2
Preliminary Community Building and Roadmapping Efforts

JANUARY 2001 WORKSHOP AND THE DECISION TO USE ROADMAPPING

In spring 2000, representatives from the U.S. Department of Education (DoEd) and senior staff at the National Academies had identified two common frustrations. First, the innovations, resources, and strategic planning that have been devoted to developing information technologies that are transforming American and global business practices have been much less focused on the comparable opportunities for transforming education. Second, research in the cognitive and learning sciences— which has elucidated important principles of human learning with major implications and potential for improving education (e.g., National Research Council, 2000, 2001b)—has not been fully utilized in the design, implementation, and evaluation of technology tools that could enhance learning to an even greater degree.

Based on the critical need to find ways for the interests of these communities to converge toward the improvement of learning for K-12 students, the National Research Council and the U.S. Department of Education decided to launch a project to bridge communication among the technology, education research, and education practitioner communities. The mandates given to the committee for this project include finding ways to meld expertise among individuals in three domains:

  • experts in the cognitive and learning sciences who have explored the practical uses of IT in education;



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 11
2 Preliminary Community Building and Roadmapping Efforts JANUARY 2001 WORKSHOP AND THE DECISION TO USE ROADMAPPING In spring 2000, representatives from the U.S. Department of Education (DoEd) and senior staff at the National Academies had identified two common frustrations. First, the innovations, resources, and strategic planning that have been devoted to developing information technologies that are transforming American and global business practices have been much less focused on the comparable opportunities for transforming education. Second, research in the cognitive and learning sciences— which has elucidated important principles of human learning with major implications and potential for improving education (e.g., National Research Council, 2000, 2001b)—has not been fully utilized in the design, implementation, and evaluation of technology tools that could enhance learning to an even greater degree. Based on the critical need to find ways for the interests of these communities to converge toward the improvement of learning for K-12 students, the National Research Council and the U.S. Department of Education decided to launch a project to bridge communication among the technology, education research, and education practitioner communities. The mandates given to the committee for this project include finding ways to meld expertise among individuals in three domains: experts in the cognitive and learning sciences who have explored the practical uses of IT in education;

OCR for page 11
practitioners in the education community who understand the opportunities and the challenges for improving teaching in U.S. schools; and those in the IT sector who are committed to improving education, including those from the hardware sector who wish to adapt their commercial equipment to better meet the financial and technological constraints of the K-12 community and software developers who can design new tools and applications for use primarily in education. Three goals were identified: to establish ongoing dialogue and interactions among the technology, learning and cognition, and education practitioner communities for the purpose of improving education for all learners through the development and appropriate uses of modern technology; to find ways to incorporate the knowledge base, research findings, and innovations from each of these communities into coherent strategic approaches to developing education technologies; and to offer information so that the end users of education technologies can make better informed decisions about the purchase, use, and maintenance of these technologies and, in addition, can develop the capacity to offer the kinds of professional development programs that will enable teachers to use education technologies in ways that can transform teaching and learning. To accomplish these goals, the committee organized a large workshop that was held at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, DC, in January 2001. People from all three communities were invited to attend and discuss how to forge an extended community of expertise from the three domains. They also were asked to explore how, by working together, strategic decisions could be made about how IT products could be developed based on evidence from the cognitive and learning sciences about ways to enhance learning and teaching. Finally, in plenary and breakout sessions, participants considered how education practitioners could both use this expanded knowledge base and contribute to the strategic design of IT product development as well as the direction of education research that focuses on the use of IT. Descriptions of presentations about various models of IT use in schools that seem to be improving learning, the rich conversations that surrounded those presentations, the innovative ideas that many participants contributed to this workshop in both plenary and breakout sessions, and possible next steps for the committee to undertake are detailed in a separate report (National Research Council, 2002b). At the meeting of the committee following the workshop, it quickly became clear that a

