Background: Students in upper primary grades must move beyond basic comprehension toward high-level comprehension (HLC) of text as they read. Small-group, text-based discussions provide opportunities for students to develop their critical analytic thinking and argumentation, supporting their HLC. Aims: We explored the extent to which groups of upper primary students evidenced growth on indicators of HLC as they engaged in small-group, text-based discussions over a school year, while also examining grade-level and text genre differences. Sample: Participants included fourth-(n = 64) and fifth-grade (n = 69) students. Methods: We employed a single-group, longitudinal design, whereby Quality Talk was embedded into the language arts curriculum of six upper elementary classrooms. Video-recorded discussions (n = 371) were transcribed. We employed an artificial intelligence (AI) powered coding approach to identify indicators of HLC in the discussion transcripts. Results: Groups of upper primary students, on average, evidenced growth in the rates of HLC indicators over the school year. Groups composed of fifth-grade students, on average, had higher elaborated explanation rates than fourth-grade students, and all students, on average, produced a higher rate of elaborated explanations for discussions based on mixed genre versus expository genre texts. Conclusions: Findings from this study contribute to a growing body of literature about grade-level differences in upper primary grades, as well as the influence of text genre on indicators of HLC present within small-group discussions. Notably, the study also employed a novel, AI-powered coding approach for our discourse analysis, which warrants further exploration in future research.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models have become sufficiently accessible and user-friendly to assist students with course work, studying tactics, and written communication. AI-generated writing is almost indistinguishable from human-derived work. Instructors must rely on intuition/experience and, recently, assistance from online AI detectors to help them distinguish between student- and AI-written material. Here, we tested the veracity of AI detectors for writing samples from a fact-heavy, lower-division undergraduate anatomy and physiology course. Student participants (n = 190) completed three parts: a hand-written essay answering a prompt on the structure/function of the plasma membrane; creating an AI-generated answer to the same prompt; and a survey seeking participants' views on the quality of each essay as well as general AI use. Randomly selected (n = 50) participant-written and AI-generated essays were blindly uploaded onto four AI detectors; a separate and unique group of randomly selected essays (n = 48) was provided to human raters (n = 9) for classification assessment. For the majority of essays, human raters and the best-performing AI detectors (n = 3) similarly identified their correct origin (84-95% and 93-98%, respectively) (P > 0.05). Approximately 1.3% and 5.0% of the essays were detected as false positives (human writing incorrectly labeled as AI) by AI detectors and human raters, respectively. Surveys generally indicated that students viewed the AI-generated work as better than their own (P < 0.01). Using AI detectors in aggregate reduced the likelihood of detecting a false positive to nearly 0%, and this strategy was validated against human rater-labeled false positives. Taken together, our findings show that AI detectors, when used together, become a powerful tool to inform instructors.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show how online artificial intelligence (AI) detectors can assist instructors in distinguishing between human- and AI-written work for written assignments. Although individual AI detectors may vary in their accuracy for correctly identifying the origin of written work, they are most effective when used in aggregate to inform instructors when human intuition gets it wrong. Using AI detectors for consensus detection reduces the false positive rate to nearly zero.

This study examined the impact of a practice-based approach to in-service science teacher education, using small-group discussions about photovoltaic (PV) science to support teachers' instruction on sustainable energy transitions in response to climate change risks. Ultimately, we aimed to promote teachers' PV science comprehension as well as their ability to use small-group discussions productively in their future classrooms. In-service teachers (N = 6) participated in a five-week summer Solar Energy Engineering Research Experience for Teachers program where they read a series of scientific articles, attended presentations, and engaged in small-group Quality Talk discussions, all about solar energy as a sustainable technology for post-carbon energy futures. Using a qualitative content analysis approach, we gathered evidence associated with both the indicators of high-level comprehension evidenced within the talk as well as teachers' individual PV science knowledge before and after each discussion. We also collected data related to teachers' instructional intentions via lesson plans and their self-reported future use of classroom discussions. Numerous indicators of high-level comprehension were present within the talk and teachers evidenced growth in their PV science knowledge from pretest to posttest. Additionally, teachers not only infused their lesson plans with the PV science topics they discussed, but they also expressed intentions to teach PV science using discussions in their future classrooms. Findings suggest in-service teachers can benefit from opportunities to engage in a practice-based approach emphasizing discussions, resulting in not only enhanced PV science comprehension but also intentions to enact discussions about the learned content in their future classrooms.

