Title: "Overcoming silent classrooms: Facilitating richer, student-centered class-wide discussions to support learning through exposure to multiple perspectives and practicing scientific argumentation"

Name: Sean Gess, PhD candidate in School of Education 

Committee: Dr. Cassie Quigley (Chair), Dr. Russell Clark, and Dr. Rip Correnti

Defense Abstract: Discussion is vital to the scientific process, and dialogic learning opportunities support student learning gains and scientific epistemic learning. Discussions can improve connections between concepts and support student engagement which can increase retention in STEM programs. It has also been reported that a correlation exists between students more comfortable speaking in class with increased gains in learning class content, being better prepared for their classes, and earning higher grades. Despite these benefits, generating robust, student-centered, class-wide discussions around student research in my inquiry-based research labs is challenging. Students often do not engage in class-wide discussions in meaningful ways, and this dialogue tends to fall into the routine of the instructor asking questions in which often a student will provide the “right” answer then silence returns to the classroom. Actual dialogue rarely takes off. To better facilitate more robust, student-centered dialogue during the lab meeting activity in my courses, I utilized literature-based practices to help students better understand the purposes of the lab meeting activity and develop their authority in the classroom. I implemented three PDSA cycles within the context of improvement science utilizing these practices. Each cycle utilized a unique practice (making the implicit explicit, utilizing teacher noticing, and using the “teacher-as-partner” model). I then collected data from students using a Qualtrics survey and the course instructional team, using journaling and focus group interviews to gauge the success of each practice in facilitating richer class-wide discussions. The first intervention, utilizing explicit learning objectives, seemed to drive an attitude change and generally led to higher engagement and efforts to utilize scientific arguments. The two interventions focused on authority did not impact class-wide discussion in clear ways

Hybrid Meeting Format:

In-person at Posvar Hall 5914 (School of Education Welcome Center Confernece Room)

For zoom link, contact Kelly Runco at kmr123@pitt.edu