35% seniors. I also teach AP Physics C Mechanics, and Conceptual Physics.

Historical Background

In 1999, after thirteen years of teaching high school physics, I began moving away from traditional physics instruction - lecture, problem solving, cookbook verification labs - because of a growing realization that what I thought I was teaching was not what students were learning. Students often missed the point of what I told them in lecture. My presentations of definitions, facts and know how were usually rote memorized with little more than superficial understanding. Showing students how to solve problems usually resulted in many students parroting what I did when they solved similar problems. As a consequence, students viewed successful problem solving as what mattered most in physics. With each additional chapter, a new set of problems that could be solved using some additional new equations eventually gave students a very fragmented view of physics. At its worst, this fragmentation was most evident when students tried to solve novel problems; many could not solve them and claimed they had never worked on these kinds of problems. Fragmentation was also evident during reviews for exams; students blindly searched for the right equation in an attempt to get answers to problems done in the earlier part of the course. Instead of learning physics as a unified and coherent body of knowledge, students were learning how to select and manipulate formulas to solve problems with only a limited understanding of the underlying concepts on which the solutions were based. My departure from traditional instruction began in the summer of 1999 when I took a month long Modeling Workshop in teaching mechanics at the University of Maryland.

Conceptual Framework

The Modeling Method of physics instruction is a research-based reform effort built on the premise that active student involvement will increase conceptual understanding (Wells, Hestenes and Swackhammer, 1995, Desbien 2002). It is based on the constructivist idea that students construct knowledge through interactions with each other and the instructor (Piaget, 1964, 1970 Vygotsky, 1962, Desbien, 2002).

The Modeling Method has students work in small cooperative groups to determine physical relationships with minimal guidance from the teacher. Typically, students work through a modeling cycle in which they design and perform experiments, use graphing calculators or computers to collect and analyze data, formulate functional relationships between variables, and evaluate “fit” to data. Results are then summarized on dry-erase white boards using diagrams, graphs, derived equations and written statements of uncovered relationships. In the post-lab analysis white boards are shared in a large-group format for teacher and peer feedback. During these white board discussions, students are expected to justify their conclusions and, with practice, develop critical thinking and peer-questioning skills. According to David Hestenes, Director of the Modeling Workshop Project at ASU, the primary role of the teacher during white board discussions is to facilitate and promote scientific discussions among the students.

The modeling approach is taught using one of two classroom management strategies: Socratic Modeling (the original program most teachers are exposed to in their first modeling workshop) and Modeling Discourse Management (DM), a more recent and more “radical” (social constructivist) implementation of the modeling method. Dwain Desbien, inventor of DM, has produced well-documented evidence of the effectiveness of DM in elevating the overall level of scientific discourse in University physics classrooms where it has been tried.

Discourse Management is a comprehensive classroom management strategy comprised of seven components:

• Deliberate creation of a “learning community”

• Explicit need for the creation of models in science

• Creation of shared inter-individual meaning

• Seeding

• Intentional lack of closure

• Inter-student discussion

• Formative evaluation

Seeding, as described Desbien, is the primary technique for introducing new ideas into class discussion. Seeding involves two interrelated activities: planting and questioning. The first activity happens when the teacher plants an idea, concept or challenge with a small collaborative group of students. The group works out the details and gains ownership of the seeded idea and then brings that idea to the larger learning community. Thus, groups of students instead of an authority figure, introduce ideas to the whole class. The second activity happens when the teacher questions a small collaborative group to guide the groups’ thinking. The group can then bring its answer to the teacher-supplied question to the learning community.

Literature Review

The single most important factor that determines the success of the Modeling Method is the ability of the teacher to manage and raise the level of scientific discourse between students during class discussions (Hestenes talk). Adapting white board discussions to one’s own unique strengths has proven to be an enduring challenge for teachers (Lattery and Schmitt, 2004). More than a few modeling teachers share the ongoing frustration of knowing the potential of the Modeling Method yet continually falling short of a more successful implementation. Desbien believes this problem centers around classroom management (Desbien, 2002).

Modeling Discourse Management is an approach that focuses on classroom management strategies to improve learning. The first order of business is the deliberate creation of a learning community in which students have access to and can appropriate a shared language to communicate with one another in such a way that meaningful learning occurs. One of the hallmarks of this kind of learning community is that shared language must be negotiated through inter-student discourse and it is the discourse that enables all participants in the community to engage in the activities of the community (Tobin, McRobbie, and Anderson, 1996).