OCR for page 11
model of action would be required to continue and expand the dialogue among these communities and to help them set both individual and collective goals in the near and longer term for improving learning and teaching with IT. The model for accomplishing this work that quickly surfaced was to use the process of roadmapping, which had been employed by the semiconductor, automotive, and other industries. All of these industries faced similar dilemmas: bringing together representatives from organizations with different, often competing kinds of expertise, needs, and goals, to focus their attention on solving issues that would benefit all sectors of those expanded communities. Several members of the committee had had direct experience with the roadmapping process and were able to help the committee envision a roadmap that would guide its future activities and serve as way to encourage others in the IT, research, and practitioner communities, to engage in similar kinds of work for their mutual benefit and, most importantly, for the benefit of the nation’s schoolchildren. The next section describes the process in some detail. RATIONALE FOR ROADMAPPING Roadmapping is a tool for showing the structural and temporal relationships that are embedded in the task of achieving a particular set of goals (e.g., Kostoff and Schaller, 2001; Phaal, Farrukh, and Probert, 2001). In the words of Robert Galvin, who led Motorola during its use of the technique, roadmapping is an “inventory of possibilities for a given field” (Schaller, 1999). The structural relationships may involve interim products, experiments, techniques, insights, and policy changes. Temporal relationships may be related to developmental or product cycles, time to build a facility, and time to learn and use new knowledge and skills. These elements help establish areas in which additional research is needed to advance the system of interest toward the specified goals. They also help determine whether the research need is shorter or longer term. Thus they can generate the core of a research agenda for the issue being roadmapped. The process can also offer a powerful tool for organizing discussions. By showing how disparate tasks link to common goals, roadmapping can bring competing groups and contrary views into a focused discussion. Furthermore, it can be a way to coordinate efforts across different disciplines and sectors and across many levels—local, state, national, international—toward one or more stated goals. Among the benefits of roadmapping are that it helps identify connections between parts of the problem that may not at first inspection appear to be directly related, and

OCR for page 11
it can show the relationships between the desired goals and the high-risk tasks that are embedded in the problem. Done right, roadmapping is inclusive, and many stakeholders can tune their efforts (grants, research programs, development budgets, product planning, etc.) to it. One of the primary potential problems with roadmapping is that often no external standards exist that could help define goals, provide guidance on how to reach those goals, or indicate that they have been achieved. Moreover, people can sometimes interpret the goals too literally, which can stifle innovative solutions. There are encouraging examples of the use of roadmapping in a number of other fields, a situation that at a general level suggests that the technique may be useful in education as well (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001; Phaal, Farrukh, and Probert, 2001; Schaller, 1999). These examples include roadmapping efforts focused on an industry sector (Semiconductor Industry Association), on products (Motorola, Phillips), on product/technology (Lucent/Wireless) and on cross-boundary issues (Department of Energy). For example, the latter has employed roadmapping in its work on a variety of complex cross-boundary issues. According to the Department of Energy (2000), roadmapping is “most valuable” when any of the following is present: high potential for mission failure; significant consequences if failure occurs; high dollar costs, high worker exposure, or high environmental impact; multiple, diverse efforts working on a common problem; and significant political or senior management visibility. Like many of the needs of K-12 education, improving learning with information technology appeared to meet all five criteria described in the Department of Energy roadmapping process. In applying roadmapping to the issue of improving learning with information technology, the committee sought to deal with two of the challenges it was asked to address: (1) the complexity along many dimensions, including technical, economic, behavioral, and political aspects, of using IT to improve K-12 learning and teaching, and (2) the need to bring together three quite different and disconnected constituencies at the outset even to begin the conversation, with broader engagement required later in the process. Complexity and the need for community building have been important features of previous efforts in other sectors of the economy that have turned to roadmapping as a strategic planning technique. The committee’s charge anticipated that the project would offer an opportunity to build a community of interest among the three groups:

OCR for page 11
researchers in the learning sciences, K-12 practitioners, and IT developers. The concept of inclusiveness is central to roadmapping, as great benefits flow from the full expression of diverse views and perspectives in goal-focused discussions. As the committee’s roadmapping effort matured, engagement of a broader group of stakeholders was envisioned, including parents, school boards, teacher unions, K-12 administrators, schools of education, university learning scientists, IT companies, business leaders, and policy makers. Certainly, as many have learned over the last two decades of attempts to improve education and expand educational opportunities to all students, effecting any change in highly decentralized education systems requires the participation of a wide array of actors whose interests may be in competition or may work at cross-purposes to each other. DECEMBER 2001 WORKSHOP In conjunction with its third meeting in December 2001, the committee organized and sponsored a second workshop. That workshop, held in Palo Alto, California, featured presentations and targeted plenary and breakout discussions that were designed to assist the committee with its work of articulating a roadmap for improving learning with information technology. Following the first workshop, committee members and staff recognized the enormous breadth of issues that could be associated with this work. As a result, a decision was made to narrow the focus of this second workshop to feature advances in the uses of IT in the areas of reading and middle school science. Because discussions at the first symposium focused on such a broad array of topics, the second symposium focused more specifically on the uses of IT in the areas of reading and middle school science. However, these topics did not prove to provide a meaningful focus for the committee’s subsequent roadmapping exercises; committee members came to realize that what is applicable to this subject area could apply equally well to many other subjects. Of course, different software is often needed to use IT effectively in different subject areas of the curriculum. However, the broad systemic issues that must be addressed to ensure that IT is used effectively to improve learning do not vary substantially across different subject areas, and the committee elected to conduct its roadmapping exercise around more universal and generic issues. The second workshop provided opportunities to bring together additional representatives and voices from the larger community that has dedicated itself to improving learning with information technology. In addition to presentations, the workshop also featured a series of demon-

