Teachers’ Perceptions about Usability Of a Case Library David Jonassen and Sanda Erdelez Abstract knowledge and experiences are stored in memory as stories (Schank, 1990). Rather than learning and then applying theory to the solution of problems, When encountering a new problem, people examine the situation and at- learners can be provided with stories about others’ experiences while designing tempt to retrieve a previously experienced situation that resembles the current classroom instruction. However, the usability of case-libraries has not been one. Along with information about the situation, people retrieve the lessons documented with teachers. In this study, students accessed a case-library of that the situation provides. New problems are solved by finding a similar past technology integration stories (http:///kite.missouri.edu) while developing case and applying the lessons learned from that case to the new one. a technology integration plan. We compared student use and perceptions The process of understanding and solving new problems in terms with their use of the ERIC clearinghouse, with which they were all familiar. of previous experiences includes three parts: recalling old experiences, Naturally, teachers varied in their perceptions and uses of the case library. interpreting the new situation in terms of the old experience based on Teachers most liked the authentic nature of the stories as information the lessons that we learned from the old experience, and adapting the sources. The most consistent problem was the novelty of the environment. old solution to meet the needs of the new situation (Kolodner, 1992). Some teachers also wanted to access the materials described in the stories. Recalling old experiences depends on how well those stories are indexed; Successful integration of case libraries into learning activities will require that is, how well the characteristics or attributes of the old experience an orientation to the effective use of cases and the environment itself. were filed. More clearly indexed stories are more accessible and therefore more usable. Interpreting a problem is a process of mapping (comparing Stories, Case-Based Reasoning, and Learning and contrasting) the old experience onto the new one. The CBR process Stories are the oldest and most natural form of sense-making among is described by Aamodt and Plaza (1994) as a cycle of activity in which humans. Stories are the “means [by] which human beings give a newly encountered problem (the new case) prompts the reasoner to meaning to their experience of temporality and personal actions” retrieve cases from memory, to reuse the old case (i.e., interpret the new (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 11). Humans appear to have an innate ability in terms of the old), which suggests a solution. If the suggested solution and predisposition to organize and represent their experiences in the form does not work, then the old and/or new cases are revised. When the ef- of stories. To experience the importance of stories to teaching, one needs fectiveness is confirmed, then the learned case is retained for later use. only to visit any teacher’s lounge in any school for even a short time. Although numerous accounts describe the assumptions and methods According to Bruner (1990), telling stories has many functions: for developing case libraries to support formal and informal learning • It is a method of negotiating and renegotiating meanings among (Kolodner, 1992, 1993; Kolodner & Guzdial, 2000; Schank, 1990), there people is virtually no empirical research supporting the use of case-based reason- • It helps us to learn, to conserve memory, or to alter the past ing. Virtually all of the research on case-based reasoning has been design • It assists us in understanding human actions and intentions research. The use of case-based learning environments for teaching, on the • It enables us to remember the unusual (e.g., a major event that we other hand, has been investigated extensively. For example, CaseNet (Bro- attend), and nack & Thornton, 1999) provides numerous case studies as instructional • It enables us to articulate our identity so that we can explain to oth- tools. Cases have been used extensively in teaching, but not the use of case ers who we are. libraries designed using case-based reasoning. The use of stories, similar In spite of their centrality for recounting human affairs, stories have to CBR case libraries, has been shown to improve problem-solving skills only recently been examined in psychology. To many, stories represent and address misconceptions (Brown, 1992; Kearney & de Young, 1995). scientifically unacceptable forms of logic where logical explication implies However, these studies examined the effects of stories on solving well- formal and empirical proofs, while narrative convinces through verisimili- structured problems, not meaningful, everyday, ill-structured problems. tude (Bruner, 1986). Education has been traditionally dominated by the Empirical research on the use of case-based reasoning in the form of case desire to appear scientific in its discourse within and outside the discipline, libraries (as used in this study) are more rare. In the only study of case so it has opted for logical explication. However, despite the dominance libraries to support learning complex problems, students who had access of logical forms of exposition in academic disciplines, it is the narrative to case libraries of experts’ stories to help them solve product development form of explanation that just plain folks (Lave, 1988, p. 191) use in their problems in agricultural economics performed better on tests of problem everyday negotiations of meaning. solving (predictions, inferences, and explanations) than students who had access to expository descriptions of the issues raised in different cases Case-Based Reasoning (Hernandez-Serrano & Jonassen, 2003). In this paper we begin to examine the usefulness of a newly developed online case library for helping teachers The inquiry into the use of stories for learning is known as case-based reason- integrate technologies into their classroom instruction. ing (CBR). CBR is based on a theory of memory that claims that people’s Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 67 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org KITE: A Case Library of Technology Integration Stories est neighbor algorithm to retrieve the stories that are the exact match to the We have constructed and implemented an online case