You are also welcome to complete the FREE MEMBERSHIP FORM for Technical Committee on Learning Technology. Please complete the form at: http://lttf.ieee.org/join.htm.

Besides, if you are involved in research and/or implementation of any aspect of advanced learning technologies, I invite you to contribute your own work in progress, project reports, case studies, and events announcements in this newsletter. For more details, please refer author guidelines at http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/authors.html.

Kinshuk
Editor,
Learning Technology Newsletter
kinshuk@ieee.org

5P^th^P IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2005)

July 5-8, 2005

Kaohsiung, Taiwan

HThttp://lttf.ieee.org/icalt2005/TH

· Important Dates

February 4, 2004 - paper submission

March 25, 2005 - notification of acceptance

April 15, 2005 - Copyright form submission

April 15, 2005 - final camera-ready manuscript

April 29, 2005 - author registration deadline

** Proceedings will be published by the IEEE Computer Society Press. **

Theme: "Next generation e-learning technology: intelligent applications and smart design"

The conference will bring together people who are working on the design, development, use and evaluation of technologies that will be the foundation of the next generation of e-learning systems and technology-enhanced learning environments.

We invite submission of papers reporting original academic or industrial research in the area of Advanced Learning Technologies. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Complete papers will be required for review process; only abstracts will not be sufficient.

All authors of accepted submissions will be required to complete IEEE Copyright Form.

Authors of selected papers will be invited to submit extended versions for a Special Issue of the Journal of Educational Technology & Society (ISSN 1436-4522).

· Topics of Interest

Adaptivity in Learning Systems

Advanced uses of Multimedia and Hypermedia

Ambient Intelligence and Ubiquitous learning

Application of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Learning

Architecture of Context Aware Learning Technology Systems

Artificial Intelligence Tools for Contextual Learning

Building Learning Communities

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

Distance Learning

e-Learning for All: Accessibility Issues

Educational Modelling Languages

Evaluation of Learning Technology Systems

Information Retrieval and Visualization Methods for Learning

Instructional Design Theories

Integrated Learning Environments

Interactive Simulations

Knowledge Testing and Evaluation

Life-Long Learning Paradigms

Learning Objects for Personalised Learning

Learning Styles

Media for Learning in Multicultural Settings

Metadata for Learning Resources

Mobile Learning Applications

Participatory Simulations

Pedagogical and Organisational Frameworks

Peer-to-Peer Learning Applications

Practical Uses of Authoring Tools

Robots and Artefacts in Education

Simulation-supported Learning and Instruction

Socially Intelligent Agents

Speech and (Natural) Language Learning

Learning Objects for Personalised Learning

Teaching/Learning Strategies

Technology-facilitated Learning in Complex Domains

Virtual Reality

Virtual Spaces for Learning Communities

· Program Co-Chairs

Demetrios G Sampson, University of Piraeus and Center for Research and Technology - Hellas, Greece

Peter Goodyear, University of Sydney, Australia

· General Co-Chairs

Kinshuk, Massey University, New Zealand

David Jin-Tan Yang, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan

Toshio Okamoto, The University of Electro-Communications, Japan

· Workshop Chair

Roger Hartley, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

· Tutorial Chair

Nian-Shing Chen, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan

· Paper Submissions

Submissions are invited in the following categories:

- Full paper: 5 pages

- Short paper: 3 pages

- Posters: 2 pages

- Tutorial proposals: 2 pages

- Panel proposals: 2 pages

- Workshop: 2 pages

Submission information is available at:

http://lttf.ieee.org/icalt2005/papers.html

· For general information, please contact:

Dr. Maiga Chang

Office of e-Learning National Project

P.O. Box 12-162, Chung-Li, 320, Taiwan

Tel: +886 3 4227151-ext 4750

Fax: +886 3 4260120

maiga@ms2.hinet.net

T
TStructured, Online Evaluations and the First-Year Design Process

A key component to the first-year engineering curriculum at DrexelUniversity is an interdisciplinary design project. Students receive credit for both design and English courses in the winter and spring terms of their freshman year. The 600 or so first-year engineers organize design teams, seek guidance from engineering faculty to define design problems, and work with both engineering and English faculty to develop three written documents and an oral presentation.

The projects are often extensive and span the winter and spring terms (Drexel runs on trimesters). Each team has five members and works with an engineering advisor and two English advisors to create a final report, which runs upwards of 20 pages, plus appendices, and includes a formal table of contents, abstract, executive summary, and report body.