In order to form classroom communities which function more like those of scientists and mathematicians, students need to be given opportunities to engage in authentic practices of scientists and mathematicians and they need to be given opportunities to engage in the necessary discourse practices routinely used by the scientific community (Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993).

Raising the level of student discourse also necessitates a change in student epistemological beliefs about science, learning, and the learning environment. Progress is made when students begin to view themselves more as creators of their own understanding and less as collectors of information. This social constructivist approach is dependent on a change in the roles of both students and the teacher, and students will only change roles in a significant way when their beliefs about those roles change. Learning and teaching that focuses on the dynamic interactions among the members of a community of knowers [learners] changes the classroom talk from that of information dissemination by the all-knowing teacher to one of a culture of learning structured by student independence [and inter-dependence] and teacher [functioning] as co-inquirer and learner (Roth and Bowen, 1999).

Pilot Study – First Cycle of Action Research – Spring 2005

Ideally, for DM to be most effective a teacher should begin using components on the first day of class. The three-week pilot study was conducted midway in the second semester of the 2005 – 2006 school year as a requirement for an online Foundations of Action Research course taken through the University of Montana. Because of time constraints, full adoption of DM was not a practical option at that point. I decided to narrow the pilot to the use of seeding. Students had already done quite a bit of modeling as previously described so I thought seeding was the one DM technique I could introduce into my teaching without having to make wholesale changes in how I teach or how the class was functioning at that point.

My goal in the pilot study was to use seeding to increase the level of scientific discourse among students. This ties into my larger goal of getting my physics classes to function more as a community of learners where students create new knowledge through shared experience and student dialogue. These goals are consistent with my educational beliefs that students should be given frequent and challenging opportunities to think for themselves and take ownership of their learning in a classroom structured to allow these things to happen.

The Problem

I have been dissatisfied with my efforts to elevate the quality of student discourse during white board discussions. According to David Hestenes, the single most important factor that determines the success of the Modeling Method is the ability of the teacher to manage and raise the level of scientific discourse among students during white board discussions. I have grown increasingly frustrated with knowing the potential of the Modeling Method yet continually falling short of a more successful implementation that I, like Desbien, believe centers around classroom management issues.

Adaptation of white board discussions to my own unique strengths has been a long-term challenge:

• I have had mixed success keeping students engaged during white boarding. When discourse is more of an exchange between myself and a student or a group of students for more than a brief amount of time, I notice the overall level of engagement of many students tends to drop.

• I try hard not to come across or be viewed as the authority on content during white board discussions, a central tenant of modeling. I tend assume this role to keep things moving along when student discussion bogs down or hits a snag.

• I struggle to have students change their view and practice of learning from passively collecting information to actively creating their own understanding. I believe students who do not “crossover” function poorly in a modeling classroom.

• I have not spent enough time and have not been consistent in establishing and maintaining classroom norms and expectations for student discourse during white board sessions.

Focus Question

Can the discourse management technique of seeding, be used to improve scientific discourse among students during small group and whole class (white board) discussions?

Sub Questions

1. Can seeding small cooperative groups keep students more actively engaged during whiteboard discussions?

2. Can seeding small groups help promote student-to-student discourse about science?

3. Can seeding enable me to function more as a facilitator of learning and less as an authority on content and ideas?

4. Can seeding help students change their view of learning from collectors of information to creators of their own understanding?

Implementation – Spring 2005

Method

I conducted the three-week pilot in my third period Physics 1 class of 17 males and 10 females. The highest level of completed or concurrent math ranged from algebra II to trigonometry to calculus, and the highest level of completed or concurrent science ranged from chemistry I to college in high school chemistry to AP biology. This academically diverse class had been taught physics using the modeling approach for several weeks, so the class had experience using whiteboards in small and large group settings.