Introductory courses in biology often act as a gateway for students seeking careers in healthcare and science-related fields. As such, they provide a prime entry point for innovations seeking to enhance students’ learning of foundational content. Extant innovations and interventions have been found to positively impact students’ study strategy use with concomitant impacts on course exams and grades. These innovations, however, often have associated time and other costs, which may ultimately limit more widespread use. Our study builds on prior findings by exploring the extent to which students evidence increased use of effective study strategies after engaging in a brief (i.e., 15-min), online module requiring no financial cost for students or time commitment from instructors, and whether changes in students’ use of effective study strategies are associated with changes in exam performance. The present study employed a brief, online module designed to support undergraduate students’ ( n = 98) use of effective study strategies in an introductory human anatomy and physiology course. Through a pretest-posttest design, students described the strategies they used to study and completed four cognitive and metacognitive subscales before and after engaging in a brief, online module designed to teach them about effective study strategies. Results were somewhat mixed: students evidenced a modest, statistically significant increase in the number of strategies used and changes in strategy use were associated with changes in exam score only for some measures. Notably, this relationship was not moderated by GPA, suggesting that the strength of the relationship between changes in strategy use and changes in exam scores were not different depending on students’ levels of prior academic performance. Taken together, the innovation was associated with increases in students’ exam scores, irrespective of GPA, but future research should explore the refinement and extension of the innovation to explore ways that increase efficacy and impact while still balancing sustainable implementation to account for challenges associated with instructor supervision and training, financial costs, and students’ time.

Background Small-group discussions are well established as an effective pedagogical tool to promote student learning in STEM classrooms. However, there are a variety of factors that influence how and to what extent K-12 teachers use small-group discussions in their classrooms, including both their own STEM content knowledge and their perceived ability to facilitate discussions. We designed the present study to specifically target these two factors in the context of photovoltaics, an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of all STEM disciplines with potential to yield widespread benefits related to the use of solar technologies as a sustainable, renewable energy source. Teachers engaged in a series of small-group discussions based on photovoltaic source material (e.g., scientific articles) to build both their STEM content knowledge and capability with discussions, promoting their potential to design and deliver STEM instruction in their own classrooms using small-group discussion. Results Overall, teachers productively engaged in rich STEM talk as they spent most of the time in the discussion asking authentic questions about photovoltaic topics in alignment with a variety of science and engineering disciplinary core ideas, responding to the questions with rich, elaborative talk, and taking on ownership of the discussions. Teachers also evidenced increases in their photovoltaic knowledge and their perceived capability to facilitate discussions. Finally, most teachers’ end-of-program lesson plans included the use of small-group discussions, and a subsample of teachers who completed a follow-up interview one year after the summer program reported greater enactment of discussion in their STEM classrooms. Conclusion Our manuscript forwards an important contribution that draws from a practice-based approach to professional development in a way that not only better prepares teachers on what to teach (i.e., through enhanced PV content knowledge), but it also supports their ability to implement this instruction into their classrooms more effectively (i.e., though the use of small-group discussion). As such, this manuscript illustrates an innovative pedagogical approach for potential use in supporting teacher education and informs ways to enable teachers to build enhanced curricula for their STEM students.

As educators learn about new tools to utilise in their classrooms, there can be questions and ambiguity that accompany the new information; yet they are not always given time or support to address their questions. Acknowledging and embracing the uncertainties that teachers inevitably face when learning about new instructional approaches can help push them to explore new possibilities and better support student learning. Taking a qualitative discourse analytic approach, we used a single-group case study design to explore how a group of STEM teachers navigate uncertainty when learning a new instructional approach throughout two collaborative discourse sessions within the context of a professional learning space. Grounding our study in a social constructivist lens, we interpreted and compared the sources of uncertainty that teachers expressed. We then mapped out the flow of the conversations to explore how teachers navigated those sources through the trajectory of their collaborative discourse. Analysis revealed that teachers expressed uncertainties while offering suggestions in the form of pedagogical techniques in response to others' uncertainties, often leading to shifts, resolutions, and generations of new uncertainty expressions. We suggest that professional learning spaces offer an opportunity for teachers to collaboratively navigate their uncertainties when learning new instructional approaches.

