Transcript Analyzing A Discourse-Rich Physics Teaching Sample Video

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, <[email protected]>
Kathleen Falconer, M.S.
SUNY- Buffalo State College Depts of Physics and Mathematics,
<[email protected]>
Abstract
We have been examining and producing1-3 video
vignettes of physics teaching practices for some
time with the intent of fostering better practices4-6
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.
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
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
<http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/pubs/AAPT/EdmontonDec20
13>.
Guides to Observing
this Video
• 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?
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
<http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.EduAZTEC/rtop/> 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
<http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/pubs/AAPT/EdmontonDec2013>.
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
<http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.Edu/pubs/AAPT/EdmontonDec2013>.
4. D.L. MacIsaac and K. A. Falconer. "Reforming physics instruction via RTOP," Phys. Teach. 40 (8),
479-485 (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.