Science education is a very important content area for students with learning disabilities (Cawley, 1994; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994b; Patton, 1993; 1995). Among the many advantages of science education is its potential utility in promoting students' thinking and problem solving skills (Woodward, 1994). Also, science education can provide opportunities for students with learning disabilities to participate collaboratively in inclusive classrooms; to earn important high school credits necessary for graduation and college admission; and to begin to prepare for science-related careers (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Magnusen, in press). Perhaps above all, however, science education can provide students with learning disabilities -- who often receive very extensive basic skills instruction -- opportunities to study, reflect on, and learn about the universe and how it works.
But what are the optimal approaches, methods, and curricula for students with disabilities to learn science? Students with learning disabilities typically exhibit problems with reading fluency, text comprehension skills, vocabulary learning, and abstract reasoning from text presentations (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993). Because of these characteristics, students with learning disabilities are unlikely to learn best in textbook-oriented classrooms. Margo Mastropieri stated in a recent interview, "In general, textbooks go too fast, use too much vocabulary, and require too much reading and writing for students with language and literacy difficulties to succeed" (Brownell & Thomas, 1998, p. 121).
In fact, textbook-oriented learning is the predominant approach in science classrooms, particularly at the secondary level. Science textbooks have been found to be particularly difficult to read (Chiang-Soong & Yager, 1993), and can contain more new vocabulary that found in foreign language courses (Yager, 1983). The documented outcomes on science achievement for students with learning disabilities, compelled to try to learn from textbooks, have not been positive:
In response to such problems, researchers have suggested that activities-oriented (or "hands-on") methods and materials were likely to interact more positively with the characteristics of learning disabilities (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994; Patton, 1993; 1995; Parmar, Deluca, & Janczak, 1994; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994a). Activities-oriented materials typically place fewer demands on language and literacy abilities and verbal memory, and provide relevant activities as learning experiences. For example, in an activities-oriented approach, students may construct electromagnets and telegraphs rather than simply read about them, and may study "ecosystems" by creating them, conducting experiments, and observing their development. Such materials may also be found to be more motivating, and may therefore encourage more appropriate classroom behavior. Recently, the concepts incorporated in activities oriented instruction have been utilized in multimedia-based instruction termed "anchored instruction" (Cognition and Technology Group, 1992). Utilizing multimedia under this approach has been shown to enhance instruction for students with learning disabilities. In contrast, the reading and verbal recall demands of American textbooks are quite substantial (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994), and are unlikely to promote optimal science learning for students with disabilities. In addition, student interest level is likely to be relatively lower than participating in activities or experiments, so textbooks may be seen as less motivating or engaging for students who are not accustomed to succeeding in school. Activities-based science learning is also generally endorsed by leading American science organizations (e.g., Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990), has consistently produced higher learning outcomes (Bredderman, 1983), and has also been seen to be associated with increased science achievement for girls (Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997). When direct comparisons have been made, students with learning disabilities have exhibited greater achievement in activities-oriented classes (Bay et al., 1992; Mastropieri et al., 1997; Scruggs et al., 1993).
Activities-oriented science has been seen to be very beneficial to students with learning disabilities, particularly in the elementary grades (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994b; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Boon, in press). However, as students move into secondary level science, reliance upon manipulative activities to enhance learning becomes more problematic for several reasons:
Developing effective teaching strategies and simulation technologies for teaching complex scientific concepts presents a substantial challenge for educational researchers and instructional designers. Despite the utilization of new teaching approaches, tools, and technologies, students struggle with abstractions in science (Dede, 1998). Research suggests:
Much of human conceptual learning occurs in the immersive, multisensory environment of everyday life. For example, children's ideas (and misconceptions) about motion initially stem from experience with personal movement. Favorable results from educational usage of scientific visualization tools underscore the potential value of deeper research on this type of sensory learning (Gordin & Pea, 1995). Via immersive, multisensory "worlds" designed to enhance mastering complex scientific concepts, high-end virtual reality technology offers a powerful medium for studying learning. Prior NSF-funded work by the co-principal investigator (Grants RED-93-53320 and 95-55682) has produced multiple insights into the perceptual learning of sophisticated conceptual material (Dede, Salzman, Loftin, & Sprague, in press). Research on learning scientific concepts yields insights into why understanding complex information spaces is difficult. Mastery of abstract scientific concepts requires that students build flexible and runnable mental models (Redish, 1993). Frequently, these scientific models describe phenomena for which students have no real-life referents (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985a) and incorporate invisible factors and abstractions (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1991; White, 1993). Students learning science need to be able to sift through complex information spaces, identifying what is important and what is not, as well as recognizing critical patterns and relationships. Learners may need to translate among reference frames, to describe the dynamics of a model over time in order to predict how changes in one factor influence other factors, and to reason qualitatively about physical processes (McDermott, 1991).
Developing effective pedagogical strategies and simulation technologies for teaching complex scientific concepts presents a substantial challenge for educational researchers and instructional designers. Despite the utilization of new teaching approaches, tools, and technologies, students struggle with abstractions in science. They not only enter their courses with gaps and inaccuracies in their conceptual understanding of the material, but also often leave with unaltered misconceptions (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985b; Reif & Larkin, 1991). Students' lack of real-life referents for intangible phenomena, coupled with an inability to reify ("perceptualize") abstract models, is an important aspect of this problem. Complex, abstract scientific concepts are cognitively "opaque" in part because the mathematical symbols and formulas used are abstruse, especially for learners more into television and videogames than symbolic representations. Even students who have encountered phenomena depicted by a mathematical expression may have trouble relating its formal scientific representation to their experience. For example, many learners are familiar with riding a rollercoaster, but have problems relating their experiences to Newton’s Laws of Motion. In particular, students often have great difficulty comprehending the various roles that parameters, variables, and operators respectively play in determining the physical behaviors described by formal equations. Typically, many learners cannot relate phenomenological depictions to abstract symbolic expressions unless some form of intermediate representation (such as data visualization) is provided to bridge from experiential dynamics to mathematical formulas.