library of technology stated search terms and also the stories with content that is most similar to the integration stories provided by teachers, Knowledge Innovation for Technol- search statement. The search engine returns a list of stories with percentages ogy in Education (KITE), which was funded by a PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow’s of matching associated with them. Figures 1–4 provide a selection a screens Teachers to Use Technology) grant from the U.S. Department of Education. the users interface with while searching KITE. The KITE project is a consortium of eight teacher education programs (KITE Following the indexing, the story is uploaded to the case library partners) collaborating to diffuse technology integration experiences for use by database. Each story consists of the entire interview and a list of relevant preservice and inservice teachers by co-constructing an online case library of indexes for the case. For each index there is an excerpt from the interview technology integration stories. The stories are collected by KITE scouts, who where the interviewed teacher addressed the content that was coded with are members of the KITE project partner teams, through structured interviews a specific index term. with individual inservice teachers. The audio tapes of interviews (stories) are first transcribed and then submitted to the KITE indexing team who analyzes Learning Support: Case Libraries these stories and identifies instructive cases, i.e., those cases that denote the The primary purpose for building the KITE case library is to support kind of problem situations where a teacher seeks to integrate technology. A instruction of preservice and inservice teachers. One reason why teachers sample of story transcript is provided in Appendix I (page 73). In order to are reluctant to integrate technology in their classrooms—especially the ensure that cases can be retrieved at appropriate times, each case in the case novice teachers employed in this study—is their lack of experience. The library is indexed by assigning it labels at the time it is entered into the case most important characteristics that all novices lack are experiences around library (Kolodner, 1993). While searching the online case library, KITE users which they can build their personal theories. The case library can sup- may select any values in any combination of indexes listed in Appendix II plant those experiences that novice teachers lack. Rather than having to (page 74). For example, a teacher interested in finding all the stories where experience an activity themselves, teachers can search the case library for middle school teachers from urban school used simulations would select situations similar to theirs. The case library provides numerous teachers’ “middle school” from Kind of School, “urban” from School Location, and stories about how they used technology in their classrooms. Inexperienced “laboratory experience” from Purpose. The KITE search engine uses a near- teachers developing lesson designs can search and read those stories to Figure 1. Keyword search interface for KITE Figure 2: Advanced (super) search interface for KITE Figure 3. KITE search results Figure 4: KITE case summary 68 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org find ideas on how to use technology in their teaching. Through the Web For the purpose of the assignment, the technology integration plan was portal, teachers can access the KITE case library to search for new ways defined as a series of lesson plans that incorporate technology in integrated to use technology whenever they are designing new lessons. They can re- and meaningful ways to accomplish the learning goals of the specific trieve from cases advice on how to succeed, pitfalls that may cause failure, instructional unit. In their plans the students were expected to use the information about what worked or did not work for other teachers, and concepts and principles about learning technologies they have studied insights into why it did not (Kolodner, 1993). The teachers who access in the course. Their first task was to create a summary of the educational cases from the library can use the ideas presented in the stories or can context for their technology integration plan, including: adapt the ideas based on their own classroom characteristics. • A description of the overall learning goals for the unit Although the above statements suggest that teachers would accept and • A description about how the unit addresses state/district standards use stories from peers in their design activities, there is no research support- • A list of tools needed ing these assumptions. We designed a study to capture teachers’ perceptions • A pedagogical basis for the plan, and about the use of KITE case library in the context of performing lesson • An explanation of how is the unit connected to other units experi- design activities. The first major issue addressed by the study was: enced at appropriate grade level. • How do inservice teachers perceive usefulness of a case library of The main task of the assignment was to provide a series of lesson plans with technology integration stories for designing their own teaching a statement of the grade level for the lesson, learner objectives, and detailed activities? descriptions of student/teacher activities involving technology integration. The An additional aspect of the study was to evaluate the scope and use- students had an additional requirement to provide two examples of technology fulness of KITE in comparison to other online information sources the materials that could be used in the course. This requirement was intended teachers may be inclined to use when designing their technology integra- to mimic the real-life situations of technology integration and to promote tion activities. Therefore, the second major issue for the study was: students’ need for information about practical experiences of instructional technology use that are available in the KITE case library. Finally, in addition • How does a case library of technology integration stories compare to detailed instructions for the assignment, the students were also provided the to a traditional educational bibliographic database as a resource for rubrics for assessment and evaluation of the technology integration plans. inservice teachers’ lesson plan activities? Instruments Methods Following the submission of the technology integration plan assign- In order to address the above issues in a research context