This complex undertaking is facilitated by a novel Web-based software tool that allows faculty members to access a database of comments and electronically track teams of five students through the project deliverables: a Problem Definition Statement, Proposal, Oral Presentation, and Final Report. Faculty use the shared database to generate and track both qualitative and quantitative feedback.

Because the students often have different English faculty, two English teachers grade each of the deliverables to ensure consistency and fairness. The English grade reflects specific course objectives that differ in emphasis from those used by the individual engineering advisors. For instance, the English faculty stress the conventions of language, clarity, and conciseness while the Engineering faculty focus more on content and design. It is extremely important to make the language and tone of feedback consistent. The engineering advisor grades the project for a course called Engineering Design and Laboratory, while the two English advisors grade the project for the freshman humanities sequence of courses which includes a technical writing component.

Figure 1. Excerpt of the Evaluation used for the Final Report

The design project is a hallmark of the Drexel Engineering Curriculum (tDEC) which evolved from the 1988 curricular experimental project entitled "An Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineering Students" that was funded in part by a grant from the Engineering Directorate of the National Science Foundation.

Responding to student concerns about contradictory feedback from the two English advisors and variation in feedback among the 10 to 12 faculty involved, the English faculty sought a tool to help facilitate the assessment and response process.

In 2003 English faculty members began using an online tool, waypoint (www.gowaypoint.com), to evaluate design deliverables. Students still submit hard copies of their papers and faculty still make comments in the margins of the paper. But now faculty utilize waypoint to write the “end comments” - —really the crucial part of the student-teacher interaction that guides the revision process

Before waypoint, students received two sets of feedback, one from each English advisor,. Now, student teams receive a single, unified feedback memo that has been agreed upon by both humanities advisors. Waypoint allows the faculty to decide, in advance, on specific criteria for each assignment and then evaluate student work consistently. Students received an email evaluation that describes, in great detail, the advisors’ joint feedback.

Figure 1 shows an excerpt of the evaluation page generated for the Final Report. Every “Element” (in waypoint, an element is simply a criterion used to evaluate writing) was custom generated by these particular faculty to suit the assignment. After deciding on the criteria, faculty can prewrite the basic structure of the comments they would make to students for each performance level of a given element, thus anticipating the kind of work students are known to do. When evaluating, English faculty simply click on the choice that is most applicable and work their way through the evaluation. It is crucial to note that the prewritten text can be modified (see Figure 2) at any step, providing students with advice specific to their report. Since waypoint is Web-based, the two advisors can easily collaborate on the feedback and grade at every step in the process.

Figure 2. Example of Choosing and Modifying Prewritten Text

English faculty can email or print these clear, detailed response memos back to the first year design team members (see Figure 3 for an excerpt of such feedback).

Figure 3. Excerpt from the Feedback Generated for a Design Team

Because every choice reflects a quantitative assessment (if the second of four choices is chosen, the database records the data point of 2/4) data is easily generated to identify strengths and weaknesses across the entire cohort. For instance, all 110 design teams could be easily analyzed against basic core competencies like research (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Team performance for the research competency, February to June 2004

(1 is exemplary, 4 unacceptable)

Also, because all responses are stored in a database, accessing comments written earlier in the process is easy, allowing everyone involved to see how a particular team has progressed in a particular communication competency. See Figure 5 for an example of the history of comments.

Figure 5. Example of Comment History Accessed During the Evaluation Process

The response from students and faculty has been extremely positive. Students appreciate the detailed feedback they receive and are more motivated to read and understand the commentary. The time to evaluate design reports has been reduced, in some cases by up to 50%, and concerns about contradictory advice have been eliminated. Since each faculty member might be responsible for reading and evaluating 40 design reports, even a 15% reduction in time is a significant achievement. In addition, all the feedback given to design teams is readily available – an ideal resource for analyzing pedagogy and researching the effectiveness of curriculum design.

Scott J. Warnock

Assistant Professor of English

Drexel University, USA

HScott.Warnock@drexel.eduH

Andrew J. McCann

Visiting Professor of English

Drexel University, USA

mccann@drexel.edu

Meta-analysis of Technology and Privacy in an Advanced Business Course

The Project

BCOR 4000-006 is a required core curriculum course in the Systems Management major for fourth year students obtaining a Bachelor’s Degree in business from the Leeds College of Business at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Technology and Society: Privacy for Fun and Profit requires students to closely examine issues of privacy enabled or caused by technology. Furthermore, the course requires students to use various technologies to study and report on a wide range of topics, which particularly focus on the unprecedented aggregation of personal information and the speed of collection, which cannot be matched by social norms or laws. Students dissect the technologies, social trends, and the business and governmental uses of personal information to reap profits or manage society.