OCR for page 11
strations of products that are currently being used and are undergoing various kinds of evaluation to measure their efficacy for improving reading or middle school science. The workshop ended with breakout groups that discussed how the demonstrated technologies could be used to address needs in these subject areas. The agenda for the workshop and the list of participants appear in Appendix C. THE COMMITTEE’S EXPERIENCE WITH ROADMAPPING AFTER THE DECEMBER 2001 WORKSHOP The committee launched the roadmapping effort at a meeting that followed the December 2001 workshop. Guided loosely by the sequence of steps identified in the roadmapping literature, the committee: (1) began with an initial set of participants representing learning scientists, K-12 educators, and IT developers (the committee members themselves), but with plans to share its preliminary work with a more inclusive group of stakeholders and to incorporate their multiple perspectives; (2) agreed on boundary conditions, originally with the intention to focus on the opportunities and challenges to improve middle school science education; (3) sought to identify both shorter and longer term goals that could lead to significant improvements in learning and teaching through the strategic use of IT; and (4) created an initial roadmap based on the desired goals. During the course of 2002, the committee encountered a number of challenges in terms of both process and its analytical charge. The process challenges are summarized here, and the analytical challenges of improving learning with information technology are addressed in the following section. The Roadmapping Challenge Although the committee set out along the lines suggested by the roadmapping literature, the very nature of the National Research Council committee process, in which committee members are volunteers who serve pro bono, meant that our efforts would differ from the full roadmapping efforts found in other sectors. Typically, roadmapping entails an intense commitment of time, resources, meeting frequency, and technical support. For example, International SEMATECH is a well-known effort to roadmap progress in the global semiconductor industry. Currently it involves over 800 people participating in about 15 technical working groups over a period of a year. These participants are drawn primarily from corporations, which donate a substantial portion of the time of their employees and support the cost of the participants from their

OCR for page 11
organizations because they understand that the benefits of roadmapping make this cost worthwhile both to their companies and to the industry as a whole. Also critical to the success of this industry roadmapping process is a central coordinating organization. The consortium, International SEMATECH, devotes a full-time department to focus on supporting the roadmapping process and information. Also, consortium members are prime participants in the roadmapping activities and provide additional top-down leadership by a close relationship with their advisory groups and with the member companies’ implementation of the industry roadmap. As a result of the much more limited time and resources available for the committee’s work, our roadmapping effort was designed to be far less comprehensive than industry efforts, such as that of the Semiconductor Industry Association. At best, the committee could have carried out the work corresponding to that of a single technical working group of the semiconductor industry effort. However, such a focused effort would have been possible only if a previous effort in this domain had already identified what would constitute a set of discrete technical working groups. Because this had not been done in advance, the committee’s work on roadmapping naturally gravitated toward the task of identifying the various components of the overall problem. In formal roadmapping terms, the committee’s effort resembled the preroadmapping task, in which the domain of the future technical working groups is defined. After its preliminary roadmapping effort, the committee’s final task was to organize a workshop engaging a broad array of stakeholders and emphasizing future activities in the area of improving learning with information technology. It was necessary to find a way to communicate the many issues that had been discussed in the roadmapping effort in ways that could be discussed at a high level while being accessible in a public forum with a diverse audience. Thus, the aim of this workshop was to stimulate discussion about what future community building and strategic planning activities would be worthwhile, rather than to refine the particular items on the committee’s preliminary set of roadmap tables. To facilitate this workshop discussion, the issues addressed in the committee’s roadmap tables were reformulated into two “transformations”: The first transformation deals with the infrastructure required to integrate IT into education in ways that would benefit all students. This infrastructure includes hardware and its support, professional development for teachers, access to software that fundamentally changes the ways educators think about and develop curricula, and mechanisms for providing student and parental access at home. The committee considered these issues in its roadmapping discussions, and they are presented in the Annex at the end of this chapter in Annex Tables 2-1 to 2-5.