In order to address these areas, it is proposed that virtual reality (VR) systems be developed that can effectively present secondary science content to students with learning disabilities in ways that address their specific learning needs. Using VR, students with learning disabilities can directly experience the scientific concepts being studied, without the necessity of drawing abstractions from text they cannot read. Specifically, VR systems can address the special needs of students with learning disabilities in several ways:
While virtual reality is has been an exotic and expensive medium, new SGI/Windows NT computers costing as little as $4000 are putting this technology within reach of schools. Within 5 years they may be commonly available in classrooms. Within the next decade the entertainment industry will place devices of comparable power to today's graphic supercomputers "under the Christmas tree," offering intriguing opportunities to use this installed base of sophisticated computational equipment for learning (Dede, 1996). Videogames are ubiquitous in rich and poor homes, in urban and rural settings, offering a powerful installed base for inexpensively facilitating learning if we have something better to put in on-the-horizon "VR" videogame cartridges than SuperMario or Doom.
Goal: To build immersive multi-sensory virtual learning environments that address foundations of physics instruction for students with learning disabilities
Objectives:
The objectives for this grant address the development activities for each of the 4 immersive, multi-sensory virtual environments to be developed in the domains of Classical Mechanics and Electricity and Magnetism, they are:
Objective #1 - Requirements Analysis: Identify the product to be developed and review the related literature and instructional materials/approaches available
Objective #2 - Design Treatment: Design and Develop a prototype immersive virtual learning environment for physics concepts
Objective #3 - Develop Prototype: Develop direct instruction components and conduct preliminary field test of the virtual learning tool
Objective #4 - Beta-Test Prototype: Develop instructional model for immersive virtual environment components and continue to test prototype
Objective #5- Final Test: Conduct a Beta-Test and make a final revision to the immersive virtual environment
Narrative: The instructional rationale for developing virtual learning environments is to provide students with learning disabilities a learning tool that: 1) provides muti-sensory experiences related to science concepts; 2) provides smaller units of instruction that address foundational concepts 3) enables students to synthesize information based on multi-sensory input 4) reduces the need for verbal expression and relies on other individual strength areas 5) integrates current, age appropriate, real life science experiences into student centered learning activities; and 6) applies the principles of universal design to provide access to all students with disabilities. Until now, the development of VR environments have required computer equipment over $100,000 and highly skilled programmers to develop and run VR environments. Recently, new VR development tools have been designed for Windows NT operating systems running on high-end Pentium computers. What we propose to do is design and test prototype immersive VR environments for high school students with learning disabilities, that are capable of being developed and run on Windows NT based computers which should be affordable, if not already present, in some schools. Five years from now this technology should be commonly available. We propose to develop learning tools that can be in wide-spread use in 5 years as computer technology gets more powerful and less expensive.
The project will focus on two areas or domains of science instruction, classical mechanics and electricity and magnetism. Standards based education has become a primary focus of high school educators. As a result, the two focus areas are directly tied to current national as well as the state standards of learning for science instruction (see attachment A, Science Instruction).
Classical Mechanics will be the focus area for the first and third environments developed for this project, which will be addressed in the beginning of year one and two, respectively. The designated benchmark for this area is "students will explain the interrelationship of motion, forces and energy". Classical mechanics includes: 1) Analyze the interaction of objects in a closed system according to conservation of energy, 2) Perform an experiment to analyze the interaction of objects using the work-energy theorem, 3) Construct and analyze free body diagrams describing the forces on various objects with in a system of objects, 4) Apply Newton's laws of motion to analyze and predict the effects of applied forces on bodies, 5) Calculate the momentum of a moving object, 6) Derive the relationship between impulse and change in momentum, 7) Qualitatively describe the nature of gravitational force and inverse square law, 8) Combine universal gravitational theory and centripetal force theory to solve orbital motion problems, 9) Relate mass, speed, momentum, and kinetic energy of a moving body, 10) Calculate gravitational and electrical potential energy, 11) Define heat and distinguish between heat and temperature and describe experiments showing the production of heat from mechanical and/or electrical forms, 12) Describe the model of the kinetic theory of a gas. 13) Use the kinetic theory to predict quantitative relationships between pressure and volume, particle speed, number of particles and temperature, and 14) Describe the concept of temperature as that which decides the direction of spontaneous energy transfer by conduction, convection, or radiation. The specific content area will be decided by researching current classroom practices and looking at those areas that need to be demonstrated in a 3-D format (see attachment A - Resources, Science Instruction).
Electricity and Magnetism will be the focus area for the second and fourth environments developed for this project, which will be addressed in the end of year one and two, respectively. The designated benchmark for this area is " Students will use the field concept to explain electric and magnetic fields. Students will construct basic electrical circuits and explain the various circuit components". Electricity and Magnetism includes: 1) Analyze energy transformations in electrical circuits using the law of conservation of energy, 2) Formulate the relationship between power, energy, and time, 3) Construct a model of charge that explains how objects become electrically charged through friction, induction, and direct contact, 4) Qualitatively describe the nature of the electrostatic force, 5) Calculate electric field strengths around various charge configurations and sketch the field lines, 6) Compare the ratio of electric force to gravitational force between charged objects and classify forces as either gravitational or electrical, 7) Combine various electrical components to diagram and construct electrical circuits and compare to solid state components, 8) Apply ohm's law in solving various circuit problems, 9) Compare and contrast the properties of insulators, conductors, semiconductors, and superconductors, 10) Create or understand a model for magnetism to explain the existence of magnetic fields around permanent magnets and current carrying wires, 11) Apply the right-hand rule to determine the circulation and orientation of magnetic field lines around current carrying wires and the deflection of charged particles moving through magnetic fields, 12) Explore the relationship between voltage and current generated by a changing magnetic field, and 13) Relate magnetic field theory to the operation of devices such as motors, generators, transformers, and magnetic resonance imagers.