we decided to ment, students completed an online survey about the use of information conduct an exploratory study. The study was designed to expose teach- resources for the assignment. The survey questionnaire consisted of 15 ers to KITE and one bibliographic database and to capture teachers questions (nine close-ended and six open-ended). The close ended ques- experiences with using these resources through a survey instrument and tions collected data about: system use logs (for KITE). This research approach allowed us to collect the teachers’ feedback after the use of a case library in a context that • The participants’ demographics (the type of profession and the simulates its real-life uses. length of their employment) • The type of resources used by the participants to complete the as- Participants signment (multiple answer format) The study participants were 14 students at a Midwestern U.S. university, • The participants’ self-perceived level of expertise in searching enrolled in the online graduate level course titled Using Technology to bibliographic databases, Web-search engines, KITE case library, and Enhance Learning, taught by one of the authors of this paper. The con- ERIC (Likert scale, 1–5) venience sampling as a method for selection of study participants was • The total length of time participants spent using KITE and ERIC deemed to be most suitable to the descriptive and exploratory purposes for the assignment (multiple choice), and of the study. All the participants were inservice teachers; twelve in K–12 • The participants’ assessment about the usefulness of KITE and environments and two in other types of educational institutions. They ERIC for completion of the assignment (multiple choice). have been employed in a teaching profession for at least three years, with In the open-ended questions, the participants were asked what about close to one third being in their sixth year of teaching. Because of the level KITE and ERIC they liked the most and what they liked the least. They of participants’ teaching experience it is reasonable to assume that they were also asked to provide the examples of how they used KITE and ERIC have been exposed to some level of technology integration, however, their in completion of their technology integration assignment. specific background in this area was not measured. None of the partici- We provided the students with individual login passwords for KITE ac- pants had a prior experience with KITE and were not provided training cess and informed them that their use of KITE will be monitored. Therefore, in how to use it. However, they had access to the “How to search KITE” an additional source of data was log files of study participants’ KITE use. function readily available on the KITE homepage. The participants had The log files captured the basic information about KITE use, such as the an average of 3.5 years of experience in using bibliographic databases and length of time the students spent using the case library, the index terms they 4.2 years of experience in using Web search engines. used in their searches, and the individual cases they accessed during their search sessions. A data collection on the system level was possible because Procedure the KITE case library has been developed in house and we had direct access The overall study design engaged the participants in the task of develop- and control over its system environment. However, access to the ERIC da- ing a plan for technology integration into an instructional unit of their tabase was provided by the Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) Illumina choice. The context of the study was a final course assignment in which information service available through the university library Web portal and we instructed students to use the KITE case library and the Educa- we were not able to directly capture students’ use of this resource. tional Resources Information Center (ERIC), a well-known database of We tabulated and analyzed the close-ended questions using simple educational resources, as the information resources for the assignment. descriptive statistics and content analyzed answers to the open-ended ERIC was included in the study to generate comparative data regarding questions. The content analysis was performed through several coding participants’ perceptions about use of case library and a traditional docu- iterations, open coding and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), thus ment-based information resource for their study task. allowing for the coding categories to emerge from the responses. Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 69 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org Results I found a lesson plan that was in a format I could use as a model for my integration plan. According to the online survey results, while working on their technol- ogy integration plans 11 study participants used KITE case library, 13 The desire to directly apply information to the prescribed task was also used ERIC, 12 Internet, and nine students reported using various other supported by the types of indexes that students used to search the KITE resources. The log files revealed that the average amount of time per user case library. Although KITE includes 20 different searchable indexes, log spent in KITE was 23.3 minutes each (ranging from one minute to 180 files recorded that study participants used only three. With one exception, minutes). In response to a survey question about the length of time devoted the only indexes used were grad level, subject, and keyword (used when to KITE use, six students claimed to have used it for 30 minutes to an hour, looking for a specific topic). while five claimed that they used it for one to two hours. Interestingly, However, a few students used the cases more reflectively, as explained according to the log files only one student recorded more than one hour in the following example: of KITE use. Despite very specific assignment instructions, three students I did not use any ideas directly. Instead, I would read admitted that they did not use KITE at all. The total length of ERIC use an article, and then reflect on how I could modify it ranged from less than 30 minutes (one participant) to more than two hours or it would cause me to think about technology in my (two participants). The majority of students (six) used ERIC from one to classroom. Also, I had been working on the project for two hours, while only one reported not using it at all. some time and had a pretty