OCR for page 11
The second transformation deals with the research and development effort that will be required to apply findings from the scientific literature about how people learn to the next generation of educational and learning technology. These issues are considered in the committee’s roadmap in Annex Tables 2-6 and 2-7. Chapter 3 describes the January 2003 workshop discussion of these two transformations and possible next steps for establishing the technical and social infrastructures that would be needed to meld IT into K-12 teaching and learning. Community Building The committee’s membership was initially constituted with participants from each of the three broad groups thought to be at the core of pointing the way to improving learning with information technology: K-12 educators, information technologists, and learning researchers. While each group had an interest in the goal of improving learning through information technology, they came to it with different experience, perspectives, vocabularies, and professional cultures. As a consequence, the first community building exercise took place within the committee itself. For example, during its meeting in July 2001, committee member Amy Jo Kim, who is an expert on building on-line communities (Kim, 2000), led the group in a general discussion about creating an online community to support and enhance the committee’s work. She defined a web community as a group of people who have a shared purpose, interest, or activity and who get to know each other better over time. During her presentation she outlined five myths, nine “timeless” design strategies, and three design principles for web-based communities (Box 2-1). The committee’s experiences in and problems with community building turned out to be a microcosm of what is likely to happen when attempts are made to bring these three separate and well-established communities together. The committee’s experiences suggest that the following questions will have to be addressed for similar efforts to be successful in the future: What kinds of organizational arrangements or incentives could foster ongoing collaborations among K-12 educators, information technologists, and learning scientists in ways that enable the three domains to influence each other? How could these three disparate communities interact on a large-enough scale to have the kind of impact needed to significantly improve student learning?

OCR for page 11
The committee’s experiences and challenges with community building contributed to the design of the January 2003 workshop, the selection of invitees, and the emphasis on possible strategies and collaborations to bring about the two transformations. The design of the workshop began to facilitate among workshop participants the kind of community building that the committee had attempted to do among its own membership. For example, as detailed in Chapter 3 and Appendix B, during breakout sessions, members of all three communities worked together to establish and prioritize goals based on the ideas presented during the plenary sessions, as well as their own individual and collective expertise. BOX 2-1 Myths, Design Strategies, and Design Principles for Developing Online Communities Five Myths of Virtual Communities There is a fundamental difference between on-line and virtual communities. (The main difference is that virtual communities are less dependent than traditional communities on their members being at a particular place at a particular time.) Cutting-edge technology is always best. (Sometimes cutting-edge technology can get in the way of the community working as planned, especially if it is not readily available to all community members.) Communities are based on conversations. (Conversations are often what happen in communities, but they do not form the core of a community.) Communities are supportive and egalitarian. Community culture can be separate from that of the organization that hosts the community. Nine Timeless Design Strategies Define and clearly articulate the purpose of the community. Build flexible, extensible gathering places. Create meaningful and evolving member profiles. Design to accommodate a range of roles (newcomer, leader, elder, etc.). Develop a strong leadership program. Encourage appropriate etiquette. Promote cyclic events. Integrate the rituals of community life. Facilitate member-run subgroups. Three Design Principles Start small and focused; grow and evolve in response to pressures and opportunities. Create feedback loops between members and management. Empower members over time.

OCR for page 11
ANALYTICAL CHALLENGES The substance of the problem of improving learning with information technology also raised a number of challenges that are related to the goals described in the roadmap tables themselves. The committee discussed these challenges in the process of its preliminary roadmapping effort, which led to the current structure of the roadmap tables. An overview of these central challenges provides a useful introduction to the roadmap tables. K-12 Decentralization Decision making for schools is fragmented among a number of authorities: federal, state, district, and individual school. Although the most talented teachers can bring about improved learning in their own classrooms even in the absence of adequate support from authorities, the improvement in learning for all students cannot depend on the most talented teachers alone. Recent attempts to enact systemic reform, by policy makers and civic, education, and business leaders, have tried to recruit all levels of authority toward the goal of improving student learning. However, while a number of promising projects exist in schools and districts across the country, the problem of scaling them to involve large numbers of students remains an enduring problem. What strategies can be used to increase the chances that the desired improvement will happen—that it will be adopted and sustained by a critical mass of school districts over time? The disappointing news is that the systemic reform movement in K-12 education has grappled with this scaling issue for almost two decades without major breakthroughs (Fuhrman, 1994; Knapp, 1997; Shields et al., 1997). However, the good news is that the movement may provide some natural allies for the effort and insights on effective strategies for influencing the K-12 education system to exploit information technologies to improve learning and teaching (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 2000; Confrey et al., 2000; Harvard Graduate School of Education, in press). It is possible that the uses of networked learning technologies and teacher supports, coupled with careful attention to design factors found to be affiliated with success in systemic reforms, could help contribute to more rapid uptake of research-grounded innovations. Evidence of Success It will be easier to secure adequate levels of political support, funding, and community buy-in for any efforts aimed at improving learning