The specific content area will be decided by researching current classroom practices and looking at those areas that need to be demonstrated in a 3-D format. These main topic areas will be addressed based on experiences with projects such as Newton World developed by project Science Space. The rationale for alternating projects over the two years is based on the completion of one complete design cycle that incorporates each domain.
Project Science Space has been working on the design of 3-D immersive virtual environments as a medium for science education. This project has been a joint research venture among George Mason University, the University of Houston, and NASA's Johnson Space Center. This project has demonstrated that learning science concepts in virtual environments enhances the ability for students to retain science concepts (Dede, 1998). As a result of Project Science Spaces' previous research and development efforts, this proposed project will leverage what has been done as a basis for designing new science learning environments.
Newton World is an example of an interactive virtual reality learning tool that allows students to explore applications and dynamics of one-dimensional laws in physics [A visual example of Newton World is included in Appendix A: Quicktime VR and video clips can be found at http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/Index7.htm]. Multi-sensory cues help students experience phenomena and direct their attention to important factors such as mass, velocity, and energy. A three-dimensional object such as a ball is shown in a visual graphic interface. The ball is launched down a long corridor in a variety of different ways. Using different variables (i.e. presence or absence of gravity and friction), the student can become an avitar "in the ball", or view the ball from a distance, enabling multiple representations of the phenomena to be experienced. This allows students to examine and judge the object's distance and speed from different perspectives.
To guide the learning process, scaffolding is provided that assists learners to advance from basic activities to more advanced activities. Students begin their guided inquiry in a world without gravity or friction, allowing them to perceive physics phenomena that are otherwise obscured by these forces. They can launch and catch balls of various masses and can view the collisions from several viewpoints. Students can then experience what it would be like to become the object themselves; a camera attached to the center-of-mass of the bouncing balls, or a movable camera hovering above the corridor provides the student an opportunity to experience factors of physics. Abstract variables and fundamental laws come alive through the virtual reality learning tool. After studying physics concepts and experiencing Newton World students with learning disabilities can have a better understanding and opportunity to apply the laws of physics to the environment around them.
The Design Group: In order for this tool to be successful, an appropriate combination of instructional strategies should be used (Dede, 1998). New forms of instruction are necessary to deal with continually developing models of teaching and learning. In order to facilitate the development of an immersive virtual environment, it is important to engage individuals experienced in the instructional design process who understand how to build tools beyond that of traditional design, integrating the knowledge of how to build tools that help a user learn in context.
The Instructional Design and Development graduate program at GMU includes a full-time immersive program for instructional designers that integrates theory and practice by engaging students in decision making involving actual cases of product development (see attachment D - Track 1 Revision). Based upon the needs described in the literature, the overall philosophy of the immersive program is to connect theory to practice through the use of technology. Training for this purpose means providing graduate students with real life experiences in the design process, and through this project, the design and development of immersive virtual learning environments.
To accomplish the goals of the project, a team of 8 full-time graduate students, led by Dr. Dede in the fall and Dr. Sprague in the spring, will be utilized to develop the design treatment and related design components described in this grant. Dr. Jim Chen and a full-time doctoral student in computer science will be responsible assisting them with any additional programming required for the virtual reality environments. Based on experience with programming for Science Space projects, the approximate "turn-around" time for each of these environments is 4 - 4 1/2 months, which is the period of time for each estimated to complete each individual VR environment. Chris Dede will serve as content expert for programming the virtual environments and will oversee the Technology team. Both Chris Dede and Debra Sprague will oversee the design team during this process. Complimented with project faculty, staff, and content experts, we will be able to deliver optimal technology development within the fiscal and time resources of the project.
Activities: Over the two-year period of the project, the development of the 4 environments will follow the first 6 of a 9-step research and development model by Cates (1985). The first 6 steps include: 1) identifying the product to be developed, 2) reviewing the related literature, 3) planning the development program, 4) developing a prototype of the project, 5) conducting a preliminary field test, and 6) revising the product in keeping with the findings of the preliminary field test.
The project will engage in a review and beta test process, which is embedded to test its feasibility for use of students with learning disabilities, utilizing the first 6 steps of the Cates model. The remainder of the steps would potentially meet the requirements for Phase 2 of the Stepping Stones grant, including conducting a main and operational field test in a variety of settings, and disseminating information on the product. A preliminary research study to prepare for phase 2 has been incorporated into year two of this project to evaluate the efficacy of the first two environments developed in year 1. A panel of national experts will review each phase of the project, either as a group at a time and location convenient to all, individual telephone or written correspondence, or via teleconference and electronic conferencing (see Attachment C - Proposed Research Advisory Panel).
The designated process for this project follows the ADDIE model recognized by the Instructional Design and Development department at George Mason University. The five phases of this model includes: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. There will be four iterations of this model to design two environments for each of the main content areas (classical mechanics and electricity & magnetism).
Objective 1 Requirements Analysis: Identify the product to be developed and reviewing the related literature.
An initial requirements analysis will be completed for the entire project during the first two months of the project. Additionally, as each of the four phases are initiated, there will be a separate requirements analysis completed specific to the particular science area of instruction selected in Activity A.
The first two steps in the Cates model will be addressed in this objective. This objective will a) develop the requirements for the content that will be included in the development of each virtual reality environment, b) assess the impact of those components on science instruction, c) develop the requirements for the Windows SGI/NT VR environments to be developed, and d) assess the availability and development criteria for these instructional tools.