Collaborative study groups provide crucial learning opportunities for undergraduate students in STEM learning contexts. In this paper, we use a concurrent, nested mixed method design toward two primary aims: (a) to examine whether an instructional module about study groups could increase undergraduate students’ use of study groups and (b) to identify supports or incentives that could be used in future research to better encourage students’ use of study groups. Participating undergraduate students (n = 220), who were enrolled in an introductory anatomy and physiology course, were randomly assigned to an instructional module, either about the use of collaborative study groups (i.e., treatment condition) or about how to study effectively on their own (i.e., independent studying comparison condition). All students reported the extent to which they studied collaboratively before and after completing the randomly assigned module (i.e., at pretest and posttest). At the end of the study, students responded to an open-ended prompt asking what could encourage them to use study groups. Quantitative analysis of pretest to posttest changes on the extent to which students reported using study groups revealed no statistically significant condition differences between the two instructional modules. Qualitative thematic analysis of students’ open-ended prompt responses revealed a set of seven themes that emerged from the data about the supports or incentives students wanted that could be leveraged to design future innovations to promote students’ use of collaborative study groups. Follow-up analyses were also conducted to delineate patterns across the supports or incentives requested and further guide recommendations for future research.

Given the rapid pace of technological change, access to unlimited information, and diverse forms of complex text, the importance and demand for enhanced literacy skills is greater than ever. Accordingly, researchers have begun developing integrated, multifaceted interventions that dynamically support enhanced literacy competence. The purpose of this year-long quasi-experimental study was to compare the effects of a multifaceted, rigorous discussion intensive literacy intervention called Quality Talk (QT) to a comparison intervention. Fourth- and fifth-grade students (QT treatment, n = 133; comparison, n = 155) from two public schools participated in a district-wide literacy program with half also participating in QT within their language arts class. Spanning baseline and two subsequent time points, findings revealed that, on average, students evidenced statistically significant increases on one form of basic-level comprehension performance over time with no statistically significant difference between QT and comparison classrooms. Given that treatment and comparison classrooms engaged in a district-wide literacy initiative with supplemental daily literacy instruction, these results are not altogether unexpected. However, despite the enhanced literacy instruction across all classes, from Time 2 to Time 3, growth in QT students' high-level comprehension, as measured via written argumentation essay performance, was statistically significantly greater than their comparison peers' growth. This study informs the future of education research and practice regarding the feasibility and utility of relevant and rigorous multifaceted literacy interventions focused upon small-group discussion.

Undergraduate STEM students majoring in various science sub-disciplines (e.g. chemistry, physics, engineering) must develop strong understandings of core foundational thermodynamics concepts. The ability for course instructors and researchers to effectively refine instruction and develop interventions to support students' learning hinges on their ability to accurately gauge students' knowledge through the use of established measures. The Thermodynamics Conceptual Reasoning Inventory (TCRI) is designed to gauge undergraduate students' understanding of introductory thermodynamics concepts. The present study extends the findings of a previous publication by positioning the TCRI within the broader international literature of thermodynamics concept inventories and generating an argument for the reliability and validity of TCRI scores in a broader context. Participants (n = 278) took the revised 36-item TCRI (available in the supplementary online materials). Findings revealed that TCRI scores are useful in the broader context (e.g. no evidence of floor or ceiling effects, evidence of high reliability, no differences for students across majors, and TCRI scores were moderately correlated with both course exam scores and GPA). No further revisions are recommended based on analysis of item properties. The cumulative body of evidence related to the TCRI suggests that scores are useful indicators of undergraduate students' conceptual understanding of introductory thermodynamics concepts.

For high school students to develop scientific understanding and reasoning, it is essential that they engage in epistemic cognition and scientific argumentation. In the current study, we used the AIR model (i.e., Aims and values, epistemic Ideals, and Reliable processes) to examine high school students’ epistemic cognition and argumentation as evidenced in collaborative discourse in a science classroom. Specifically, we employed a qualitative case study approach to focus on four small-group discussions about scientific phenomena during the Quality Talk Science intervention (QTS), where students regularly received explicit instruction on asking authentic questions and engaging in argumentation. In total, five categories of epistemic ideals and five categories of reliable processes were identified. Students demonstrated more instances of normative epistemic ideals and argumentative responses in the discussions after they received a revised scientific model for discussion and explicit instruction on argumentation. Concomitantly, there were fewer instances of students making decisions based on process of elimination to determine a correct scientific claim. With respect to the relationship of epistemic cognition to authentic questioning and argumentation, the use of epistemic ideals seemed to be associated with the initiation of authentic questions and students’ argumentation appeared to involve the use of epistemic ideals.