OCR for page 11
with IT if there are clear demonstrations of IT tools for teaching and learning that bring dramatic improvements in student learning. This is particularly the case if the improvements are shown using measures of student learning that matter to the stakeholders who are being held increasingly accountable for improving learning, including parents, teachers, and school administrators. This challenge has become acute in the current policy environment brought by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which calls for scientifically based education research.1 Markets Development and large-scale adoption of IT-enabled tools for K-12 learning and teaching are hampered by the current structure and incentives of the marketplace for education technology. One feature of this marketplace is the absence of a sufficient level of organized demand. The lack of a critical mass of demand, to which IT developers could respond, can be attributed at least in significant degree to the decentralized and uncoordinated nature of much K-12 decision making in the United States. Although most states now have student learning goals, or standards for what students should know and be able to do, or both, these differ across states. Most states also have requirements for assessment, but these too vary and frequently are independent of policies and practices related to curriculum and instruction. In addition, decisions on curriculum and instruction are overwhelmingly the province of local education authorities at the district or school levels. Finally, purchasing decisions for hardware and software tend to be fragmented among many actors, many of whom purchase relatively small quantities. A further irony is that the primary users of IT in education—teachers and learners—are typically not the buyers of IT and have little influence on buying decisions. Expecting some level of deliberate, coordinated development of IT-enabled tools tailored for K-12 use in this market environment is unrealistic. Instead, IT developers will continue to be driven by more coherent and predictable sources of demand outside education. Thus, without changes in the market conditions described above, business- and office-related applications and products for home entertainment (which sometimes include a learning component) will 1   Means and Penuel (in press) note that technology-based educational innovations are often “highly dependent on implementation processes and contextual factors” that are “often neglected by studies focused on main effects.” They argue that this dependence must be taken into account in the evaluations of these systems.

OCR for page 11
ANNEX TABLE 2-1 Standards-Aligned System of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Primary change agents: State and district education policy makers, federal law Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Create a dynamically aligned system of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, based on evolving learning requirements (what students should know and be able to do) and consistent with what is known about how students learn and with the capability of IT to enhance that learning. Significant number of states and districts adopt IT-enabled curricula and related instructional strategies that are consistent with the National Science Education Standards (NSES); states align state science standards with NSES. Significant number of states and districts adopt IT-enabled curricula that integrate general research on how people learn with real-world and virtual experiences and permits customization for students. Variety of learning tools are used to customize curriculum and instruction (limited role of textbooks). States and districts establish quantifiable assessment objectives that are tied to curriculum and instruction. Widespread state and district use of ITenabled tools for both summative and formative assessments. Ongoing embedded formative assessment reduces/eliminates need for a separate summative assessment (e.g., final exams). Increasing district/classroom reliance on ongoing embedded assessment methodologies.   All students have wireless, networked computing devices to allow customized curriculum, instruction, and asse ssment. Roadmapping Table 2: Teacher Education for Improving Learning with IT Need addressed: To maximize the effectiveness of information technology in education, both new and veteran teachers must be able to make good use of technology tools for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Challenges: Many current teachers have little idea how to use technology tools to enhance teaching and learning. While they use available technologies

OCR for page 11
to increase their own personal productivity, which is a large part of a teacher’s workday, they tend to continue business as usual when it comes to integrating technology into instruction. Colleges and universities provide new teachers with little initial preparation,2 while meaningful teacher professional development on IT (i.e., professional development that focuses on appropriate uses of IT to enhance learning rather than emphasizing how to operate the hardware and software itself) has been a low priority for most school districts. The widespread nonalignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment and the prevalence of local decision making on technology contribute to the fragmentation of demand for IT-enabled teaching and learning tools. Opportunities: A broadly based consortium of organizations representing major professional education groups, government entities, foundations, and corporations has developed standards for what children, teachers, technology leaders, and other educational professionals should know about and be able do with information technology (e.g., National Educational Technology Standards [NETS] for students as well as teachers from the International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], http://cnets.iste.org/). Three developments could stimulate both the supply of and demand for training in IT use for educators: (1) significantly increased numbers of cheap, reliable computers, approaching a 1:1 ratio with students in classrooms and computers on the desks of every teacher; (2) agreement on alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment by a significant number of states/districts so that hardware and software developers can sell to a much less fragmented marketplace; and (3) driving state accrediting bodies and/or schools of education and providers of teacher professional development to include standards for teacher IT skills as requirements. Web-based technologies exist that could make it easier for the teachers to take part in ongoing professional development opportunities. Roadmapping Table 3: Networked Communities of Teachers Need addressed: Even in the largest schools, teachers tend to be isolated in their classrooms or do not have a sufficient number of col- 2   Some progress has been made with the U.S. Department of Education’s program to support efforts to integrate technology in pre-service teaching and learning programs. See the website for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology at http://www.pt3.org.