For each of the four project phases, content and technology team members will work cooperatively to interact with features as they are designed. The Content Team (CT) will identify and prioritize the target areas of science instruction (e.g., mechanics and electricity and magnetism). The Technology Team (TT) will evaluate available VR features and system requirements for development of the tool. Both of these teams will interact accordingly to ensure that content is appropriately demonstrated by design features.
Objective 2 Design Treatment: Design and develop prototype immersive virtual learning environments for science instruction.
The Design Group will come together with content experts and the requirement analysis to develop an individual design treatment for each of the 4 phases. These phases will follow steps 3 & 4 of the Cates model, planning the development program, and developing a prototype of the project. The development of these tools will include a complete design treatment for each phase. The design treatment will consist of a content needs analysis, learner analysis, goals and objectives, instructional delivery system, activities, and an evaluation component. The Design Group will be responsible for conducting the design treatment for each of the proposed stages. John Castellani (GMU) will coordinate efforts of the Content Team, Technology Team, and Design Group to ensure continuity of project resources.
Objective 3 Develop Prototype: Develop direct instructional components and conduct preliminary field test of the virtual learning environments.
Objective 3 includes two major components. First, each prototype environment will go through an interactive field test to determine modifications that need to be incorporated into the basic environment. As they are developed, components of each environment will be made accessible to a small group of students with learning disabilities. The main goal of this approach is to make the design process iterative, by consistently adding and testing components as they are designed to test feasibility. Additionally, the Technology Team (TT) and the Design Group (DG) will analyze the specific goals, objectives, and activities for the development of the direct instructional component for content areas. This will include looking at features of current virtual environment, available literature, and a beta test of elements necessary to include in the beta-prototype.
The GMU virtual reality lab will be open during this phase and subsequent phases of the project one day per week to work with students to assess the motivation, impact, ease, flexibility, adaptability for individual disabilities, and effectiveness of different VR components and instructional techniques. Design Group members and will monitor the lab tests. This approach will enable the project team and staff to directly observe the instructional process, assist in trouble shooting, and make more informed revisions to components of the prototype tool.
Objective 4 Beta-Test Prototype: Develop instruction model for immersive virtual environment components and continue to test prototype.
The Design Group will conduct another set of prototype field evaluations, testing and revising the basic learning environment and the direct instructional modules developed in Objective 3. This will include looking at modified and revised components, available literature, and a beta test of additional elements necessary to include in the VR environments. A formal summer Science Camp for 20 students with learning disabilities will be offered to participants at one of the GSE computer labs, enabling project staff to evaluate the capacity of users with learning disabilities to effectively utilize the VR environments. This program will be similar to an existing CompuWrite computer literacy program that has been in operation at the CHd for the last 10 years.
Objective 5. Beta-Testing and Final Revision: Conduct a Beta-Test and make a final revision to the immersive virtual environment.
The team will conduct a formal beta test of each virtual environment. The system will be made available to LD classrooms in Arlington and/or Fairfax County Public Schools. Both Arlington and Fairfax have expressed strong interest in having the immersive virtual reality environments made available for their students. Both counties follow the standards for science instruction already identified (see appendix A - FCPS Standards). Additionally, Fairfax County Public Schools offers a course called Active Physics, which is designed specifically for LD/at-risk students grades 10-12. Active Physics is a physical sciences course for special populations preparing for technical careers with an emphasis on experimentation using computers and probeware. The project manager will coordinate efforts with both of these school systems to recruit classrooms to experiment with each final test to complete evaluation activities. This will enable project staff to evaluate the tool in its intended role at remote locations in school settings. Since it may not be possible to use an entire classroom as a sample, students from a variety of classes will be assembled to test the feasibility of each stage. Users will complete a student/teacher checklist as well as individual student interviews and observations. Data will be collected/analyzed and used to make the final revisions of the product based on the principles for continued user feedback. Formal quantitative data collection will occur twice during the course of the study, for the second and fourth VR environment. Qualitative data collection will be ongoing.
Evaluation Plan and Data Analysis
Ongoing evaluation is a key component of the entire project and is necessary to complete the outlined phases of development. Evaluation will include both a formative and summative evaluation that will consist of both quantitative and qualitative data. Our proposed research involves the following activities:
Data will be collected from students and instructors as they interact with multi-sensory features and instructional strategies throughout the development of this project. Specific data collection will occur as outlined in the phases of development as well as during the development of the design treatment and ongoing revisions of the project. In addition, the TT and DG will monitor and observe issues related to content design features and adaptations necessary for students with disabilities. This analysis will be used for improving and facilitating student use of the virtual learning environments. The analysis of the data will be ongoing and will be used to support the inclusion of key components of immersive VR instruction in subsequent product development and evaluation. A comparative group design will be implemented at the end of year one of the proposed project. The 1st and 3rd prototype environments will be used with a random assignment of students or classrooms equal to 30 participants from local schools. Students/classes with LD will be matched as closely as possible on all relevant demographic variables including, IQ, achievement, race, gender, SES, and ethnicity and then randomly assigned to either VR or comparison conditions. Analysis of quantitative data will include multiple regression for identified variables and a comparison between students using virtual reality learning environments and those who have access to instruction only. The project assess: (a) content knowledge, (b) conceptual understanding, (c) application and generalization of knowledge and concepts, (d) scientific processes, and (e) attitudes and motivation toward learning. Performance based and other (e.g., paper-pencil) formats will be used. Qualitative data analysis will include the development of codes to assess emerging themes (Miles and Huberman, 1986). The Co-PI's will be responsible for research design and implementation data collection, however, the Design Group and Mr. Castellani will assist as needed.