substantial idea of what I wanted to accomplish. By the time I learned about Perceptions about Usefulness of KITE Case Library this resource, I was pretty set in my plan. In response to a question that asked what they liked most about KITE, Despite many positive comments about the usefulness of KITE, not the most prominent comment among eight students who used KITE for every student who used it found that experience useful for completion their technology integration plan was the ability to learn from both posi- of the technology integration assignment. For example, one student tive and negative real-life experiences of other teachers. This is illustrated claimed that: in the following responses: In all honesty, I used it to get ideas, etc. but really I …I like the way it [KITE] gave real lesson plans and developed my project based on my own experiences, ideas, not just theoretical ones. the resources available at my school, and what I ...feedback from other educators was important to thought would work best for my students. determine how successful tech integration could be Some of the reasons for the lack of use of the case library may be or would be. found in students’ responses to a question about what they liked least The lessons/cases had actually been implemented in about KITE. The most common concerns were the novelty of this kind a real classroom. There were comments about the of resource and corresponding lack of familiarity with how to use it: pros and cons. I found it harder to find what I needed. Two respondents praised KITE’s organization and its ease of use, as KITE was new to me. It was just different. I have explained by a student who developed a successful strategy for using the always gone with the resources I always use because case library and found that the case summaries were the most effective I am comfortable. component of the cases: Maybe it was because it was the first time I used it, The summaries at the beginning are extremely but I found it time consuming trying to maneuver useful for weeding out cases that will be beneficial through the site. to your purpose. The transcriptions are accurate and the cases are organized well so that the search Interestingly, another student commented that cases do not have the engine works well. The cases read easily and infor- “jargon” required by the assignment. She found the case material was mation can be easily extracted from them. inconsistent with her perception of what the professor was looking for The potential usefulness of KITE and case libraries with teachers’ in a response. instructional experiences as a new type of instructional resources was Finally, the additional perceived weak aspects of KITE were lack of especially present in the following responses: comprehensiveness, depth, and content of cases: The thing I liked best about KITE was that it was new …it didn’t have as many examples—also my field was to me. I had no idea that it existed. The case studies a little different so there weren’t as many examples. were very interesting to read. I found myself wanting to I wanted more information from the case studies. One read for enjoyment, so I’ll return later. The information that struck me in particular talked about a PowerPoint will be useful to my project because it is evidence that presentation. I wanted access to that presentation so technology can be used effectively at all grade levels. I could relate more to the case study. I used the two case studies from KITE to prove to …no specific data to back up what was said. my reluctant teachers that technology can indeed No illustrations. The interviewer says things like, “Is be used in kindergarten and cross curricular in sixth this a sample of the Web page your class created? It is grade. Both grades have teachers who hate technology very nice.” I would like to see it, too, to get a better integration. I like having proof to present to them. idea of what they are talking about. Additional evidence of potential value of KITE is provided in the comments that students made about how they used the KITE case library. Perceptions about Usefulness of ERIC Some students, for example, directly applied ideas from the library: All but one of 14 study participants used ERIC database for completion I used quotes from teachers and general objectives. I of the assignment. Students’ ratings of the usefulness of ERIC were similar also was inspired to include activities in my unit that to KITE: five of the students rated ERIC as not very useful or slightly were detailed in one case. useful; four rated it as fairly useful, and four rated it extremely useful. 70 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org Unlike KITE, students were familiar with ERIC, so a common prefer- exact match to the user’s query but rather the next nearest match. Therefore, ence that was stated about ERIC was its ease of use: a search for stories related to K–1 grade level may return cases related to It’s easier to search for articles and various re- grade 2–3 and a search for stories about teachers’ use of digital camera sources. may also return cases that report on the use of video cameras. In the above examples, the CBR system will automatically recognize that grades 2–3 are The ease of finding things. close to grades K–1, and that a use of digital camera is conceptually close I like ERIC because it’s a good way to find valuable to a use of a video camera. When users without a mental model of CBR resources quickly and easily. I like it that you can systems review the list of cases generated in response to their query, they weed out articles that aren’t full text. It’s a great time may be confused about why some of them do not exactly address their saver and a very efficient. specific request. Furthermore, as suggested by Dimitroff and Wolfram Another equally common reason for liking ERIC was its content and (1995) users’ prior experience with traditional information retrieval systems the comprehensiveness of its coverage: (specifically with Boolean-based systems) may create a mental barrier in their adoption of new mental models of online searching and, therefore, …I think it provides wonderful resources and ex- create frustrations in attempts to use the new system. amples of lesson plan. Once the study participants were exposed to KITE they became more Happened to get directed to ERIC database in some familiar with its story-type content. The novelty of the content also in- of my searches—really good stuff there. spired new expectations for what else