National Center for Information Technology in

Education

Art Zygielbaum

Roger Bruning

Del Harnisch

October 10, 2001

2

• Initial partners: UNL Teachers College, NET, and CSE

• Planning participants: UNL, UNO, UNK, NDE, Aim Institute

• Where, why, and how does educational technology apply to learning

• Basic research, applied research, technology transfer

National Center for Information Technology in Education

. . . bringing together researchers and practitioners to appropriately and effectively apply technology to learning.

3

Technology and Learning

• Move toward interactive, dynamic media in education– Inquiry-based learning– Learner centered design: Learner friendly and tailored to the style

of the learner!– Avoid the industrial lock-step now used to ease teaching and

testing• Build a team spanning research and practice to find out how

– Cognitive Scientists– Educators– Technologists

4

One Example“Affinity Learning”

Let’s enable some technology-based learning

5

Fuzzy Nodesand Knowledge

Garden Framework

6

Mathematical Modeling:

Acceleration

7

So do it

• Created web based presentation – activities and assessments – Basic structure and content: Steve Hammersky (HS teacher)– Educational rigor: Neal Grandgenett (UNO)– Instructional Design: DCS Instructional Designers– Implementation: NET Engineers – Roger Feese

• Track the “nodes” visited, how long the student spends at any node

• See if learning is enhanced….or at least not hurt

8

Average Time per Node: Females

9

Average Time per Node: Males

10

The “Eureka Moment”

11

Promoting Deeper Learning in On-Line

Learning Applications

1. Think About It! (TAI) critical thinking/reasoning tool

2. InfoGather (IG) information-gathering tool

3. Virtual Teacher (VT) coaching tool

12

TAI Critical Thinking/Reasoning

Tool• TAI design features– Students make choices and give rationales– Database returns graphical display, plus rationales– Students review and rate quality of others’ rationales

• TAI Research base– Social interaction (Collins, et al., 1989; Stahl, 2000)– Authentic activities (CTG at Vanderbilt, 1997; Derry &

Lesgold, 1996; Swartz & Bransford, 1998)– Reasoning, self-explanation (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu,

&LaVancher, 1994; Gentner & Markman, 1997; Halpern, 1998)

13

14

Current Research Using TAI Tool

• Two studies manipulating interactions with others’ justifications– Norm-referenced tests (NRT) site (n = 94)– Motivation (MOT) site (n = 72)

• Undergraduate teacher education students

• Random Assignment to one of four groups

1. Choose and justify only

2. Choose and justify, + view graphic

3. Choose and justify, view graphic, + read others’ reasoning

4. Choose and justify, view graphic, + rate others’ reasoning

15

TAI Mean Scores: NRT and MOT Modules

Variable Justify only + View Graphic

+ View Others’ Rationales

+ Rate Others’ Rationales

NRT Module

Knowledge 13.10 12.56 13.55 12.12

Self-Efficacy 34.04 33.26 35.31 33.22

Critical Thinking 5.76 5.07 5.48 5.13

Navigation Rating 4.86 4.74 4.55 4.32

Time: Sections 2-4 2021 2223 2184 2909

MOT Module

Knowledge 13.00 12.92 13.00 12.73

Self-Efficacy 36.15 34.19 34.07 33.11

Critical Thinking 6.46 5.56 5.27 4.77

Navigation Rating 4.62 4.54 4.40 4.11

Time: Sections 2-4 2020 2223 2184 2909

16

InfoGather (IG) Tool

• IG tool design features– Students interact with text material in website– Students use variations of tool to gather information– Students wrote (Experiment 1), typed and/or cut and paste

into IG tool (Exp. 2), or typed notes into IG tool (Exp. 3)

• IG Research base– Utility of matrix-like notetaking frames for understanding

relationships (e.g., Kiewra, 1995; Kauffman & Kiewra, 2001)– Influence of text signals on learning (e.g., Lorch, 1989)– Goal to test value of data collection frames in web setting

17

Current Research Using IG Tool

• Goals– Design experiment approach to tool refinement– Investigate effect of varied frames, data gathering modes

• Experiments’ General Features– High school students (Experiments 1 & 2) and college undergrads (Experiment

3) read text materials from website– Materials ranged from 1200 to 2750 words– Took organized (matrix) or free form notes– Students read and took notes on Day 1, tested on Day 2

• Experiments 1-3– Exp. 1: Took paper and pencil notes – Exp. 2: Used IG tool, typed or cut and pasted information– Exp. 3: Used IG tool, typed only (study in progress)

18

Experiment 1: Mean Propositions in Notes

Note Taking Structure

Matrix Free Form Total

Category C

ues

Present 64.23 (22.47) 43.50 (27.1) 43.50 (27.1)

Absent 38.25 (28.07) 25.00 (16.39) 32.31 (24.13)

Total 49.90 (28.55) 25.29 (15.46) 37.80 (26.02)

19

Experiments 2 & 3: Recognition and Recall Measures

Note-taking Condition

Facts Relationships Free Recall

Experiment 2: Type and/or Cut and Paste into IG Tool

Matrix form 11.3 5.5 -------

Free form 10.9 4.8 -------

Experiment 3: Type only into IG Tool

Matrix form 19.3 9.2 21

Free form 19.1 8.0 15

Note. Experiment 2 showed no significant differences between conditions in fact or relationship recall; Partial data of Experiment 3 (n = 18) show significant differences in relationship and free recall.

