DevelopingKinderTEK,aniPad* …...3yrIES 3*Year!IES!DevelopmentGrant Dev’tGrant 201112 201213...

Developing KinderTEK, an iPad Mathema7cs Interven7on for At-‐

Risk Kindergartners

Mari Strand Cary Benjamin Clarke Center on Teaching & Learning, University of Oregon Mike Biglan Kat Swanson Concentric Sky

cathywatkins

Typewritten Text

© Copyright 2012 Center on Teaching and Learning, University of Oregon

CTL

2

CSKy

3

3-‐Year IES Development Grant 3-‐yr IES Dev’t Grant 2011-‐12 2012-‐13 2013-‐14

Start-‐up X Conceptualization X Iterative Development & Revision X X X

Usability Studies: -‐-‐User-‐testing -‐-‐Focus groups

X

X

X

Feasibility Study X Pilot Study X Release, marketing, expansion?

X

4

Today’s discussion…

Ini$al'and'itera$ve'design'

process'

5

Why are you here?

•  Name, role •  Why did you choose to aHend this session?

•  What are you interested in discussing today?

6

We need Kindergarten math intervenKons

•  U.S. students generally perform poorly in mathemaKcs –  NAEP: Only 40% of 4th graders and 34% of 8th graders were deemed at or above proficient

(NCES, 2011) –  Students from low income and minority backgrounds struggle even more (NCES, 2011)

•  Poor kindergarten math performance o\en translates to poor math performance later (Duncan et al., 2007; Hanich, Morgan, Farkas, & Wu, 2009; Morgan et al., 2009)

Lowest 10% in K? Lowest 10% in Grade 5 (Morgan et al., 2009)

•  Kids need a successful start in mathemaKcs –  Best chance? Target conceptual understanding of whole number (Gersten, Beckmann, et al.,

2009; Milgram, 2007; NaKonal Research Council, 2001; Wu, 2007)

70% chance

7

BUT the field isn’t there yet. •  Technology-‐based instrucKon has generally… –  not been studied in a rigorous way –  not meaningfully increased achievement (Slavin and Lake, 2008; Collins & Halverson, 2009; Polson & Morgan, 2010).

•  Why? We expect the lack of success is due to exisKng technology… –  not being sufficiently student-‐ and classroom-‐centered

–  insufficiently addressing criKcal content –  ignoring proven instrucKonal principles.

We believe a technology-‐based intervenKon can work in the

classroom

8

Educators likely need to drive this sort of collaboraKon.

9

If educa>onal so@ware or apps are to

meet their promise and become a standard part of our educa>on system, developers need to meld features of

effec;ve instruc;on with educa;onally-‐relevant features found in effec;ve

so>ware. -‐-‐ Strand Cary & Clarke, 2010

“EducaKonal gaming in mathemaKcs is not pujng a student in front of a computer and expecKng substanKal achievement or moKvaKonal results. Rather, educaKonal games need to be designed and researched with careful aHenKon to contemporary learning theories, including customizaKon of task difficulty to the learner’s capabiliKes, metacogniKve reflecKon on the learning taking place, and consideraKon of the rich situated interacKon among learner, game environment, and class environment… learning and game objecKves should be aligned in one-‐to-‐one correspondence, and the social interacKons that make learning “situated” must be accounted for before the educaKonal affordances of games can be fully described.” (emphasis added)

-‐-‐Young et al., 2012

10

KinderTEK does just that. The app is driven by CTL’s content and instrucKonal design

experKse, but takes advantage of the affordances of the iPad.

KTEK

EducaKonal Technology Design

Principles

The MOST criKcal

mathemaKcs content Proven

instrucKonal design

principles

11

KinderTEK •  IntervenKon program for struggling kindergarteners (but other potenKal uses)

•  Curriculum directly maps onto the kindergarten Common Core – MathemaKcs

•  Offers an instrucKonally-‐useful, individualized, and adapKve experience for students (even in schools with limited resources)

12

KinderTEK

•  IntervenKon program •  Curriculum directly maps onto the kindergarten Common Core – MathemaKcs

•  Offers an instrucKonally-‐useful, individualized, and adapKve experience for students (even in schools with limited resources)

–  personalized instrucKon, scaffolding, feedback, and on-‐demand help

–  deliberate pracKce and fluency-‐building

–  embedded assessment –  teacher-‐customizaKon, monitoring, and reporKng features.