To implement seeding for an activity, I first formulated an agenda of the major ideas (discussion points) and goals for the activity. I seeded small groups in a strategic manner to help set up, frame and orchestrate the white board discussion that followed. To seed strategically, I relied on my prior knowledge of each group’s strengths, weaknesses, and patterns of interaction, both within the group and with the rest of the class during whiteboard discussions. I used my knowledge of each group to seed them to their ability level, strengths, and patterns of interaction

After reading Desbien’s narrative of how to use the seeding technique in a ball-drop activity, my first attempt involved seeding small groups during the post-lab analysis of a constant motion lab to see if it was something I could actually do. My first attempt exceeded my expectations and is included as a narrative in Appendix A.

Using Desbien’s dissertation on DM as a resource, I created and administered a Likert-Scale survey (Appendix B) to learn about students’ views and perceptions of whiteboard discussions. On the advice of my validation team I also constructed and administered a follow-up ten-question survey (Appendix C) of students’ perceptions and views of all the activities in a modeling cycle. I recruited the Director of Curriculum, who has done action research, to observe my class on three occasions when the seeding technique was employed.

Encouraged by the success of my first attempt, my second attempt at seeding was more ambitious. It involved giving small cooperative groups hints, questions or explanations during three post-lab analysis sessions of a multi-part paradigm lab on uniform acceleration. The groups of students (three students per group) were preparing their lab results for presentation to the whole class when seeding took place. I also took digital photographs of each group’s whiteboard after the conclusion of each discussion. Finally, with the help of my validation team, I put together and administered a nine-question follow-up survey of student’s views of the value of seeding and discourse (Appendix D).

Data Collection - Triangulation Matrix

Sub Question Data Source 1 Data Source 2 Data Source 3

Student 3/1 Journal Survey questions Peer observation

engagement 12 and 18

Promotion 3/1 Journal Survey questions Peer observation

of discourse 33, 36, 39, 51

Facilitator vs. 3/1 Journal Peer observation Follow-up Survey

authority questions 5, 6, 8

Student views Survey questions Peer observation Follow-up Survey

of learning 63, 58 questions 5, 6

Results and Analysis

Student Engagement

There is evidence that seeding increased student engagement during small group work and whiteboard discussions. In the constant velocity lab I seeded groups with questions like, “What would happen to your data and graph if your car were moving faster?…slower?…not moving?” I found myself providing far less input to draw out meanings of slopes and other key ideas in the subsequent whiteboard discussion.

Student responses to surveys (Appendix B and D) also support the theme of increased engagement:

• 89% - agreed they listen to and consider alternative points of view

• 81% - disagreed they don’t pay much attention during whiteboarding

• 77% - found seeding small groups to be “very valuable”

• 80% - seeding helped when groups reached an impasse

Promotion of Discourse

There are three pieces of evidence that seeding small groups helped promote the frequency and fluency of discourse about science. The first piece is a narrative account of the constant velocity lab discussion (Appendix A). This whiteboard session progressed with minimal input from me. The second piece comes from the Likert-scale survey (Appendix B2):

• 78% - agreed student-to-student dialogue was the dominant mode of discussion

• 78% - agreed student-to-student interaction was the focus.

• 19% - agreed teacher-to-student dialogue was the dominant mode of discussion.

• 30% agreed and 41% disagreed student-to-teacher dialogue was the dominant mode of discussion.

Other survey responses also indicate student-to-student discourse was frequent.

The third piece of evidence that supported promotion of discourse is the following peer observation (Appendix E):

“As I observed your classes, I could definitely see that you had a plan in mind in regards to which groups you wanted to share their whiteboards with the rest of the class.  You moved around to each group, asking pointed questions, guiding their thinking, giving hints as to the next step, and also subtly implying to specific groups to be ready to explain the group's thinking on the whiteboard.  You knew each group's strengths and weaknesses, level of achievement, and patterns of interaction with the rest of the class.  It was obvious to me as I watched you interact with each group which groups you would call upon to share their whiteboards with the whole class.  As you called upon each group, the groups shared willingly, were comfortable with the sharing process, and were not afraid to make mistakes.  Groups listened attentively and quietly conferred with group members regarding changes to their group's whiteboard based on the previous group's whiteboard presentation.” 

Facilitation and Authority - Success in the Constant Velocity Lab

There is evidence to support the theme that seeding enabled me to function more as a facilitator and less as an authority on content and ideas. My journaling of the constant velocity lab again indicates I was able to use seeding to help set up, frame and orchestrate not only the small group work but also the subsequent whiteboard discussion. This orchestration is what made my role of facilitator possible. Other evidence included the following peer observation:

“I can definitely see the benefit of seeding.  The instructor can entice students to participate by "setting up" a collaborative group to answer according to the lesson's goals and objectives, but also according to the group's needs as well, reinforcing strengths and scaffolding weaknesses to ensure all groups participate, grow, and achieve.” 