The major project of the semester requires student dyads to examine privacy implications of technologies, e.g., microchips embedded in humans, national ID cards, biometrics, and overseas outsourcing of banking and medical records. Each pair chose a topic and is currently engaged in writing a well researched paper of approximately 5000 words on that topic; students collaborate in their research, design, writing and revising/editing online and face to face. The teams present their work orally and in writing to the class in progressive stages: questions and proposal, initial report, interim report, and final report. Students use tools ranging from computers and software, to overhead projectors, to video, CD, DVD, to cell phones, and more to demonstrate the implications of the technology and to provide visual images of the processes and ethics surrounding privacy issues. The final student product will be a book containing all student projects. Each student will receive a copy; additional copies will be used as a course text in future terms.

Students work on committees, of four to six members, that are providing book production processes: editing and revising, determining a budget, obtaining and selecting bids for printing, and publishing the book complete with copyright and ISBN. Primarily systems management majors, the students have found their previous studies in marketing, finance and other fields have many applications to this project.

Several guest speakers also participate: a senior instructor in writing and rhetoric presented conceptual and practical aspects of the writing project, and consults with the editorial and publication teams to polish and complete the manuscript; the CEO of a local information technology firm spoke on eXtreme data warehousing and ethics; an expert presented survey design; and a business librarian discussed library resources and research.

Learning Goals

The course actively engages students in all aspects of information technology, using it, studying it, recognizing the ethical implications of its ability to collect and analyze data, and meta-analyzing both the technology and the students’ understandings and reactions to it, and it provides rich experiential learning for these students, many of whom are already employed in systems management. The primary goals for the course, to learn about, appreciate, and understand the privacy implications of information technology in the hands of business and government, are being well met in the class. The students have a vested interest in their topics, e.g., one young man with serious medical problems has found his medical records stored digitally in India, where few privacy regulations exist.

Interesting Findings

One pair of students presented their interim project report about opinions on the Patriot Act and the loss of privacy for individuals should the government determine that they are potential terrorists. They downloaded video clips of the Bush campaign along with clips from Fahrenheit 9/11’s treatment of the Act. In their presentation, they proceeded to show images and audio without demonstrating the implications of downloading the video from Kazaa before it was officially released. The professor and class engaged in a lively analytical discussion of privacy violations, piracy, and ethics.

Thus, the course encourages meta-analysis of an original analysis, one of the most constructive forms of critical thinking that can be taught at the university level. And, in this case, the students had employed advanced technologies, used for teaching and learning as well as for information gathering and entertainment, both as the subject of their thinking as well the tools for analysis. This is, of course, a second meta-process: using the tools to examine the uses of the tools.

A Survey

In addition to their online and library research on privacy, the students are surveying approximately 640 fellow students, to examine the ways in which they use technology, their attitudes toward technology used in learning, and to learn about their attitudes toward privacy with regard to technology. The survey will be distributed approximately ¾ of the way through the course, and should provide useful data for analysis. Examining student attitudes, particularly toward the ways in which technology interfaces with their privacy, is important. Students at a large university are a microcosm of society; they use technology for nearly every possible purpose—and they are “up” on the latest uses in of electronic business communications (credit cards, bank cards, ID cards, etc.). They meet socially in chat rooms, explore the unknown in gaming, and communicate electronically perhaps more frequently than in person. As the survey seeks to understand how students use and learn while using technology, it more importantly seeks to discover whether or not students consider the ethical and social implications of that use.

Conclusion and Implications

This project of examining privacy issues and ethics related to technology involves students who will be working in systems management. The research, writing, oral presentations, and publishing of the students’ projects involve many uses of technology as well as the students’ meta-analysis of these technologies. Furthermore, the course encourages meta-analysis of the privacy issues, ethics, and social implications involved with the students’ own work. This course, already half completed, demonstrates that using advanced technologies for teaching and learning enrich the educational experiences of upper division students. More such projects in related courses should be considered, for these applications of learning technologies as well as advanced critical thinking skills will serve the students well in their future careers.