13

Major components Student iPad

Student iPad

Student iPad

Teacher iPad

Server

Teacher Website

Student iPad

Student iPad

Teacher Control Panel & Website • Enter, confirm and/or calibrate

student placement • Monitor student progress • View, print, email student progress &

performance reports

Server • Log student performance • Determine placement • Lock/unlock activities to

fit student needs • Sync teacher iPad and

website

Activity phases in Zones 1-4

“I do” (Model)

(Explicit instruction)

“We do” (Lead) (Scaffolded practice & formative

assessment)

“You do” (Test) (Fluency building & formative

assessment; As needed)

Zones

Z1 (#0-10)

Z2 (#11-20)

Z3 (#21-30)

Z4 (#31-100)

Common Core Domains

Counting & Cardinality

Operations & Algebraic Thinking

Number & Operations

in Base Ten 14

(KTEK world screen shot)

15

(KTEK jeep screen shot)

16

(KTEK acKvity screen shot)

17

educa7onal technology design principles

KTEK


Principles

The MOST criKcal

mathemaKcs content

Proven instrucKonal

design principles

18

Educa7onal Technology Design Principles – Design for authenKc contexts and end-‐users – Let learning objecKves drive the design – Avoid piqalls inherent to most exisKng educaKonal so\ware and applicaKons

the most cri7cal math content

KTEK


Principles

The MOST criKcal

mathemaKcs content

Proven instrucKonal

design principles

The MOST Cri7cal Mathema7cs Content – Build a conceptual understanding of whole number: • CounKng and Cardinality, • OperaKons and Algebraic Thinking • Number and OperaKons in Base Ten

– Common Core State Standards -‐ MathemaKcs (CCSSO, 2010) – BoHom line?

•  Focus on essenKal math skills •  Trust the research •  Teach like a good teacher •  Don’t waste kids’ Kme or aHenKon

19

Common Core Standards – MathemaKcs addressed by KinderTEK

20

proven instruc7onal design principles

KTEK


Principles

The MOST criKcal

mathemaKcs content Proven

instrucKonal design

principles

23

Proven Instruc7on Design Principles – explicit and systemaKc instrucKon – visual models – deliberate pracKce opportuniKes – instrucKonal scaffolding

These instrucKonal design principles are what really differenKate KinderTEK from other products

24

I Do We Do You Do

Virtual Tutor Support

Student independence

Time

2) Art sketches & Workflow 3) Wireframe (interacKve w/ text bubbles) (UT) 4) Prototype (interacKve w/ audio) (UT) AcKvity design process:

1) AcKvity template 1) Authors create acKvity template 2) Art sketched out; Workflow created 3) Wireframes dra\ed 4) Mockup created (interacKve with text) (UT)

5) Prototype created (interacKve with audio) (UT)

25

AcKvity template design process:

1) Authors create acKvity template 2) Art sketched out; Workflow created

3) Wireframes dra\ed 4) Mockup created (interacKve with text) (UT)

5) Prototype created (interacKve with audio) (UT)

26

User-‐tes7ng & focus groups •  User-‐tesKng conducted as needed

– Ages 4-‐8 (to cover developmental and mathemaKc range)

–  Some visit one Kme, others visit mulKple Kmes –  Recruited from our partner school district, local centers offering wrap-‐around care to elementary students, and local daycares

•  Nine teachers have parKcipated in focus groups and will work more extensively with us over summer –  Recruited from our partner school district and local centers offering wrap-‐around care to elementary students

27

Time to play. Where do you want to go?

28

Report design process

•  Approach: – Brainstorm – Reviews of exisKng educaKonal apps and websites – Focus groups with teachers (brainstorm, prioriKze, feedback on dra\s)

– Throughout, prioriKze usefulness to teachers and moKvaKon to students

29

•  Top prioriKes for teacher progress monitoring/reports? – Aligned with common core breakdowns – Hierarchical (drill-‐down to whatever level is helpful) – What worked on today /this week / to-‐date?

•  # exposures & amount of Kme •  persistent difficulKes •  non-‐engagement

– What mastered today / this week / to-‐date?

30

•  Top prioriKes for student rewards/progress monitoring/reports? – Within acKvity rewards/posiKve feedback for correct answers – Small intermiHent engagement rewards – Larger mastery rewards – Visually appealing, fun presentaKon – Limited viewing allowed during instrucKonal Kme – Exportable

31

Lessons learned: user-‐tes7ng and focus groups

•  Added dock/menu as well as a “submit” buHon, when needed •  Lock screen while Guide is explaining – otherwise kids try to start acKvity

before she’s done •  Kids understood well what they were supposed to do for the acKviKes we

tested •  Kids liked the penguins & caterpillars best when we tested – cutest, best

artwork •  When objects are touched, kids want them to do something (visual/audio

feedback) (in progress) •  Increase target area •  Lots of lessons on Glyph Tracing (pending implementaKon) •  thought •  Learned a lot on how to do audio (speed,

breaks, # of sound files, etc.) •  Learned to present informaKon more quickly

than we had originally 32


Students •  iPads are moKvaKng! •  iPad angle greatly affects usability of certain acKviKes