Lucas Passmore, Pennsylvania State University-Altoona College Lucas Passmore is an Instructor in Engineering at Penn State Altoona. He completed his Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics in 2009. He teaches introductory engineering courses and fundamental engineering mechanics courses. His primary research is in the semiconductor device physics field, and he is currently working on the incorporation of a design element to engineering technology strength of materials course.

Classroom discussions are a common pedagogical approach that involve verbal exchanges of information between teachers and students. Given their importance to teaching and learning, classroom discussions have been the focus of extensive curricular mandates and, to a lesser extent, research over the last several decades. In traditional classroom discussions, the teacher tends to be situated at the center of the discussion. This type of discussion model is commonly referred to as a transmissionary model, where the teacher transmits knowledge and understandings and often leads the discussion by posing factual questions and responding to students’ answers by giving evaluative feedback. However, productive classroom discussions are better characterized by a dialogic model with students at the center of the discussion. When students are encouraged to ask thoughtful questions, give reflective responses, and challenge each other using reasoned arguments within classroom discussions, they are more likely to become builders and owners of their knowledge. Indeed, productive classroom discussions tend to ignite students’ engagement, thinking, and understanding of knowledge across academic content areas. When adopting a dialogic model, classroom discussions can advance students’ learning by promoting their basic and high-level comprehension of literary text, reasoning, and argumentation during mathematical sense-making, scientific reasoning, and model building and even second-language proficiency and communicative competence. While the overarching aim of classroom discussions is to enhance student learning across content areas (e.g., language arts, mathematics, science, or second-language learning), the various roles that teachers assume in each of the content areas may have different emphases that align with various content learning expectations. Optimizing classroom discussions requires specific considerations of the content-focused goal, teacher knowledge of content and discourse orchestration, student instruction on classroom talk, and context of content learning. Importantly, the potential and promise of productive classroom discussions can be realized by supporting teachers’ content-specific discussion practices through sustained professional development and by supporting students through explicit instruction about discussion.

Argumentation and scientific discourse are essential aspects of science education and inquiry in the 21st century. Student groups often struggle to enact these critical science skills, particularly with challenging content or tasks. Social regulation of learning research addresses the ways groups attempt to navigate such struggles by collectively planning, monitoring, controlling, and reflecting upon their learning in collaborative settings. Such regulation and argumentation can also elicit socioemotional responses and interactions. However, little is known regarding how regulation processes and socioemotional interactions manifest among students involved in small group discourse about scientific phenomena. As such, in this qualitative study, we explored social regulation of learning, scientific argumentation discourse, and socioemotional interactions in the discussions of two groups of high school physics students (n = 7, n = 6). We found key qualitative distinctions between the two groups, including how they enacted planning activities, their emphasis on challenging other's ideas versus building shared understanding, and how socioemotional interactions drove discourse. Commonalities across groups included how regulation initiation related to discourse, as well as how the difficulty of the content hindered, and teacher support augmented, the enactment of social regulation. Finally, we found overlapping regulation and discourse codes that provide a foundation for future work.