The Proposed Sample: The proposed sample will consist of sixty students with learning disabilities working on science instruction as defined by each of the four phases. Thirty of these students will have access to the virtual environments. The other 30 students will have access to similar science instruction without the use of virtual reality. Additionally, extraneous variables will be accounted for given the access to other technology tools (i.e, evaluators will also look during interview and observation activities for additional technologies that may be providing students with access to the science curriculum). We realize that it may not be possible to find an entire classroom of students with learning disabilities working on the exact unit of instruction, at the same time as these products are being developed. As a result, the project investigators will increase the use of qualitative data collection methods to provide a more in-depth look at their reaction to virtual environments. Therefore, the project data will include more qualitative data collection methods. However, the size each of these school systems combined increases the chance that these students are available. Discussions with the Instructional Media Coordinator of Arlington County Public Schools and the Director of Special Education for Fairfax County Public Schools have been initiated. Both of these individuals have a history working with projects related to the CHd and the Graduate School of Education (GSE). Specifically, the Instructional Media Coordinator has already completed data collection for previous virtual reality projects. Participants for qualitative data collection will include whole groups, single subjects, and 4-5 student interviews from the proposed quantitative subjects. Interview data will be collected on an ongoing basis as quantitative methods are pursued. The research methodology will be reviewed by the Human Subjects Review Committee at GMU and will adhere to all applicable requirements.
Formative and Summative Evaluation:
The purpose of the project evaluation is to determine if the goals and objectives of the project are being met in an effective and timely fashion. All projects in the CHd are monitored using a management by objectives approach. Project staff will conduct monthly meetings with identified parties and students developing the design treatment, prototype, and final product. As project director, Dr. Michael Behrmann will report progress on the project to CHd staff and Instructional Technology faculty at monthly meetings. During these meetings, objectives are reviewed and adjustments are designed to complete the project objectives and align the project with the proposed schedule. The project will also incorporate a formative and summative evaluation in order to collect information to improve the delivery, and possibly the effectiveness, of the intended project. The primary objectives of the evaluation will be to:
Table 1 includes evaluation questions that will be asked during the formative/summative component of the project.
Impact Evaluation
The purpose of the impact evaluation is to assess the impact of virtual learning environments on the development of science concepts for high school students with learning disabilities. The results of the evaluation will be incorporated into the evaluation report to OSEP. Data collection and analysis strategies will include: survey reporting; effectiveness of design; annotated logs and explanation of software choice; surveys of students and teachers contact; semi structured and open ended interviews with identified audiences and Research Advisory Panel members; observations of settings in which identified individuals are interacting with virtual learning environments, including the beta prototype and final product. Although specific data collection will be used to assess the impact of these environments on students with disabilities, ongoing data collection and analysis will aid in project management and support the need to focus on the effectiveness and adequacy of the components and sub-components to be integrated into the beta prototype and final project.
Plan of Operation: Table 2 graphically portrays the roles and responsibility of the teams. Co-PI, Michael Behrmann has primary responsibility for monitoring the project for overall quality control and timely meeting of program objectives.
| Project Phase | Activity |
Months (See resource 2) |
Staff | Data Collection |
| 1. Requirements Analysis |
|
|
|
|
| 2. Design Treatment |
|
|
|
|
| 3. Develop Prototype |
|
|
|
|
| 4. Beta-Test Prototype |
|
|
|
|
| 5. Final Test |
|
6, 12, , 23 6, 12 12, 24 |
|
Key (TT) Technology Team - Chris Dede (VR), Michael Behrmann (AT), Jim Chen (CS), Debra Sprague (VR) (PT) Content Team - Chris Dede (VR/ Science), Margo Mastropieri (LD, Science), Thomas Scruggs (LD, Science), Michael Behrmann (Accessibility, AT) (DG) Design Group Graduate Design Students, Brenda Bannan-Ritland, John Castellani (RAP) - Research Advisory Panel (RT) Review Team Students and Teachers
| Project Phase | Activity |
Months (Project Phases) P-1/3 Classical Mechanics P-2/4 Electricity and Magnetism |
Staff | Cates Steps | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Requirements Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
CT, TT CT CT, TT
CT, TT |
|
|
| Design Treatment |
|
|
|
|
|
TT, CT DG DG DG, RT |
|
|
| 3. Develop Prototype |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4. Beta-Test Prototype |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. Final Test |
|
|
|
|
23 23 24 |
DG, RT TT, DT DG |
|
|
Key (TT) Technology Team - Chris Dede (VR), Michael Behrmann (AT), Jim Chen (CS), Debra Sprague (VR) (PT) Content Team - Chris Dede (VR/ Science), Margo Mastropieri (LD, Science), Thomas Scruggs (LD, Science), Michael Behrmann (Accessibility, AT) (DG) Design Group — Graduate Design Students, Brenda Bannan-Ritland, John Castellani (RAP) - Research Advisory Panel (RT) Review Team —Students and Teachers
Plan of Operation Table
(RAP). Co-PI Chris Dede, along with Dr. Sprague, has primary responsibility for the Technology Team (TT) as both content expert and technical expert in the development of the virtual learning environments. Co-PI Dr. Chen has primary responsibility for technical design and will serve as a resource for the Design Group for visual computing and physics-based modeling. Drs. Mastropieri and Scruggs will serve as content specialists for learning disabilities and science instruction. John Castellani will be responsible for coordinating project efforts as well as assembling outreach efforts including data collection with Arlington and Fairfax County Public Schools. Participants will be selected without regard to race, color, national origin or gender. Mr. Castellani will work to ensure that the tool is appropriate for the diverse cultural backgrounds of the potential users, based on his current research experience with at-risk learners. A further description of resources is included in the Adequacy of Resources and Quality of Key Personnel sections in this narrative.