20

Some observations

In Experiment 2,• Students “typers” or “pasters” regardless of treatment• “Typers” more confident of learning• Subgroup post hoc analysis in progress

In Experiment 3 (in progress) • Copy and paste function in IG tool disabled• Free recall and notes review opportunity added

Future research with IG tool• Encouraging results to date• Tool valuable for studying information gathering processes• Theory-driven research in schools difficult but rewarding

21

Virtual Teacher Coaching Tool (under

development) • VT Design Features

– Authorable, database-driven coaching system for web – Provides comments, hints to help students:

• Set goals and choose learning strategies • Organize and link information

• VT Research Base– Needs of at-risk students (e.g., Kramer-Schlosser, 1992)– Importance of personal investment (e.g., Baumeister &

Leary, 1995; Noddings, 1992), efficacy building (e.g., Pajares, 1996) and adaptive attributions (e.g., Weiner, 1986)

– Effectiveness of web-based interventions for building efficacy and effort attributions (Lehman, et al., 2001, JRCE)

22

Does it work?Responding to a need for research

• In a 1999 report, the National Research Council states: "the complex world of education - unlike defense, health care, or industrial production - does not rest on a strong research base. In no other field is the research base so inadequate or so little used."

• In 1998, the National Science Board stated: "systematic understanding of the social and cognitive complexity of computer-based learning is limited" and constrained by a lack of comparability between studies.

23

NCITE Major Themes

• R&D: The role of technology in teaching and learning– Supporting learners with technology– Supporting teaching with technology– Technology supported assessment/evaluation

• R&D: Interrelationship of technology, education, and society– Social and cultural issues and technologies

• Moving research into practice: people and tools– Creation/development of educational technology leaders– Develop, adapt, and evaluate educational technology tools

24

Brief History

• Challenge from Sen. Bob Kerrey in 1994• Many, many discussions/presentations by Rod Bates/Art Zygielbaum

– 1996 meeting with UN President L. Dennis Smith• Several study teams, 1999 - 2000• Nebraska Educational Telecommunications/Teachers College

Memorandum of Understanding for collaboration in R&D, production, distribution, and personnel development signed October 2000

• The “go ahead” in 2001– Mellon Foundation Grant: $350,000– Federal funding earmark: $ 2,721,000 (through efforts of Sen. Kerrey and

President Smith)– Faculty line commitments (Teachers College, Computer Science and

Engineering)– Temporary facilities identified– Board of Regents approval July 28, 2001

25

Initial Goals

• Create initial organization, governance, and staffing• “Put NCITE on the map”

– Take steps to ensure respected, sustainable role in educational technology R&D and transition to practice

– Establish educational, commercial, and government collaborations and contacts

26

Build Upon Existing Expertise

• Centers and Institutes– Center for Innovative Instruction– BUROS Institute for Mental Measurement– Nebraska Educational Telecommunications– Office of Internet Studies (UNO)

• Current Research– Affinity Learning– Tools Promoting Deeper Online Learning– Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment– ASA Grant– Mellon Foundation Grant

27

Build New Opportunities

• Seed Grants– $75K - $100K per year set aside

– Grants will most likely be $15K to $30K

– Selected based on probability of outside funding and relevance to NCITE

• Potential areas – Funded Proposal Writing/Review Teams

– Research into the role of human teachers/coaches in computer-based learning

• At the current state of technology, having humans “in the loop” is vital

– Programmatic, education, and technical look at Blackboard and WebCT

– Assessment and effectiveness of visualization tools

– Intelligent Agents for “leveling the peer playing field”

– Literacy/Writing Assessment

– Measurement of educator technical competency

28

Create Collaborations

• Extend partnerships– Faculty/student affiliates

– Nebraska Department of Education, K-12

– National linkages (e.g., Higher Education, ADL Initiative, NCSA)

• Nebraska Symposium on Information Technology in Education (2002 and beyond)

29

NCSA and NCITE

• Possibilities for collaboration– Joint proposals and projects– Faculty affiliation– Seminars with discipline leaders– Research linkages and support– Research resources and infrastructure– Publication and dissemination

30

www.ncite.org

NCITE