OCR for page 11
ANNEX TABLE 2-2 Teacher Education for Improving Learning with IT Primary change agents: Schools of education, national and state-level accrediting organizations Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Career-long teacher education based on evolving technology standards, how people learn, and an aligned system of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The Council of Chief State School Officers, the Education Commission of the States, and state actions promote visibility, adoption, and implementation of existing and evolving standards for teacher IT skills (30 of 50 states and the District of Columbia have already adopted, adapted, or aligned with ISTE/NETS standards in their state technology plans, certification, licensure, assessment plans, or other state documents: http://cnets.iste.org/getdocs.html). State teacher certification requires that all teacher candidates receive practice teaching with information technology consistent with research on how people learn.   Teacher education programs responsible for majority of teacher candidates require candidates to learn to use technology in the classroom in ways that are supported by research on how people learn. Learning from on-line teacher communities (see Annex Table 2-3) is aggregated to provide feedback to teacher training institutions on needed improvements. Information technologies are fully integrated into the university—including science disciplinary departments and in practicum learning experiences—in ways that are consistent with research on how people learn, such as integrating research with education (e.g., student-scientist partnerships). Design of teacher professional development incorporates combination of standards for IT and research on how people learn. Ongoing professional development that meets the standards is routinely available in 50 percent of school districts. Ongoing professional development that meets the standards is used by nearly all teachers in 100 percent of school districts.

OCR for page 11
Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years)   Teachers learn to use IT tools for purposes of diagnosing student learning results and of customizing curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Teachers learn to use IT tools for purposes of gauging student motivation and for customizing curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Data-driven recognition of patterns of student learning and motivation is used to recommend changes of curriculum and instruction.   Investigating just-in-time and real-time web-based coaching for teachers in their classrooms from district or remote mentors observing teaching. Best practice models of web-based coaching for teachers in their classrooms from district or remote mentors in widespread use. leagues with similar expertise to form learning communities. For the most part, teachers do not have effective ways to share information about instructional practices, including records of practice (as in video-tapes of their teaching), or in their use of IT-enabled teaching and learning tools. Challenges: The educational system currently provides few incentives for teachers to improve their teaching practices, and schools of education and school districts rarely offer coherent programs for ongoing teacher professional development for their graduates or employees. Environments of trust and security need to be established for teachers to feel safe in sharing their work and inviting suggestions for improvements. Opportunities: There are bodies of knowledge on teacher learning in communities, on using web-based technologies for establishing on-line communities of practice for teacher professional development, and on uses of case studies for teacher learning that could be much more broadly utilized (e.g., Barab and Duffy, 2000; Blanton et al., 1998; Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999; Goldman, 2001; Perry and Talley, 2001; Schlager et al., 2002; Shulman, 1992). Roadmapping Table 4: K-12 Educational IT Product Evaluation Need addressed: Many K-12 purchasers of technology products for schools and districts are not classroom teachers and often have little knowledge

OCR for page 11
ANNEX TABLE 2-3 Networked Communities of Teachers for Career-Long Learning Primary change agents: Schools of education, state education departments, teacher organizations, such as the National Science Teachers Association and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Create and support networked improvement communities for career-long continuous learning for K-12 educators. Education school faculty, state departments of education, district school leaders, and teacher organizations devise strategies for on-line teacher communities to facilitate peer-to-peer networking. Opportunities for face-to-face teacher communities on the basis of specialized interests identified in on-line communities.   Teachers post text and web-log ("blog") best practices of IT use in their classrooms for peers and experiment with sharing of digital videos of their teaching online. Broad digital libraries are available of video case studies of teaching with research-informed uses of IT. Teachers frequently post on-line web videos of their own science teaching as part of professional video portfolio for feedback purposes with peers and mentors. University consortia establish support systems for all graduated new science teachers from consortia schools in communities where they teach independent of where they studied. University consortia establish virtual networks for connecting graduates. Career-long deep relationships are maintained by teacher training institutions and teachers through continuing education, mentoring, faculty exchanges, science internships, etc. about product effectiveness or usability in classroom settings. Putting more product evaluation information and teacher input into the decision-making process is one way to encourage the development and adoption of products that advance learning. Challenges: It is not clear that the current decision makers would willingly relinquish their purchasing authority. Most teachers are not experts in cognitive science or in the potential uses of IT to transform learning, so they might not know how to fully evaluate the educational effectiveness of the products they wish to purchase. In addition, the research base in education using IT has not been synthesized in a manner to readily guide school purchasing decisions of existing products or product features.