Two references of interest, as used in class:

Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals' Concerns about Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly, 20 (2), 167-196. [Their instrument in addition to self-developed items is used for the class survey]

Mason, R. O. (1986). Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age. MIS Quarterly, 10 (1), 5-12. [The class uses this reference to examine the four main ethical concerns of the information age; see http://www.misq.org/archivist/vol/no10/issue1/vol10no1mason.html]

Anne Bliss, Ph.D.

Senior Instructor

Program for Writing and Rhetoric

317 UCB -- ENVD 1B27D

University of Colorado at Boulder

Boulder, CO80309-0317USA

HAnne.Bliss@colorado.eduH

Kai R.T. Larsen, Ph.D.

LeedsCollege of Business

University of Colorado at Boulder, USA

An Examination of a Comprehensive Preschool Curriculum and its Impact on Early Literacy Skills in Newark, New Jersey

Abstract

In this independent 2003-2004 study of high-poverty preschools in Newark, New Jersey (This study was independently conducted. The school district represented in this study is not associated with, affiliated with, or endorsed by LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.), use of the LeapFrog SchoolHouse Ready, Set, Leap! comprehensive and technologically-based curriculum significantly enhanced student performance. Classrooms using the RSL curriculum with a high level of program implementation showed significantly higher scores on tests of blending, initial sound identification, and rhyming than did control classrooms. These findings suggest that explicit, thematic instruction is effective in instructing critical phonemic-based skills, thus positioning preschool children to become successful, proficient readers.

Introduction

Preschool programs are increasingly expected to provide explicit instruction in early literacy skills, which have been linked to successful reading (NICHD, 2000). Research suggests that quality of instruction can further impact performance on outcome measures. The Ready, Set, Leap! (“RSL”) comprehensive and technologically-based curriculum was developed by LeapFrog SchoolHouse (http://www.leapfrogschoolhouse.com) to provide explicit instruction in crucial early reading skills.The Ready, Set, Leap!™ program is a research-based, PreK integrated curriculum that is correlated to state standards.

Award-winning multi-sensory and portable technology is infused into each lesson to engage students and address the needs of all learners. The LeapPad personal learning tool, the LeapMat learning surface and the LeapDesk workstation (all elements of RSL) each use technology to bring the curriculum to life.

Ø The LeapMat Learning Surface is an electronic device that uses touch, sight, and sound to teach letter-name recognition, letter-sound association, and spelling of three-letter words.

Ø The LeapPad technology is an interactive, multisensory personal learning tools which provides students with engaging instruction and immediate feedback, appealing to all the ways students learn: it enables students to enjoy stories independently, while developing essential vocabulary and pre-reading skills; helps students develop phonological awareness through hearing sounds, words, and sentences spoken fluently; and provides unlimited repetition and practice.

Ø The LeapDesk technology delivers instruction in letter names and sounds, phonemic awareness, and concept of word. It also motivates students with high interactivity and immediate audio feedback; enables teachers to assess early literacy skills for the individuals and the entire class; and allows students to practice tracing letters on a lighted writing pad. Through the LeapDesk assessments, teachers can track student progress over time; and the LeapDesk prescribes lessons to each child depending on their individual needs.

This study, conducted by RMC Research Corporation (“RMC”) (http://www.rmcres.com) with funding from Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., assessed the effectiveness of Ready, Set, Leap! among public preschools in Newark, New Jersey.

Sample

A total of seventeen high-poverty, inner-city Newark public schools participated, and were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Classrooms of students with disabilities were excluded. Twenty-seven classrooms were included in this analysis; pre- and post-test scores for 254 students were analyzed. Groups were matched on age, English-language proficiency, free/reduced lunch, and gender. There was a statistically significant difference in ethnicity (Table 1); more minorities in the treatment than control group.

Table 1. Student Demographic Data
	Control (n =125)				RSL (n = 129)				FB_(1,253)_B	cP²^P(df)
Variables	Mean	(SD)	n	%	Mean	(SD)	n	%
Age	4.53	(0.30)			4.50	(0.31)			.85
ELL			14	11			20	16		1.01(1)
Free-Reduced Lunch			100	80			112	87		2.14(1)
Ethnicity										24.60(3)	^P***^P
Caucasian			30	24			6	5
African-Am.			46	37			66	51
Hispanic			40	32			54	42
Asian-Am & Other			9	7			3	2
Gender

From the editor..

5PthP IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2005)