Facilitation and Authority - Difficulties in the Uniform Acceleration Lab

I was more successful at seeding in the constant velocity lab than I was in the multi-part uniform acceleration lab. I attribute this to poor organization of the second and third parts of this four-part lab. Part two involved having students use Graphical Analysis for the first time, and I found myself showing each group how to generate a velocity-time graph from the slopes of tangent lines on the original position-time graph. Students took advantage of not knowing what to do. As the peer observer in her second observation points out, they waited until I came to them to begin their work:

“I did observe, however, that some groups waited until you came to them to begin their work.  It seemed they were relying on you to get them started and direct their work.  Not many students took notes or were careful to record your expectations as you outlined the groups' tasks in the beginning of class.  They seemed to know that if they weren't on the right track, you would automatically "help" them get where they needed to be.  During my first observation, it was definitely noticeable that some groups waited for you to come to them and get them started.  These same groups continued to rely on you to "hold their hand" throughout the entire lab, not really trying to figure it out on their own.  During the third observation, you pointedly demanded they do it on their own and the students did.”

It is now clear to me that seeding more complicated activities requires additional planning. Once the class and I got past the hurdle of how to use the software, I was able to seed one group in a significant way for the subsequent whiteboard discussion. This seeding involved guiding the group in determining the meaning of the slope on their newly obtained velocity-time graph. According to the peer observer (Appendix E), I spent over five minutes with this group. At the end of the seeding the group felt confident they could explain the meaning of the slope during the ensuing whiteboard session. The group was able to accurately share, in their own words and with confidence, what I had guided them through. This group was comprised of three females and two of them had been struggling with the underlying math concepts of the course. I watched the class reaction to this “slower” group as they gave their presentation. Everyone was listening to what this group had to say and hearing their explanation of the meaning of the slope on a velocity-time graph seemed to have significant impact. It was evident the entire class understood the group’s detailed explanation that the slope on a velocity-time graph represents acceleration. In many ways the class had been messy and at times chaotic, as the peer observer pointed out, but solid learning emerged in spite of it all. My reflection on this day: I was too eager to help the small groups to compensate for poor planning and lack of organization.

I had some interesting Likert-survey (appendix B2) responses about student views of my role:

• 48% - agreed they question ideas shared by the students.

• 22% - agreed they question ideas shared by the teacher.

• 81% - agreed what students say during discussions is important

• 44% - agreed what the teacher says is important

• 69% - agreed the teacher avoids being the leader of discussions

• 52% - agreed the teacher observes the discussions and has minimal involvement.

• 56% - agreed the teacher is the ultimate authority,

• 67% - agreed the teacher is the authority on the correctness of ideas

• 81% - agreed the teacher takes the lead when the discussion bogs down

Overall, I believe the class was in a transitional stage of their view of me. Roughly speaking, about half the class viewed me as a facilitator and around two-thirds viewed me as the authority on ideas. Responses to questions five, six, and nine on the follow-up survey (Appendix D) indicate many students wanted me to clearly indicate when work was right or wrong. One student wrote she didn’t “like tip-toeing around the answer - plainly say what’s right and wrong”. Another student wrote, “It’s like kindergarten where everyone’s told they’re ok. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong - let it be known and just show how to fix it.” Many students also commented discussions could be more effective if the correct answers were summarized at the end of the discussion.

Conclusion - First Cycle

Seeding small groups helped keep students engaged, promoted student discourse, and enabled me to function more as a facilitator of student learning. However, seeding alone was not the only factor. The class and I had been modeling for several weeks prior to the pilot and students were already adapted to this style of learning. I think seeding did aid student learning in significant ways. However, I believe the biggest obstacle to greater success stems from the fact that the students, not surprisingly, are what Jack Whitehead calls living contradictions. In terms of their attitudes about learning 40% of the students view themselves as passive collectors of information despite the fact that 74% percent view themselves as active creators of their own knowledge. Peer observations agree with this:

“I believe one of the biggest hurdles an instructor must overcome is convincing students that they must do the thinking and the "working through" part of constructing knowledge.  Students are so used to the instructor giving them the information and then reciting said information back to pass "the test" that they don't see the point of finding out things on their own.  Students want instructors to give them the information so they can pass the test and move on.  The type of instructional strategies that you are experimenting with will change the culture of school, which takes much time, energy, planning, and conviction”.