OCR for page 11
Opportunities: There are successful product evaluation services beyond the K-12 realm that might serve as useful models for the service envisioned below (e.g., J.D. Powers studies customer satisfaction for a broad range of products; Consumer Reports does expert testing of product categories and exemplars; Zagat’s Guide assesses customer satisfaction with restaurants and the Michelin Guide has experts do the same; Epinions is a customer-data driven comparison shopping web site; eBay buyers rate sellers). If the service were properly structured, companies might be willing to fund it, although an argument for federal funding can also be made. ANNEX TABLE 2-4 K-12 Educational IT Product Evaluation Primary change agents: Teacher organizations, digital libraries Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Establish web-based forum for independent reviews of IT-enabled educational products by classroom teachers, technology purchasers, and learning scientists. Common templates developed to provide detailed feedback on IT products, context for use, suggestions, etc. Many categories of IT-enabled educational products are reviewed for how well they integrate research on how people learn and how well they work in the classroom. All major categories of IT-enabled educational products are reviewed for how well they integrate research on how people learn and how well they work in the classroom. Infomediaries (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997) created for product reviews with incentives for teachers (cash, recognition). Roadmapping Table 5: Connections to Remote Scientific Resources Need addressed: A goal of K-12 science education is for students to understand how science builds knowledge from inquiry. One way to achieve that goal is for students and teachers to complement actual lab experiments and classroom explorations by using IT tools to access the vast and rapidly expanding body of scientific knowledge, instrumentation, experimentation, and other scientific resources that scientists use. Challenges: Some scientific instruments are too expensive or fragile to be used in the average K-12 classroom, and some experiments are too dangerous to be performed by children. There also are currently not enough instruments and research opportunities available on the Internet to make access to them universal, and few web sites are compliant with federal requirements for universal access.3 Many teachers are not familiar enough 3   Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that federal agencies' electronic and information technology be accessible to people with disabilities, see http://www.section508.gov.

OCR for page 11
with the variety of educational opportunities and resources available remotely or with how best to integrate them into the curriculum. Opportunities: There are many “collaboratory” projects that allow students to control expensive, uncommon, or delicate scientific instruments ANNEX TABLE 2-5 Connections to Remote Science Resources Primary change agents: Outreach activities for federally funded science research and museums, digital libraries Goals Near Term (1 -5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Develop a learning grid* to provide K-12 schools with access to remote scientific resources via IT and a system to ensure sufficient remote resources are made available for all interested users. Demonstrate the use of IT to access remote scientific instrumentation, databases, and sensor networks to permit virtual use of real physical instruments. Significant adoption of IT to access scientific resources. Use of IT to access scientific resources becomes mainstream. Virtual and/or real field experiences are embedded in curriculum and instruction for all science students and meet Section 508 universal access compliance. Virtual and/or real use of science museum resources is embedded in curriculum and instruction.   Computing grid for K-1 2 science implemented. Extended computing grid implemented. *A learning grid provides connections to on-line learning resources. In current realizations for K-12 education, the grid functions only as an index. See, for example, the United Kingdom's National Grid for Learning (http://www.ngfl.gov.uk) and the Math Forum's web site (http://mathforum.org). In the next phase of computer networking, a computing grid will harness unused processing cycles of computers in a network for solving problems that are too intensive for any single computer alone (Foster et al., 2001). Current examples of a computing grid are the SETI project at Berkeley (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu) and the protein folding project at Stanford (http://folding.stanford.ed/). The National Science Foundation's national middleware initiative (http://www.nsf-middleware.org/) and the United Kingdom's e-science grid (http://www.escience-grid.org.uk) are intended to bring the computing grid to universities and eventually to K-12 education. This future learning grid will allow students to do much more advanced work in computing-intensive applications, such as simulation and modeling.

OCR for page 11
or to otherwise engage in scientific research through the Internet. Close evaluation of these projects could yield useful information about their educational impact and how they could be replicated and scaled up. Increasingly, institutions from federal laboratories to museums are putting their materials and collections on line in ways that allow the virtual visitors to interact with the artifacts and information. Roadmapping Table 6: Development of IT-Enabled Products for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Need addressed: Although IT products designed for entertainment and business uses are powerful and versatile enough that adaptations could be developed for applications in K-12 education, there are few market incentives for such development. There also are few incentives for the makers of these products to design new product lines on their platforms that are tailored to the needs of the K-12 education system. Challenges: Home/business technologies are not optimally designed for use in education, and little is known about how to make good educational use of the products that exist or are likely to be developed for home or business use. Knowledge about how best to use IT for education must somehow draw on insights from research into learning and incorporate that knowledge into the design and use of new products. IT and the learning sciences are each advancing over time at different rates, and it is difficult to establish an alignment of learning research and product development that is subject to reciprocal influences. Currently, there is little incentive for learning science researchers or K-12 teachers to actively participate in the production of new IT-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment tools. Opportunities: Students typically and increasingly have technologies available at home that have the potential to be used as educational devices, and those technologies tend to be more robust and user-friendly than the ones available to students at school. Students would benefit if the technologies with which they are familiar in their home/work lives also could be adapted and used as educational tools (e.g., Hoppe et al., 2002; Roschelle and Pea, 2002). Alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in a significant number of states and districts has the potential, by generating sufficient demand, to stimulate the development, use, and continued improvement of aligned IT-enabled teaching and learning tools.

