Fostering Learning of Introductory Physics via Intensive Student Discourse: Analyzing A Discourse-Rich Physics Teaching Sample Dan MacIsaac, Ph.D. SUNY- Buffalo State College Dept of Physics, Kathleen Falconer, M.S. SUNY- Buffalo State College Depts of Physics and Mathematics,

We have been examining and producing 1-3 video vignettes of physics teaching practices for some time with the intent of fostering better practices 4-6 for student physics learning. In this session we will view and analyze a discourse-rich ASU Modeling Physics vignette taken from an unusually successful community college physics classroom together. A brief description of the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) will also be presented. Abstract

Falconer, K.A., Joshua, M., & Desbien D. (2003) (Authors & Producers; SUNY-BSC Production; MacIsaac analysis). RTOP Video 4: Modeling via Intensive Student Discourse. [QuickTime Web Streamed Video 10:15]. Buffalo, NY: Authors. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from. RTOP Video 4: Modeling via Intensive Student Discourse Video of effective Instruction as measured by student conceptual score gain from pre- and post-testing with the Hestenes‘ Force Concept Inventory discourse intensive mechanics learning by Arizona community college students

What is going on in this classroom? Which events are promoting learning? Watch the video and make a few notes on striking behaviours that are taking place that you believe are promoting learning. What can you observe / infer about teacher manipulation of this classroom activity & culture? Guides to Observing this Video

Video contains roughly three main sections: 1.student data gathering activity 2.student circle whiteboarding discourse, 3.teacher warranting knowledge and setting up next activity (relative lengths of 10 min vignette activity reflect % of time spent in typical classroom practice)

1. Student data gathering activity students enter class and go right to work cued from last class “ model how a ball bounces” - rich underspecified PER activity students obviously comfortable with activity without instructor guidance student tools / representations are whiteboarding, SONAR and x-v-a vs. t plots (student “ hammers” used on activity “nail”) teacher is seeding different groups with different questions – pushing in different directions, different parts of the puzzle unique tool to some groups – energy pie charts, students must explain to colleagues

2. Student Circle Whiteboarding Discourse Rich, underspecified, PER-informed activity Whiteboard force/facilitate within group negotiation of shared meaning (anchor the discourse) Students trained in taking turns and “sharing the air” (also can use balls, laser pointers) explicit use of model building and selection is evident (nature of curriculum) new tool (energy pie chart analysis) gets significant billing jargon control (noun Nazis) profitably directs student thought (Orwellian 1984 NewSpeak; fragile knowledge)

3. Teacher warranting knowledge / control advanced language control -- vocabulary manipulation (grudgingly allows jargon on few but critical terms) constrains and focuses student thought Careful use of PER-informed classroom locutions warrants certain classroom learning – affirms or forces agreement; “we all agree that” plus nod) sharply limited “ closure ” setting up next activity

Overall Student discourse intensive (Vygotsky) Student meaning-making centered class highly motivated and on-task group (sense of student control and empowerment) lots of active instructor manipulation of classroom activity, environment and student thought (deliberately deflated balls) strong student scientific discourse – observational, phenomenological, theory building, prediction and testing yet to come quite Machiavellian actually

References 1. M. Piburn, D. Sawada, K. Falconer, J. Turley, R. Benford, and I. Bloom. "Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)." ACEPT IN-003. (ACEPT, 2000). The RTOP rubric form, training manual, statistical reference manuals, and sample scored video vignettes are all available from under RESOURCES. 2. Falconer, K.A., Joshua, M., & Desbien D. (2003) (Authors & Producers; SUNY-BSC Production; MacIsaac analysis). RTOP Video 4: Modeling via Intensive Student Discourse. [QuickTime Web Streamed Video 10:15]. Buffalo, NY: Authors. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from. 3. Falconer, K.A. & MacIsaac, D.L. (2004) (Authors & Producers; SUNY-BSC Production). Reformed Teaching Methods: Think Pair Share. [QuickTime Web Streamed Video 12:02]. Buffalo, NY: Authors. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from. 4. D.L. MacIsaac and K. A. Falconer. "Reforming physics instruction via RTOP," Phys. Teach. 40 (8), (Nov 2002). 5. A.E. Lawson et al., “ Reforming and evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: Reformed teaching improves student achievement, ” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31, 388 – 393 (March/April 2002). 6. Thornton, R.K. (2002). Uncommon knowledge: Student behavior correlated to conceptual learning. Unpublished manuscript available from the author.