Using more components of discourse management in conjunction with seeding might be a way to overcome the shortcomings of the pilot study and the hurdles mentioned above.

Second Cycle of Action Research – Spring 2006

Focus Question

In addition to seeding, can using DM components of creation of a learning community and making explicit the need for the creation of models in science improve scientific discourse among students during small group and whole class (whiteboard) discussions?

Sub Questions

1. Can the creation of a learning community result in greater student engagement during whiteboard discussions?

2. Can the creation of a learning community enable me to function more as a facilitator of learning and less as an authority on content and ideas?

3. Can the creation of a learning community help students change their view of learning from collectors of information to creators of their own understanding?

4. Can making explicit the need for the creation of models improve student views about science?

5. Can teacher effectiveness using discourse management be measured?

Expected Results

I expected that once I established the culture of a learning community in my classroom and made explicit the need for the creation of models in science, students would respond more fully to the modeling approach. As a result, I hoped to see an improvement in the level of student discourse, overall better performance and improved attitudes about science.

Implementation – Spring 2006

Method

I decided to focus on the DM components of creation of a learning community and making explicit the need for the creation of models in science. I chose these two components based on Desbien’s assertion they must occur first in order to get DM up and running in a classroom. Creating and nurturing a learning community involves, among other things, establishing classroom norms for how everyone will function in a modeling classroom where DM is used. Making explicit the need for the creation of models helps establish the guiding principle for the modeling cycles that form the backbone of the course. I started my research at the beginning of the course by attempting to follow Desbien’s step-by-step procedure for how he initiates a learning community in his classroom.

In the early stages of organizing the class into a learning community, the activities are designed to encourage students to interact in a noncompetitive manner. To create this atmosphere without the pressure of “learning physics” at the same time is critical to encouraging the greatest number of students to be both involved in the discourse and prepared to be contributing members of the class (Beane, 1995).

Day One – Making Airplanes – an Unanticipated Outcome

The course began with a community building activity of having small groups of students create instructions on how to make a paper airplane. Each group was told to create instructions on how to make a paper airplane on the paper provided. Students were also told to decide for themselves what that means and act accordingly. All groups decided to actually build an airplane and wrote the instructions as it was built. Once the groups were finished, the built airplanes were given identifying numbers, collected and moved to an out of site location. The instructions were collected and redistributed to other groups who were told to use them to construct an airplane. As the instructions were being passed out to other groups, the class was told to follow them exactly as written. Where the instructions were unclear the groups had to interpret as best they could. As the groups began building the airplanes, I passed among them looking for certain words or phrases in the instructions and seeding questions about how the words in the instructions could be interpreted differently. The intent of this seeding was for students to see how the instructions could be interpreted differently and then create paper “airplanes” that in no way resembled what the creators of the instructions intended. Next, the class was brought together in a circle for their first in-the-round discussion of the activity without the use of whiteboards.

I used the first discussion to establish the pattern for the future. The class was told to move the desks into a circle with nothing inside it. I explained this would be the standard mode for class discussions. Students were given two basic rules for discussion: only one person could talk at a time, and evaluation of each other’s work must be done in a positive manner. I went on to say I would remain outside the circle during the discussion and for the most part I would not participate. To join the discussion, I would have to take a position in the circle. I then wrote the following questions on the front board:

• What were the difficulties in making the paper airplanes?

• What words were ambiguous?

• What assumptions had to be made?

All groups had actually built an airplane as they wrote the instructions. As a result, the instructions were very explicit and detailed which left little room for interpretation by the group that built the airplane from the instructions. This unanticipated turn of events left the class with little to talk about and made it difficult to get to the point of the activity. I had to intervene with questions and comments and basically lead the class to see why they were given the activity, as they were not getting there on their own. In short, the activity was a bit of a flop.

The purpose of the activity was to have students realize the importance of shared meaning and bring out two ideas the class needed to be mindful of when having discussions: terms need to be defined and agreed upon by the class and pictures are often better than words. According to Desbien, the paper airplane activity is designed to bring this to students’ attention in a memorable way.