OCR for page 11
Both information technology and learning sciences research have advanced to the point at which they could make useful practical contributions to improving teaching and learning. ANNEX TABLE 2-6 Development and Creative Use of IT-Enabled Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Materials Primary change agents: Public- and private-sector curriculum developers, subject matter learning researchers Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Create continuously improved curriculum, instruction, and assessment materials rich in creative use of IT tools that improve learning and are aligned with evolving standards of what students need to know and be able to do. Develop IT-enabled curriculum materials for K-12 science and math disciplines that use embedded assessment to personalize instruction. Develop cognitive models of expertise for K-12 English and social studies (understudied today).   Develop additional IT-enabled curriculum materials for K-12 English, math, science, and social studies, using embedded assessment to personalize instruction. Provide opportunities for teachers and researchers to participate in IT industry internships to work on products designed for K-12 market. Developers apply teacher best practices from networked communities (see Annex Table 2-3). Continual communications among learning scientists, IT designers, and K-12 educators, to: -reduce the distance between research results and IT product design; and -increase mutual influence among the sectors. National Science Foundation grants require or provide incentives for partnerships of researchers, IT designers, and educators for K-12 IT product development and evaluation. Experimental developments of curriculum and instruction modules to exploit Internet-2. Widespread developments of curriculum, instruction, and assessment materials that use Internet-2 for learning science, such as tele-immersive software.  

OCR for page 11
Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years)   Developers adopt dual-use design strategies to increase compatibility of IT products intended for home/business use with those for use in K-12 education in order to extend learning across space and time. Apply standards for learnable interfaces.   Provide rewards and recognition systems for creating new curriculum, instruction, and assessment materials across sectors.     Apply tools for modifying instruction to reflect student motivation and interest (see Annex Table 2-7). Roadmapping Table 7: Research for the Next Generation of IT Tools to Improve Learning Need addressed (1): Student motivation and engagement (or lack thereof) are major factors in determining how much a student will accomplish in school. Increasing students’ engagement and motivation through instructional interventions, such as the use of virtual reality and other multisensory input, can lead to increased academic time on task, school attendance, and the likelihood of academic success. Challenges: We do not have accurate technical means to measure students’ levels of motivation on a real-time basis. There also are privacy issues that would be raised by attempts to record a student’s motivation level. Opportunities: Technology exists that could in principle be used to monitor, record, and analyze physical indicators that can correlate with a person’s level of alertness or motivation, such as physiological indicators of arousal, eye gaze (e.g., Salvucci and Anderson, 2000), facial expression, and posture. These indicators have been used extensively in media studies (e.g., Reeves and Nass, 1996) but have not been exploited in the context of learning subject matter using information technologies.

OCR for page 11
Need addressed (2): There is no standard user interface for educational IT products. The lack of standardization increases the amount of time users (both teachers and students) need to spend learning how to use the interface and reduces the interoperability of hardware and software. Challenges: There is a trade-off between standardization in interface design and the creativity that can be applied by individual software designers; it is difficult to know whether the right balance has been achieved. Nonetheless, federal requirements for universal access will become a driver toward such objectives and in principle. Opportunities: IT companies have conducted a considerable amount of research on effective user interfaces, and the Digital National Library will help create standard user interfaces for the resources it will contain (see http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/). ANNEX TABLE 2-7 Research for the Next Generation of IT Tools to Improve Learning Primary change agents: Public/private sector learning technology researchers Goals Near Term (1-5 years) Mid Term (6-10 years) Long Term (11-20 years) Develop capability to measure student interest and motivation in order to personalize curriculum, instruction, and assessment so learning time is more productive. Develop models of individual and group interest and motivation in various learning situations. Develop IT tools sensitive to cultural, gender, and other factors.   Develop tools to measure student motivation/interest and modify instruction accordingly. Develop IT tools that can sense a wide range of ways of knowing and showing knowledge. Create coherent and learnable interfaces and resource directories for IT science learning applications to enable cross-supplier product use and minimize time to learn how to use IT tools. Effective research-based best practice interface design standards for industry/suppliers are developed. New search engines for learning applications that use intuitive natural language interfaces. On-line training incorporated with IT tools.   Digital National Library develops platform standards for IT products.