Co-Principal Investigator, Michael Behrmann, Ed.D.- Dr. Behrmann is a Professor in the Graduate School of Education at GMU. He began his research with technology in special education in 1979 and designed and implemented a masters degree program in Assistive/Special Education Technology in 1986, followed by a doctoral program in Assistive/Special Education Technology. He has been responsible for obtaining numerous federal, state and local as well as foundation grants and contracts for training, technical assistance and research. He is currently a professor of special education in the Graduate School of Education, the Director of the Center for Human disAbilities, and coordinator of the Instructional Technology Master's program at George Mason University. Dr. Behrmann's will bring expertise from his ongoing professional activities which include membership on CEC's Task Force on Universal Design, research on technology applications enhancing transition to work development of accessible web-sites, assistive technology screening and evaluation, and in distance education. Dr. Behrmann is also a charter member of CEC's Technology and Media Division (TAM). He is also currently working with the Senior Executive Services Training Offices at the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Behrmann's publishing activities include authoring or editing several books and numerous articles in professional journals as well as presentations made at a variety of international, national, state and local conferences. He edited the Handbook of Microcomputers in Special Education(1984) and Integrating Computers into the Curriculum: A handbook for Special Educators (1988), by College Hill Press. Selected recent publications include "Assistive Technology and Students with Mild Disabilities" (1994), and three book chapters recently, to include "Personnel Training," in Assistive Technology: The Future is Now, published in 1995, "Technology Applications in Early Childhood Education," in Young Children in the Technological Age, published in 1994 and written with L. Lahm, and in the recent ASCD publication, " Assistive Technology for young Children in Special Education". His teaching experiences include assistive and instructional technology, applied behavioral analysis, constructivist learning theory, and instructional systems design.
Chris Dede - Co-Principle Investigator & Design Group Leader, Ph.D. - Dr. Dede is a Full Professor at George Mason University with a joint appointment in the Graduate School of Education and School of Information Sciences. He is the editor of the 1998 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Yearbook, Learning with Technology. He currently has a major grant from the National Science Foundation to develop educational environments based on virtual reality technology. Dr. Dede spent a year as a Policy Fellow in the Office of the Director, National Institute for Education. In the past three years, he has testified to Congress on learning technologies and served as an expert panelist on instructional technologies for U.S. AID, the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Foundations of Educational and Psychological Assessment and of the U.S. Department of Education's Expert Panel on Technology. Dr. Dede has recently completed a one-year term as Senior Program Director at the National Science Foundation, helping to guide the initial development of their new $25-30M funding program, "Research on Education, Policy, and Practice." He has been a Visiting Scientist at the Computer Science Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and at NASA's Johnson Space Center. His funded research includes work for the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, NASA, Apple Computer, and the National Science Foundation. He is on the International Steering Committee for the Second International Technology in Education Study spanning approximately thirty countries.
Dr. Jim Chen - Co-Principle Investigator, Ph.D. Dr. Chen is an Assistant Professor of Computer Science and the Director of Graphics Lab at George Mason University. He was previously a Research Associate (Visual Systems Scientist) at the Institute for Simulation & Training. Dr. Chen is currently editor of the Visualization Department for IEEE CiSE (Computing in Science & Engineering.) He served as a guest editor for IEEE CS&E in 1996. He was the originator of the GMU Upsilon Pi Epsilon Chapter and is currently serving as a Faculty Advisor. Dr. Chen is an associate member of ACM and IEEE Computer Society. His current interests are in the areas of Computer graphics: physics-based modeling, real-time simulation, and anti-aliasing Virtual environments: virtual reality, distributed interactive simulation, and distance learning, Visualization: visual computing, computational steering, and information visualization, Medical imaging: model analysis, alignment and reconstruction (from MRI to 3D model dynamics and surgery planning)
Dr. Thomas Scruggs - Content Expert, Learning Disabilities/Science, Ph.D.
Dr. Scruggs is a full professor at GMU. His primary interests are in the areas of learning and memory of students with disabilities, science learning of students with disabilities, quantitative research synthesis ("meta-analysis"), and teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Among his publications are over 160 journal articles, 24 book chapters, and 14 authored or edited books. Most of these publications were co-authored with Dr. Margo Mastropieri, who is also a Professor at George Mason University. Book titles include Effective Instruction for Special Education (Pro-Ed), and Teaching Test-Taking Skills: Helping Students Show What They Know (Brookline). Dr. Scruggs' most recent book is The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Teaching (Prentice Hall), which will be published in 1999-2000. From 1991 to 1997, Dr. Scruggs was the Co-Editor of Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, the journal of the Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children. Since 1992, he has served as Co-Editor of Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities (JAI Press), a research annual. He serves on the Editorial Boards of a number of professional journals, including The Teacher Educator, The Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Education, Exceptionality, Behavioral Disorders, and the Italian journal Difficolta' di Apprendimento [Learning Disorders].
Dr. Margo Mastropieri - Content Expert, Learning Disabilities/Science, Ph.D. Margo A. Mastropieri is Professor of Special Education in the Graduate School of Education. She received her Ph.D. in Special Education from Arizona State University in 1983, her M.Ed. and B.A. degrees from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. Before coming to George Mason, she worked at Utah State University and Purdue University in Indiana. Prior to working in higher education, Mastropieri was a high school teacher in Massachusetts, an elementary teacher in Arizona, and a Diagnostician at the Mt. Holyoke College Learning Disabilities Center. Dr. Mastropieri is interested in how students with disabilities learn in school and much of her research has focussed on cognitive strategies designed to promote learning and retention of school-related information. She has also studied what happens during inclusive instruction with students with disabilities and suggested instructional strategies to facilitate inclusive efforts. Her publications include over 135 journal articles, 23 book chapters, and 13 co-authored or co-edited books. Book titles include: A Practical Guide for Teaching to Science to Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Settings (Pro-Ed), Teaching Students Ways to Remember: Strategies for Learning Mnemonically (Brookline), and The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Teaching (Prentice Hall), due to be published in 1999-2000. Dr. Mastropieri is the co-editor of Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities (JAI Press), a research annual. She served as co-editor of Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, the journal of the Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children from 1991 to 1997.