The nature of discourse within classrooms strongly predicts students’ ability to think about, around, and with text and content (i.e. comprehension and critical-analytic thinking). However, little is known about the nature of classroom discourse in remote, rural South African schools, a context in which students face well-documented language challenges. The central aim of the present study was to explore the structure and content of discourse in South African classrooms using the 4 components of the Quality Talk model as a frame for our exploration (i.e. instructional frame, discourse elements, teacher moves and pedagogical principles). Grade 8 student participants from 3 classes and their teacher were sampled. Data sources included individual student language assessments, digital video recordings of classroom literacy practices and field notes. Findings revealed that discourse was predominantly characterised by an efferent stance toward text, and the discussions were primarily teacher controlled and directed. There was little, if any, evidence of students’ critical-analytic thinking. Observations in terms of resilience and narratability as well as implications for research and practice are forwarded.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Identifying and Remediating Difficulties with Problem-solving in Statics Abstract The work described in this paper is part of a multi-year study that seeks to enhance students’ ability to create ‘models’ successfully as they solve problems in Statics. The ultimate goal of the study is to understand the major difficulties that students encounter as they learn to model during problem-solving in Statics and to create interventions to help them more quickly overcome those difficulties. In the first phase of the study, more than 300 students completed three inventories: math skills, spatial reasoning and statics concepts. The results from the inventories were used to identify clusters of students with common characteristics, and therefore, presumably common deficiencies in their problem solving in Statics. Students from each cluster were then invited to participate in think-aloud problem solving sessions to identify the weaknesses in their problem solving. Analysis of the think-aloud sessions identified a number of common issues in students’ knowledge and ability to create models, which are summarized in the paper. Based on these findings, the research team identified possible interventions to address the common issues. Two of these interventions were developed through a design experiments process in which they were tested with groups of up to 30 students, refined to enhance their effectiveness, and then re-tested. The interventions and the development process are described, and results from the final round of the design experiments are presented. Introduction The work described in this paper is part of an on-going study of problem solving in Statics. 1,2 The work is being done in Statics classes because it is one of the first places that engineering students encounter the engineering problem-solving process. In this study we are paying particular attention to the early steps in problem-solving when students ‘model’ the system being studied to create a set of equations describing the system. In Statics students typically read a problem statement and then create a model of the system, the free-body diagram, which contains all of the salient forces on the body. Then, based on the free-body diagram, they create a mathematical model of the system. The current phase of the work is aimed at answering two main questions about the modeling processes: What are the major difficulties that students encounter when they perform modeling during problem-solving? What instructional interventions will address these problems and improve engineering students’ modeling during problem-solving? In the current phase of the work, interventions that are developed will be tested in a full-scale experimental design. Clearly there are many different ways in which students can go wrong as they solve problems in Statics. They may, for example, have inadequate knowledge of the forces and moments for particular types of connections, an inability to visualize forces, or inadequate math skills. Our working hypothesis is that students will cluster into different groups based on their abilities and knowledge, and that these groups will demonstrate differing abilities to solve Statics problems.

Individuals often face contexts in which they must learn from multiple perspectives, but relatively little research has specifically examined how learners integrate information when the perspectives are complementary in nature. This chapter presents a systematic review that explores the trends and findings across extant research conducted on learning from complementary perspectives. A comprehensive, multipronged search approach identified 20 unique articles examining learning from multiple complementary perspectives. Key information (e.g., focus, theoretical frame(s), sample, perspectives, measures, and findings) from the identified studies is presented along with trends and patterns across the body of work. Critical gaps that need further examination are also forwarded to propel future research in this emerging area.

Literacy instruction in the 21st century must bolster students? ability to critically process text and craft well-reasoned written argumentation. The authors investigated changes in fourth-grade students? (N?=?28; 15 girls) written argumentation as they used a researcher-developed graphic organizer (i.e., Quality Talk graphic organizer [QT(GO)]). The authors also examined the extent to which students? graphic organizer performance predicted their written argumentation and whether such prediction was sustained across genres. Both QT(GO) responses and written argumentation essays were scored for quantity and quality. Multilevel modeling analyses reveal that (a) both quantity and quality of students? written argumentation essays statistically significantly improved after students used QT(GO) and (b) students? graphic organizer performance seemed to attenuate the effect of genre on their written argumentation for both quantity and quality. Results suggest that QT(GO) facilitated students? written argumentation, making it easier for fourth-grade students to write about both narrative and expository texts.

Effective interventions are needed to bolster students’ argumentation capacities, an area in which they consistently struggle. Quality Talk (QT) is an approach to small-group classroom discussion shown to support students’ oral argumentation with preliminary evidence that it may also bolster students’ written argumentation. Teachers often must adapt interventions to their local context, balancing needed flexibility with sufficient adherence to fidelity to reach expected efficacy. The present study was conducted over one school year with two fifth-grade teachers and their 46 students. In Phase I, two participating teachers implemented a refined version of QT, and we examined the effects on students’ oral and written argumentation performance. While typical gains in students’ oral argumentation performance were evidenced, students’ written argumentation did not improve to the degree expected, particularly in terms of performance with unfamiliar texts. In Phase II, both teachers reincorporated a component of QT (i.e., regular post-discussion written argumentation practice) they had adapted in Phase I, and one teacher added a new written argumentation scaffold designed to further bolster students’ transfer from oral to written argumentation. By the end of the study, students from both classes evidenced growth in written argumentation, but the students from the class receiving the writing scaffold outperformed comparison class students with large effects. Findings underscore the importance of including regular post-discussion written argumentation practice and illustrate the added value of a new written argumentation scaffold, while also contributing to a better understanding of how to balance flexibility and fidelity for efficacious QT implementation.