•  mandatory scaffolds must be made explicit •  faster-‐than-‐classroom speaking pace, but repeKKon

Teachers •  iPads are moKvaKng! •  Our experienced gut-‐insKnct is o\en right-‐on •  Knowing what they want is difficult without explicit prompKng

•  Teachers aren’t convinced they’ll have iPad with them

•  FAST, easy student access is a top priority

33


Students •  iPads are moKvaKng! •  iPad angle greatly affects usability of certain acKviKes •  mandatory scaffolds must be made explicit •  faster-‐than-‐classroom speaking pace, but… •  need reasonable repeKKon Teachers •  iPads are moKvaKng! •  Our experienced gut-‐insKnct is o\en right-‐on •  Knowing what they want is difficult without explicit

prompKng •  Teachers aren’t convinced they’ll have iPad with them •  FAST, easy student access is a top priority

34

Academia/Tech Company Partnerships: Challenges & Lessons

Learned

35

?

The research presented here is supported by the Ins>tute of Educa>on Sciences, U.S. Department of Educa>on, through a 3-‐year development grant (R324A110286) to the University of Oregon. The

opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Ins>tute or the U.S. Department

of Educa>on.

36

Thanks to… •  Center on Teaching & Learning, UO

–  Kathy Jungjohann (Lead author) –  Lina Shanley (Author) –  Nick Phillips (Project support) –  hHp://ctl.uoregon.edu/research/projects/kindertek

•  Concentric Sky –  Mike Biglan (Chief Technology Officer) –  Kat Swanson (Project Manager) –  Josh Clark (Senior User Experience Designer) –  Jenny Barton, (Project Designer) –  Charles AugusKne (Lead Mobile Developer) –  Andrew KeHel (So\ware Developer) –  Louis Byers (So\ware Developer) –  hHp://www.concentricsky.com/

•  Students and teachers with whom we’ve worked •  InsKtute of EducaKon Sciences

–  hHp://ies.ed.gov/ 37

QuesKons? Mari Strand Cary [email protected] hHp://ctl.uoregon.edu/research/projects/kindertek (including copies of this presentaKon)

Mike Biglan [email protected] hHp://www.concentricsky.com/ 38

(diagram instead) Study Purpose Notes:

User-‐testing Test interface functionality of student app, teacher app, and teacher website

Major questions : (1) Performance (2) Accuracy and Focus (3) Satisfaction

Focus groups End-‐user reactions to – and guidance regarding – interfaces, reports, logistics, content

Major discussion topics: (1) Implementation context (2) Desired reports (3) Desired features (4) Maximizing student engagement and focus

Feasibility Study (K classroom, students struggling with math using KTEK)

Determine/conVirm feasibility in authentic educational settings

Measures: Observations, Surveys, Formative assessment (embedded progress monitoring & log Viles), Summative assessment (Pre/Post tests) of conceptual understanding and procedural Vluency Key questions: (1) Stress-‐free student-‐use? All excited to use KTEK? (2) Student app to Teacher app to Server functioning? (3) Content logically sequenced, appropriately pace, and engaging?

Pilot study (K classroom, students struggling with math assigned to control or KTEK)

Determine whether KTEK shows promise for improving educational outcomes

Measures: Observations, Surveys, Formative assessment (embedded progress monitoring & log Viles), Summative assessment (Pre/Post tests) of conceptual understanding and procedural Vluency Key questions: (1) Student use leads to meaningful gains? (2) Students motivated to use KTEK and progressing well? (3) Teachers successfully monitoring students’ KTEK use?

39

L Example: MathemaKcally Imprecise

MathemaKcally incorrect `

(R to L # sequence )

40

L Example: Lack of Academic Feedback

“Something is not quite

right”

“Click the number on the number

line” 41

L Example: Unnecessary and/or confusing text

42

L Example: Visual DistracKons

43 Really? This is a measure of counKng? What does it really mean when a student gets it wrong?

DevelopingKinderTEK,aniPad* …...3yrIES 3*Year!IES!DevelopmentGrant Dev’tGrant 201112 201213...

Documents

Transcript of DevelopingKinderTEK,aniPad* …...3yrIES 3*Year!IES!DevelopmentGrant Dev’tGrant 201112 201213...