Brenda Bannan-Ritland - Instructional Design Expert, Ph.D. - Dr. Bannan is an Assistant professor of education at GMU in Instructional Design and Development. Her current research interests include applying cognitive and constructivist learning theories to the use of current technological tools, particularly technologies involving visual based information. She is currently involved in the development of an accessible web-based learning tool for children with reading and writing difficulties. Her dissertation research, The Effects of Visual Manipulation Strategies within Computer-based Instruction on Various Types of Learning Objectives, examined learner and system-controlled manipulation of visuals in computer-based instruction. Dr. Bannan will bring experience from the field of design, development and management of computer-based instructional products, emphasized most recently through the development of a four module multi-disciplinary CD-ROM project on the food system for the middle school audience produced for the Penn State Nutrition Center. Additional projects in which Dr. Bannan has contributed include design of a computer-based module on the insertion and removal of Norplant for Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals distributed to physicians nationwide and the development of an interactive video-training module on troubleshooting skills for chemical operators at Merck and Co., Inc. She has recently revised the Instructional Technology Track 1 program to include an immersive component which will be used as a primary development component for this project.
Dr. Debra Sprague - Design Group Leader and Content Expert, Ph.D.: Dr. Sprague is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Education at George Mason University. She is assigned to the Instructional Technology program and is responsible for coursework, research, and outreach in the school-based instructional technology track. She co-teaches the Integrating Technology in the Schools (ITS) program. Dr. Sprague completed her PhD. in the Summer of 1995 from the University of New Mexico. Her area of study was technology integration in teacher education. Dr. Sprague's current research interests are in the areas of Technology Integration - K-12, Virtual Reality, Special Education Technology, and Distance Education. Dr. Sprague will mentor two spring semesters of the design cohort groups. Dr. Sprague has published several articles on the use of technology in education. She has presented at numerous local, state, and national conferences, including the U.S. Internet Council Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. She served as Co-PI for an Office of Naval Research grant entitled "Developing Virtual Environments for Training". Her research interests focus on the use of technology to support teaching and learning. Dr. Sprague has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Special Education/Elementary Education, an ESL (English-As-A-Second Language) Endorsement , and a Masters of Arts in Elementary Education with an emphasis on computers. She spent eight years teaching on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico.
Project Manager, John Castellani - Mr. Castellani is currently a doctoral candidate at George Mason University in Assistive Technology, specifically focusing on the issues surrounding special education teacher development, using the Internet as a literacy tools in the classroom, and the use of technology as an accommodation for students with learning disabilities. He brings to the project expertise stemming from his current research which is exploring the use of the Internet in special education classrooms and modifying university training programs to support in-service teachers using technology tools to enhance literacy instruction for students with severe emotional and learning disabilities. Mr. Castellani will be responsible for managing aspects of the project. He is Co-Coordinator for a current OSEP grant project called LiteracyAccess Online. He also teaches the Instructional Design course at GMU. He will ensure that the assistive technology and appropriate instructional resources will be integrated throughout the project, as well as coordinating the Science Camp and monitoring the instructional evaluation sessions. He provides a perspective on technology and instruction from his work at the federal level in the Office of the Secretary, Office of Educational technology as a visiting educational specialist on issues for preparing teachers for technology integration.
The project will actively recruit minority and individuals with disabilities or those from other underrepresented groups into the project. The State of Virginia and George Mason University are Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action institutions committed to the principle that access to employment opportunities be accorded to each person on the basis of individual merit and without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
As collaborative partners, the Graduate School of Education and the School of Information Sciences are positioned to research, design, and develop immersive virtual learning environments. Both departments have been working to increase their capacity to provide instructional technology resources available to the educational community. Specifically, the School of Information Sciences has worked with regular educators to design, develop, and implement virtual environments for science instruction in the regular education classroom. The CHd and the Graduate School of Education have both worked to increase access to these tools for students with disabilities. With combined resources based on departmental philosophies and technological capacities, these two departments will be able to develop a tool that can improve the lives of persons with learning disabilities. This tool will ultimately have benefits to the regular education community as well.
George Mason University/Center for Human disAbilities: Research & Development Capacity:
The capacity of this project is supported by its association with the personnel training and research and development programs for preservice, inservice, and practicing instructional design practitioner programs at George Mason University. These include the Graduate School of Education and the Center for Human disAbilities. The graduate School of Education at George Mason University offers three Master of Education degrees that are specific to this project in Assistive/Special Education Technology, Technology Integration in the Schools, and Instructional Design and Development. These personnel preparation programs have established professional development schools in which school based/project based experiences are integrated with course work in order to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The Instructional Design program has most recently demonstrated this by including a full-time immersion program in instructional design that allows practitioners to work in partnership with theory to develop real life products based on identified projects in private, public, governmental, and university sectors. The immersion program, because it is a link to training, greatly enhances our ability to provide solid technical assistance capacity for work on the project, distributing the cost of employing 1 full time instructional designer among 8 full time developing instructional design students by supporting their tuition expenses. Additional resources for this project include instructional technology, special education, and computer science faculty who work with students and the expertise of doctoral students in the fields of assistive technology and computer science.
Technology Development Capacity: The project has the following major sources of technology development capacity:
VR Laboratories
GMU has two laboratories dedicated to studies of virtual reality, the Computational Statistics VR Lab and the GSE VR lab, contiguous to the CHd, that houses the Co-PI's current NSF-funded VR research. This proposed project would be partially housed in the latter laboratory, which consists of about 600 square feet of space customized for conducting VR studies and additional 750 square feet of dedicated office and computer space for the design team. The resources now available for VR research by the PI include a Silicon Graphics Onyx Reality Engine2 4-processor graphics workstation with a Multi-Channel Option Board, a Silicon Graphics Indy workstation with an Iris audio processor, a Crystal River Engineering Acoustetron II, a Polhemus 3Space Fastrak System (with a 3Ball, three trackers, and a magnetic tracking device), a Virtual Research VR4 head-mounted display, and an Aura Interactor Virtual Reality Game Wear Vest. In addition, the investigators will have access to the Computational Science VR Lab, which has three Onyx-level machines and associated VR peripherals.