At the end of the first day the students were given the following questions to ponder and answer with their own ideas as a page-long assignment:

• What is reality?

• What is science?

• Is science reality?

Day Two – Reality and Science – Moving Deeper into Uncharted Waters

The second day began with students working in small groups to pull together answers to the homework questions. Unlike Desbien, I made no attempt to seed questions to any groups while they created their whiteboards. I was more interested in what the students were thinking than in steering them in a certain direction. When the whiteboards were done, the class came together for discussion in a circle. I reminded students to hold their white boards so other groups could see them at all times, and I emphasized that a goal of discussion was to reach consensus, explaining what I meant by consensus. I asked one group to present their ideas and let the discussion flow from that point. For those who participated, the discussion was often intense and many different points of view were presented. Like Desbien, I frequently had to intercede and refocus the discussion.

The goal is to have students come to the realization that no explanation [about science and reality] is complete. A secondary goal is to have students realize that how they describe something depends on their own experiences.

I was a bit overwhelmed by how the discussion progressed. The class was all over the place in their thinking and I was at a loss for what to do about it. Like the first day, there were very few agreed upon ideas that could be summarized. I was frustrated that I could not pull things together and give the class a sense of closure, but I now think this was one of the points of the activity. I gave no assignment for the third day and afterwards tried to figure out what to do next. After two days of frustration and false starts, I felt like I was in deep uncharted waters and going down for the second time.

Reflection on Day Two:

The range of views about science and reality surprised me. I was more surprised that many students held conflicting and overlapping views about the two and didn’t seem aware of having such views or able to sort them out during the whiteboard discussion with their peers. I was very concerned that the activities of the first two days were hindering rather than helping the formation of a learning community. I sensed the less talkative students might have been overwhelmed by the reality versus science topic and the ease with which their more talkative peers where able to participate. I was concerned about students getting the impression that class discussions were going to be unfocused, intimidating and chaotic occasions in which they would be reluctant to participate. In hindsight, a short formative assessment like a minute paper at the end of class might have given me a better read of the class than my follow up speculative journaling.

Day Three – Finally Some Progress - Naïve Realism versus Scientific Realism

Because of my concerns that the learning community was not forming as it should and because of students’ conflicting and overlapping views about science and reality, I decided to continue this discussion for another day. I constructed a list of contrasting alternatives (Appendix F) derived from the dimensions of Halloun’s Views About Scientific Thinking (VASS) taxonomy to provide more focus for student thought and discussion. I was hoping the list would serve as a springboard for discussion and help create a safe place for learning where students would be willing to take risks. More students participated in this discussion than in the previous reality versus science discussion. The list of contrasting alternatives provided students with a scaffold and the tone of the discussion was more open, relaxed and productive. In contrast to the day before, I felt progress was made in forming the learning community and in helping students clarify their views of science and reality. The discussion wrapped up with a short presentation on scientific realism (Appendix G).

Day Four – Making Explicit the Need for Creating Models –Things Start to Gel

The idea of a model was introduced to the class through an activity called “What’s Inside the Box?” At the start of class each group was given a piece of graph paper and a sealed textbook-sized box containing a marble that rolled around the inside of the box. The class was instructed to use the marble to determine what was in the box and draw a representation on the sheet of same-sized graph paper. The groups where given about twenty minutes to move the box around in any orientation and listen as the marble rolled over or around the various objects glued to the inside surfaces of the box. Each box had a unique configuration of objects inside. When finished, each box was opened and the group’s representation was put on the document camera and compared to what was actually inside the now opened box. At this point I presented the following:

What scientists really do is build models of reality. Let’s call what’s inside the box reality and what’s drawn on the graph paper a model or representation of that reality. Models in science are representations of the structure of reality much like the graph paper sketch represents the structure of what’s inside the box. A model built by scientists has similarities to the object or system it represents but certain details are missing. Many groups found some object or structure, but the details of the exact shape or size were missing or some structures were missed altogether. This activity is very similar to what scientists do when they build models, except they cannot open the box (reality) to check how well the model represents it. Not being able to open the box of reality to verify a model, scientists gather evidence to build, test and verify models. This is what we will do in this course – build and verify models that represent the structure of reality and form the basis of science.

