Concord Consortium

1. Concord Consortium

2. Prospect and Problems • Revolutionary potentials of LT but... • Two decades of strong academic R&D on learning technologies has had minimal influences on school practices or industry developments • Fragmented field of LT researchers—uncoordinated critical mass, differential strengths rarely combined • Fragmentation of LT practitioner craft wisdom—uncoordinated insights rarely shared • In sum: weak coupling of research and practice

3. A distributed center for tackling these problems • Seed funding from National Science Foundation ($1.45 mil@year) • An open structure for harvesting knowledge and leveraging efforts of diverse LT R&D • Working on “theme teams” in high-priority areas • Weaving the web—Creating “virtual critical mass” for a distributed learning organization, including industry

4. The hub of founding members Concord Consortium

5. CILT Leadership Council John Bransford Marcia Linn Roy Pea Robert Tinker Barbara Means

6. CILT Mission(http://cilt.org) • To catalyze the development and implementation of important, technology-enabled solutions to critical problems in K-14 science, mathematics, engineering, and technology learning

7. The Central CILT Strategy • Foster partnerships of research, industry, schools, and other stakeholders through invitational workshops and “seed fund” CILT partnership projects that emerge as priorities for breakthrough developments

8. We provide a socio-technical framework... • For sharing what’s being learned and fostering greater synergies of ideas across disciplines, projects, sectors, and funders • To identify high potential areas for collaborative R&D • For rapid, flexible funding of promising concepts • For establishing multi-organizational collaboratories and testbeds for LT R&D • To train multidisciplinary professionals

9. CILT as a Knowledge Network • The vision is a coordinated web of organizations, individuals, industries, schools, foundations, government agencies and labs devoted to the production, sharing and use of new knowledge about how learning technologies can dramatically improve the processes and outcomes of learning and teaching.

10. How CILT is organized • CILT Leadership Council • Four R&D Theme Teams • Plus Core Center functions • Industry Alliance Program • Communications Program for Knowledge Networking • Postdoctoral Program • School Partner and Affiliates Program • Advisory Board • Evaluation Program

11. CILT Theme Teams

12. How do CILT Theme Teams work? • Identify and recruit team members • Conduct partnership workshops • Community discussions on priorities • Select prototype projects and technologies with breakthrough opportunities • Foster widespread research and communication • Reflect on progress, re-consider directions • Provide context for training new professionals

13. Four 1998 CILT Workshops • 367 attendees (300 individuals) • Over 200 projects • 150 different institutions represented • 81 universities and research organizations • 59 corporations • 10 schools

14. Marcia Linn Andy diSessa Nancy Songer January 1998, U. California, Berkeley. 86 members, 44 institutions, 50 projects

15. John Bransford Barbara Means February 1998: Vanderbilt University. 79 members, 31 institutions, 25 projects

16. Bob Tinker Bob Brodersen March 1998: SRI International 82 members, 59 institutions, 60 projects

17. Roy Pea Jeremy Roschelle May 1998: SRI International 120 members, 69 institutions, 60 projects

18. CILT Theme Team R&D funding • Provides “seed” resources to fund CILT Partnership Projects, White Papers • CILT Partnership Projects leverage LT research insights from a large proportion of US-funded work (>$50Mil@Yr) • CILT projects may enhance ongoing grants, lead to new grants, and/or be co-funded by industry

19. Criteria for Defining CILT projects • Idea potential • Leverage funding! • Interdisciplinary collaboration and multiple institutions • Rapid delivery—developing concepts, toolkits, environments others can use in under a year • Prospects for successful integration into or impact on K-14 curricula • Plan for testing, assessment

20. 1998 “CILT Headlines” • Workshop model is a vital success; we will consolidate in one annual meeting (April 29-May 2, San Jose CA) • Participants expressed tremendous need for a forum and process like CILT • 20 partnership projects approved • Particular value to junior faculty, smaller institutions

21. Some CILT Partnership Projects • Virtual Reality Solar System(Ken Hay, U.Ga. and Sasha Barab, Indiana U.) • Visualizing the Amazonian Rain Forest(Douglas Gordin, MSU-SRI and Quinn McLaughlin, Osiris) • Exploring Self-Explanatory Simulators for Middle-School-Science (Ken Forbus, Northwestern U., and Jim Slotta, U.C. Berkeley)

22. Some CILT Partnership Projects • Technology Support for Assessment book (NEA, Vanderbilt, SRI, CILT presenters; broader community through Knowledge Mining) • CILT knowledge network(Chris Hoadley, SRI; Vanderbilt, Concord, U. California, Berkeley; UM; NWU and others) • Teacher Education and Professional Development: A systemic conversation among diverse institutions(Mark Schlager, SRI; Therese Laferriere, Universite Laval; Margaret Honey CCT; LA Unified Schools; Ray Rose, Concord Consortium; others)

23. Some CILT Partnership Projects • Scenarios for interoperable components for shared active representations(Dan Suthers, U. Hawaii, and SRI, UM, CMU, NWU, MIT, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, schools, and more) • K-12 collaborative learning requirements(Geoffrey Fox, Syracuse U., Denis Newman, IMS and a large group) • Envisioning a Future Product Line of Low-cost Computers (Michael Mills, IDEO; Jeremy Rochelle and Roy Pea, SRI; Robbie Berg, MIT; Charlie Patton, TI-83 inventor; Nick Jackiw, Key Curriculum Press; Yasmin Kafai, UCLA)... • Sonar Ranger Application to the Palm Pilot (Stephen Bannasch, Concord Consortium; Evan Weis, MIT)

24. Ubiquitous Computing • Current computing and communications products, developed primarily for business and research, have a combination of price, performance, and features that are sub-optimal for education and are a significant source of unacceptable inequities. • Desktop computers do not meet students’ requirements for mobility and fail to empower students with personal ownership of their inquiry tools. • Conjecture that major learning breakthroughs are possible when every learner has regular access to even limited computing, can use a computer anywhere, can easily access the Web

25. Ubiquitous Technologies For use in schools, homes, museums, and on the move. • Inexpensive mobile computers • Real-time data input • Wireless networking • Interoperable component software

26. What functionality is needed? • Fast interactivity • Connections to the real world: probeware, actuators, force feedback • Scaffolded learning environments • Special representations for SMET: graphs, symbols, spreadsheets • Communications tools including text, sketching, portfolios

27. Research Needed • Engineering: System and UI design. Interface development. Cost containment. • Cognition: What MST topics can be learned readily in this new environment? • Pedagogy: How do we connect experiential and formal learning? • Education: How do we impact the school curriculum and the informal sector such as homes and museums?

28. Learning appliances • Palm Pilot hits the “form-function” sweet spot (63% global market) • Fastest adopted HH computing device of all time: Over 2 million so far • 10,000 developers using the Palm OS

29. Concord Consortium Sonar Ranger (CCSR): CILT Project

31. Goals of the CILT Industry Alliance Program • Significant contributions of cash and in-kind for CILT project support • Access to state-of-the-art developments for advancing CILT partnership projects • To influence developments in learning technologies for key industries • Good working relationships with key companies • First Alliance Partners: Intel, NetSchools • Negotiating: Sun Microsystems, Oracle, 3COM, In-Focus

32. Center for Innovative Learning Technologies http://cilt.org

33. http://www.sri.com/policy/ctl