Further, as part of funding for the final year of a current NSF grant, in winter, 1998 the investigator will purchase four SGI O2 workstations with the dual display option. Supplemented with tracking systems and head-mounted displays, these will provide four virtual reality platforms to support pilot implementations of our NSF applications in pre-college settings. While the OSEP project will require Windows NT-based SGI workstations, the head-mounted displays and tracking systems from these SGI O2 workstations can be added to these new workstations to support this proposed project.
Impact
This project has potential for local, state, national, and international impact. This project is developing immersive VR products that are expected to open new avenues to learning. As the costs of new technologies is low enough to be found commonly in schools, the opportunity to conduct research on the efficacy of their design will contribute substantially to the development of new products. It is anticipated that the effects of the proposed project's VR design could be similar to the impact that the anchored instruction research has been on the widely available multimedia software now available in the marketplace. In addition, the proposed project has the potential to provide a powerful means for adapting the general education curriculum to meet individual student needs. Technology that adapts to individual needs increases the chance that students with disabilities can participate in regular education activities. Insights from this proposed research could help in developing tools, learning environments, and formative assessment strategies that help students comprehend the relationship between formal representations and real world phenomena, a major current problem in science and mathematics instruction. Our studies could also aid researchers, instructional designers, and teachers in understanding how learners develop internal representations of phenomena and how technological supports can help students evolve sophisticated, accurate mental models.
Since the proposed project is housed within the Center for Human disAbilities, it is uniquely positioned to impact statewide use of technology in support of science-based instruction. Ongoing learning from the project can be immediately disseminated throughout the state and integrated into technical assistance activities of T/TAC staff and the statewide T/TAC system, particularly as they relate to the new standards of learning which are being implemented in Virginia.
National impact will result from dissemination activities including national, state, and local presentations, journal publications, and involvement with the U.S. Department of Education FREE resource site. The proposed research project also supports the recommendations made by the National Science Foundation and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) as they relate to the national standards of science education. Because this research effort links research to practice from a national perspective, the potential for the project findings to influence service delivery practices is especially powerful.
Dissemination
Various features of this project will make findings and products more extensively available to the target population. The requirements analysis phase involves leaders in the field of research acquisition in the general population as well as children with disabilities, along with end-users. There will also be opportunities for input through the CHd website. As these stakeholders are a part of the design, we anticipate that they will also help disseminate information to their peers.
Dr. Behrmann will have opportunities to share findings and products through his leadership position at the Council for Exceptional Children and Dr. Dede through his association with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) and nation-wide lectures on educational technology. In addition, Drs. Scruggs, Mastropieri, Sprague, Bannan-Ritland, and Mr. Castellani will disseminate findings and opportunities to demonstrate the product through their professional and parent networks, organizations, conferences, and papers.
Mr. Castellani and Dr. Chen will also establish a presence for the project web-site by ensuring that search engine tools such as Yahoo, Yahooligans, AltaVista, include information about the project along with access to the project. In addition, they will work with the U.S. Department of Education to get the project linked into a new curriculum search engine that is a part of their internet website: http://www.ed.gov.free/ and their "push technology" feature available through the Government Insider portion of PointCast.
Budget and Cost-Effectiveness
This project is a collaborative endeavor by George Mason University's (GMU) Graduate School of Education and School of Information Sciences. GMU is contributing a considerable level of in-kind to this initiative by placing much of the software design within the Graduate Program of Instructional Technology degree program. The project will use the capabilities of GMU to enable the project to use state-of-the-art technology, videoconferencing, and distance learning technologies at minimal cost to the project.
As stated in the Adequacy of Resources section of this proposal, GMU will maximize existing high-end computers and peripheral devices, computers, web sites, and resources eliminating the need to acquire a substantial portion of required in supporting a project of this magnitude. Existing computer labs and programs serving children with learning disabilities will also make it possible for the target population to participate in the requirements analysis and testing phases of the project.
Bay, M., Staver, J.R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J.B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 555-570.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
Brownell, M.T., & Thomas, C.W. (1998). An interview with Margo Mastropieri: Quality science instruction for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 118-122.
Burkam, D.T., Lee, V.E., & Smerdon, B.A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297-331.
Cawley, J.F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 67-71.
Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R.E. (1993). Readability levels of the science textbooks most used in secondary schools. School Science & Mathematics, 93, 24-27.
Cognition and technology Group (1992). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. In Duffy & Jonassen, Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Dede, C., Salzman, M., Loftin, B., & Sprague, D. (in press). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In Nancy Roberts, Wallace Feurzeig, and Beverly Hunter, Computer modeling and simulation in science education. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1992). Science and students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377-411.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1994). Text-based vs. activities-oriented science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 72-85.
Patton, J.R. (1993). Individualizing for science and social studies. In J. Wood (Ed.), Mainstreaming: A practical approach for teachers (2nd ed., pp. 366-413). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Patton, J. R. (1995). Teaching science to students with special needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4),4-6.
Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Salzman, M., Dede, C., Loftin, B., & Ash, K. (1998). VR's Frames of Reference: A visualization technique for mastering abstract information spaces. Manuscript accepted by the International Conference on Learning Sciences '98.
Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., & Loftin, B. (1996). ScienceSpace: Virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, (pp. 246-253). New York: IEEE Press.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15-24.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1994a). The construction of scientific knowledge by students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 28, 307-321.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1994b). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative investigation of three reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 785-811.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Bakken, J.P., & Brigham, F.J. (1993). Reading vs. doing: The relative effectiveness of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science education. Journal of Special Education, 27, 1-15.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Boon, R. (in press). Science education for students with disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education.
Yager, R.E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-578.