At this point I asked the class if they would like to try the activity again with a different box. Everyone wanted a second chance. After repeating the activity, the boxes were opened and the models were compared to reality. Students were both amazed and disappointed: sketches still lacked detail and many still entirely missed some of the objects or major features of the inside of the box. The class ended with a summary of important ideas about scientific models (Appendix H). I felt the immediate goal of making explicit the need for creating models had been achieved:

By the end of the class, students had developed the idea that science is about creating models and scientists continuously create models because no one model is ever complete. Because of their participation in creating it, students had developed ownership of the idea that scientific models are the basis of science.

I was also making progress as well on the larger goals of forming a learning community which functions through the creation of shared meaning.

Day Five – Scientific Claims

Being able to determine whether or not a claim is scientific is, in my opinion, one of the hallmarks of science literacy. I felt a discussion of what makes a claim scientific was appropriate at this point in the development of a scientific learning community. The class was given a worksheet of seven statements (Appendix I) and instructed to work in small groups to determine if the statements were scientific claims and to explain their reasoning. As the groups worked, I seeded them with previously worked out questions (Appendix J) to help stimulate their thinking. Depending on the claim, the seeded questions were either general (for claims 1, 4-6), or very specific (for claims 2, 3, 7). I seeded the general questions initially to all the groups early in their work. Later, after monitoring each group’s progress, I seeded the more specific questions only to those groups that I had decided would be assigned that claim to whiteboard. Each group was then assigned a claim to whiteboard and told to include the statement, whether or not it is a scientific claim and their justification. While they prepared their whiteboards, I made a general announcement that each group needed to be prepared to defend their reasoning once we formed the circle. Once in the circle the groups presented their work in the order of the worksheet. The discussion was relaxed and for the most part focused and productive, but there were a couple of rough moments in discussing claims 2 and 6. These were moments when competing ideas were being argued back and forth. I was outside the circle, listening as the talk went back and forth and hoping the class would self-regulate and reach consensus. They could not reach agreement and for a few moments I left them remain in this state of tension. The class was at an impasse. I intentionally let the moment linger then I reminded them that one goal of discussion was for them to reach consensus. I told the class to move on. The class progressed through discussing the remaining claims and points emerged that proved helpful when we returned to the earlier impasse. I ended the session with a handout (Appendix K) and short presentation on terms and concepts related to science and the scientific method.

Reflection on Day Five:

I was concerned the discussion would lack focus and become either chaotic or intimidating to the point of being nonproductive. This did occur somewhat during the discussion of claims 2 and 6, but it did not get out of hand as it had in the science versus reality discussion of Day Two. I had anticipated that claims 2, 3 and 6 would be more difficult for students so beforehand I designed questions to seed to the groups that would whiteboard these claims. As in the pilot action research a year earlier, I was becoming more aware of the value of strategically seeding the small groups as a way to set up and orchestrate the subsequent whiteboard discussions of the learning community.

Data Collection -Triangulation Matrix

Sub Question Data Source 1 Data Source 2 Data Source 3

Engagement Journal Surveys* Audio taping

Frequency & Journal Surveys* Audio taping

Fluency

Facilitator vs. Journal Surveys* Audio taping

Authority Role

Views of learning Journal Surveys* Audio taping

And Science

Teacher Journal Surveys* Audio taping

Effectiveness

* Three surveys were used:

• The Likert-scale (LS) survey on discourse management used in 2005

• A new contrasting alternatives (CA) survey on discourse management (Appendix L)

• The VASS survey

Results and Analysis

Student engagement

First, there is mixed evidence from the CA survey that the formation of the learning community did help student engagement during whiteboard discussions. I decided to use student perceptions of how student-centered the discussions were as a measure of student engagement. Thus, the degree to which the students responded that the discussions were student-centered is an indicator of student engagement. The following items from the DM survey indicate student views.

