Cindy Kerawalla, Marilena Petrou, Eileen Scanlon

1. Talk Factory: the use of graphical representations to support argumentation around an interactive whiteboard in primary school science Cindy Kerawalla, Marilena Petrou, Eileen Scanlon

2. Introduction • Part 1: Theoretical underpinning and research questions • Part 2: Talk Factory: basic features • Part 3: Research design and analysis • Part 4: Findings • Part 5: Conclusions

3. Part 1: Theoretical background Argumentation is an important component for the learning of science (DfEE 1999, National Research Council 2000) Little attention has been paid to the development of argumentation skills with the exception of the Thinking Together project (Dawes et al, 2004) which has been successful in promoting exploratory talk in the primary classroom • Exploratory talk is that in which: • partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas • ideas may be challenged and counter-challenged but challenges are justified and counter-hypotheses are offered • reasoning is visible in the talk • (Mercer et al. 1999 p97)

4. Research Questions The aim was to develop some software which graphically represents some of the features of exploratory talk, for use on interactive whiteboards, that teachers and students can use to support their understanding of, and engagement in, exploratory talk in primary science plenary discussions • Is the provision of on-screen graphical representations of exploratory talk effective in supporting the use of exploratory talk around an IWB in primary science? 2. What are the effective ways of using Talk Factory to support the use of exploratory talk in the primary science classroom?

5. The Talk Factory • The TF was designed to support a hypothesis testing approach (Howe and Tolmie, 2003)‏ • Series of tasks (supported by group worksheets): • - discuss hypothesis • - plan a scientific investigation • - perform the investigation • discuss findings and conclusions • Supports classroom plenary discussions

7. Representing exploratory talk in The Talk Factory

8. Planning a Scientific Investigation

10. Research Design • 4 classes of 9 year olds • 1 control class, 2 intervention classes and 1 participatory design class (no role in the intervention) • TF evaluation • pre-software lessons on ‘sound’ • 2 talk lessons • teacher training • software lessons on ‘evaporation’ • control class lessons on ‘evaporation’ • teacher and student interviews

11. Analysis of lesson transcripts • Transcripts coded for incidences of Exploratory Talk • (a) compared talk in the control class and intervention classes while involved in similar science activities about evaporation; • (b) compared talk in pre-software lessons on ‘sound’ and software lessons on ‘evaporation’ in the intervention classes • Also, identified ways in which the teachers used the graphical representations in TF to support exploratory talk

12. Findings - changes in classroom talk. Differences between intervention and control classes on ‘evaporation’

13. Do not provide justifications Do not comment or build on other's suggestions Contributions are brief. Justify claims Evaluate others’ claims Offer counter-claims Mr Roberts: What do you agree with him about? Matthew: That, that this [Tipp-Ex correction fluid] won’t evaporate at all because it’ll harden sooner or later and then it’ll just be hard Mr Roberts:Lewis? Lewis: I think I agree with Matthew because Tipp-Ex I think is like powder (TAP)‏ Mr Roberts: What do you think? Martin: I think that water will evaporate the quickest because all the other ones have got like a special ingredient in them (TAP). Water is just plain water. Whereas the orange juice is kind of water and orange stuff, and the nail varnish is like a little bit of nail polish thing, with water. I think that those won’t evaporate, it’ll still stay a little bit in the bottom. Joshua: I disagree because they’re all liquids, [TAP] Using Talk Factory Control class Mrs Daniels:What do you think might happen? Jason: They might evaporate. Mrs Daniels: Which ones do you think might, hands up Sarah: Definitely the water. Mrs Daniels: Anything else? Michael: More like the runny fluids? David: The water. Mrs Daniels: You think the water

14. Findings – changes in classroom talk Differences in the dialogue in the intervention classes, pre (‘sound’) and during the intervention (‘evaporation’)

15. Andy: What was the highest? Emma: Foam blocked the sound the best Mr Roberts:Right ask them some questions then. Because this is very different to what other groups found out, they found out, polystyrene, cotton wool is quite good isn’t it? Emma: About the same. Mr Roberts:Its about the same, not much difference between cotton wool and polystyrene Bob: How did you make it a fair test? Mr Roberts:Excellent question Bob Emma: We err, I don’t know actually Rebecca: It's not fair Pre-intervention (muffling sound) • The students do not justify their claims e.g. Emma does not explain why she thinks foam was best and Rebecca does not explain why she thinks the test was not fair • Mr Roberts does not appear to ask his students to justify their claims • Students direct responses to the teacher • Discussion was short

16. Sophia: It’s not a fair test because Oliver said that the plastic cup was bigger Mr Roberts: (TAP) What do you say? Greg: I don’t really think it’s a big problem because (TAP) you you can’t, you can’t get all the same size and they are nearer all the same sizes…well they are actually changing the thing but I don’t really see Sam: I think it is a big problem because (TAP) the amount of space its got could actually be critical. Olivia: Urm, I disagree with Tina, because (TAP) it doesn’t matter what size it is because all of them had the same amount of water didn’t they, so that’s all that really matters Greg: Urm, I’ve changed my mind because (TAP) you can see the glass cup and the polystyrene cup are different two sizes… Using Talk Factory (evaporation) • The students justify their claims • The students talk to each other; their dialogue is not always directed at the teacher • The students offer counter-claims and justify them • This discussion was very long and detailed : transcribed over 10 pages

17. Findings – changes in classroom talk Effective ways of using the graphical representations in Talk Factory

18. Effective ways of using TFMaking the talk rules explicit Mr Roberts: How do you explain something clearly to somebody? Cheryl: You say, ‘I think cos’. You give your reason Mr Roberts: (points to 'explain reasons’ rule on TF screen) ‘I think because’, ‘I agree with you because’, so you’re giving a reason. You’re not just saying, I agree with you. You’re giving a reason. The orange one please. Rob: Er, the orange one is for explaining your disagreements. So if someone, so if Peter came up with a point and I didn’t agree, I would go, ‘well what if this, or however, or on the other hand’. Mr Roberts: Well, as long as you say if I disagree with somebody I’ve gotta say... Students: Why

19. Using TF emoticons and colours to evaluate the quality of discussion Mrs Griffins: So at the moment, you have justified all your arguments really well because you've got lots and lots of smileys (later in the same lesson)‏ Mrs Griffins: Do you think it helped you to discuss the two situations that we were looking at today? Bren: It gives us more, actually it stop us from chatting because with that we can see how good we are in lessons Mrs Griffins: And how do you get to see how good you are in lessons from looking at the board? Bren: Because it's got the smiley faces and the unhappy faces Mrs Griffins: Yeah. We got a few more blues the last time we used it. Do you think it's useful James? James: Yeah because it's like having a report on how good you are in using the rules and talk

20. The effect on tapping on negative features represented in the Talk Factory Mr Roberts: What would happen with this one? Sophia: It won’t evaporate Mr Roberts: Sorry? Sophia: It won’t evaporate (tap: not giving reason)‏ Sophia: No, no it won’t evaporate because there’s something blocking it

21. Conclusions • Our findings support the view that talk skills are teachable and that without explicit discussion of the structure of talk, students may not be able to participate in rich conversations (Mercer, 2002). • The use of the Talk Factory in classroom discussions can give students clear understanding of how to talk effectively together by representing characteristics of exploratory talk in real time • The TF is a tool that can be used to help teachers to make explicit the rules that govern talk in the classroom, to analyse the talk that has gone on, and ask students to evaluate its quality

22. Thank you 