Student-centered versus Teacher-centered items

| |Trad | Mixed |DM | |Trad |Mixed |DM |

|5* |4 |5 |4 |13 |0.31 |0.38 |0.31 |

|6 |0 |11 |2 |13 |0.00 |0.85 |0.15 |

|8** |8 |1 |4 |13 |0.62 |0.08 |0.31 |

|15* |5 |4 |4 |13 |0.38 |0.31 |0.31 |

|25** |3 |1 |9 |13 |0.23 |0.08 |0.69 |

|26 |1 |5 |7 |13 |0.08 |0.38 |0.54 |

| | | | |  | | | |

|totals |27 |28 |36 |91 | | | |

| |91 |91 |91 | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|percent |0.30 |0.31 |0.40 | | | | |

The DM column shows the number of students who responded favorably to discourse management (a collapsed score of three on an item):

• Q2 46% - dominant mode of discussion is student-to-student dialogue versus

46% - teacher-to-student / student-to-teacher dialogue.

• Q5 31% - focus is on the students’ ideas versus

31% - focus is on teacher’s ideas, with 38% mixed.

• Q6 15% - the students run discussions with 85% mixed.

• Q8 31% - discussion evolves naturally from student dialogue versus

62% - teacher intervenes to maintain focus.

• Q15 31% - important part of discussion is what the students have to say versus

38% - what the teacher has to say.

• Q25 69% - teacher intervenes with a brief question or comment versus

23% - teacher takes the lead when discussion bogs down with 8% mixed.

• Q26 54% - understanding is negotiated by student-to-student dialogue versus

8% - the teacher determines understanding with 38% mixed.

Teacher Function and Perceived Role

Second, there is evidence that the formation of the learning community enabled me to function more as a facilitator and less as an authority on content and ideas. I used students’ perceptions of how knowledge is constructed and how the correctness of ideas is determined as a measure of facilitation and authority. The more students view knowledge as being constructed by discourse as opposed to direct instruction indicates my functioning more as a facilitator. The degree to which students view the correctness of ideas being determined through reasoning based on empirical evidence or logical argument indicates I am functioning less as an authority in these areas and the discourse in the learning community is doing this job.

Authority (Knowledge)

| |Trad | Mixed |DM | |Trad |Mixed |DM |

|16 |2 |6 |5 |13 |0.15 |0.46 |0.38 |

|23 |2 |7 |4 |13 |0.15 |0.54 |0.31 |

| | | | |  | | | |

|totals |5 |18 |16 |39 | | | |

| |39 |39 |39 | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|percent |0.13 |0.46 |0.41 | | | | |

Authority (Correctness)

| |Trad | Mixed |DM | |Trad |Mixed |DM |

|21 |1 |2 |10 |13 |0.08 |0.15 |0.77 |

| | | | |  | | | |

|totals |4 |4 |18 |26 | | | |

| |26 |26 |26 | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|percent |0.15 |0.15 |0.69 | | | | |

The DM column shows the number of students who responded favorably to discourse management:

• Q9 54% - knowledge is constructed by students versus

8% - presented by teacher with 38% mixed

• Q16 38% - new understanding comes from student discussion versus

15% - comes from teacher input with 46% mixed

• Q23 31% - knowledge is constructed through student dialogue versus

15% - comes from the teacher with 54% mixed

• Q18 62% - authority on the correctness of ideas is reasoning supported by

evidence versus 23% authority on correctness is the teacher.

• Q21 77% - correctness of the ideas is decided by logical argument rooted in

experimental evidence versus 8% correctness is decided by the teacher.

Collectors and Creators of Information

Third, there is mixed evidence that the formation of the learning community helped students change their view of learning from collectors of information to creators of their own understanding.

Collectors versus Creators

| |Trad |Mixed |DM | |Trad |Mixed |DM | |Question |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

FCI scores are all below the Newtonian Threshold of 60%. This is due to not covering enough material for the class to do any better. The VASS scores indicate 9 out of 13 students have a folk profile. This indicates that making explicit the need for the creation of models and spending several days at the beginning of the course discussing nature of science themes had no lasting effect on students’ views about science.

Teacher Effectiveness

Fifth, there is, with one exception, evidence of overall teacher effectiveness in attempting to implement components of discourse management. Many of these items would be measures of teacher effectiveness for any classroom management approach. However, in a social constructivist classroom, they are essential for the formation, nurturing and maintenance of a learning community.

Effectiveness Items

| |Trad |Mixed |DM | |

|6/1/2006 |5/31/2006 |2005-6 |EP>92 |1 |

|30 |57 |0 |HTP 83-92 |1 |

|57 |75 |0 |LTP 73-82 |2 |

|33 |69 |13 | FP ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download