should be available in KITE, such …its comprehensiveness. as examples of actual products (presentations, photos, documents, Web Interestingly, its vast size also may have contributed to what students pages, etc.) created by the teachers whose stories have been captured in the liked the least about ERIC. The most specific criticism was about slow case library. The reluctance to use KITE may indicate teachers’ resistance and confusing navigation (five students), such as: to try new information resources and their preference to stay with the ERIC is too busy. There is so much on the screen to ones they have successfully used before, e.g., ERIC or resources that are sift through to get to what you need. It needs to be freely available on the Web. This is supported by our survey data about simplified. the extent of use of KITE and ERIC for completion of the assignment, where the study participants reported using ERIC more than KITE. Seven students provided specific examples of how they used informa- Overall, the participants also found ERIC more useful for the assignment tion from ERIC in their assignment. Four examples referred to use of than KITE. Unfortunately, as explained above, we did not have access to articles about student evaluation such as rubrics and peer editing, while ERIC log files and therefore cannot corroborate students’ self-reported three identified use of factual information about technology products, use of ERIC with their actual use recorded by the system. such as digital cameras. Some additional points of the KITE and ERIC comparison (such as Discussion the aspects of these search environments that users liked the most and the least) suggest that students found both strong and weak points in terms The study participants were intrigued with the novelty of KITE and liked of their usability and their content. Although the perceived weakness of that it provided information with real-life experiences of practicing teach- KITE may be attributed to students’ lack of experience with electronic ers instead of academic papers. The students sought to directly apply the case libraries, students’ negative view of specific features of ERIC may stem information from KITE to the task prescribed in the assignment, which from their ability to reflect upon these based on their prior use. is the way many other sources of information are traditionally used. This practical focus (as in “What can I find that I can use immediately?”) is well Conclusion documented among teachers and may create a mental barrier to some other useful applications of case libraries. One such potential application The objective of the study was to provide an initial insight into usability is the use of case libraries as a source of ideas and inspiration for instruc- aspects of a specific case library. Although our findings cannot be general- tional activities that teachers could model in their own teaching. Through ized to boarder categories of users nor to other case libraries, they offer dissemination of ideas and adaptation of pre-tested models, a case library guidance for implementation of case libraries in teacher education and of stories with teachers’ instructional experiences, such as KITE, could they also identify areas where additional research is needed. grow into what Lave and Wenger (1991) call communities of practice. For the participants in our study, case libraries represented a com- Such evolution could be facilitated by addition of interactive modules pletely new information searching environment. Our findings indicate that allow and encourage users to share comments about how they use that students (all already employed as teachers) were attracted to the case libraries and exchange experiences about how to do it better. novelty of KITE and to the access it provides to the experiences of other The data about the extent of students’ use of KITE in this study are both teachers. However, for many of students in the study the lack of prior conflicting and intriguing and deserve specific attention. First, only 11 out of experience with case libraries made the use of KITE uncomfortable and 14 study participants used KITE, even though this was a specific requirement even frustrating. Under the imposed constraints of the assignment, which of the assignment. Second, the comparison of self-reported survey data and was a backdrop for our exploratory study, the students exaggerated their actual usage logs indicated that students exaggerated their use of KITE. This use of KITE and reported relying more on other available resources such is not surprising, given that the context of the study was students’ work on as ERIC and the Web. a graded assignment. However, overestimation in KITE use may also be an To foster the use of KITE in the context of teacher education, we need indication of students’ discomfort with using case libraries, which in turn to better educate their future users (students and teachers) about the char- may have increased the perceived length of time spent in its use. acteristics of case libraries and about the effective ways of searching them. The lack of participants’ prior experience with case libraries meant that We need to be aware of the potential negative influence of prior experiences they did not possess conceptual schemas for using this information source. with other information retrieval environments on the successful use of case Without a mental model of case libraries, and KITE in particular, several libraries. To alleviate this problem, attention needs to be devoted to train- participants expressed frustrations about its navigation and searching. For ing that facilitates development of users’ mental models of case libraries, example, as it was explained earlier, the system is not designed to provide an especially in terms of similarities and differences with other information Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 71 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org search environments such as bibliographic online databases and the Web. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. New York: Morgan An example of an attempt to provide training to the users of case libraries Kaufman. is the Technology Integration Learning Environment (TILE) module that Kolodner, J. L., & Guzial, M. (2000). Theory and practice of was added to KITE after completion of the study reported in this paper. case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Additional research is needed to evaluate the effect of training on the users’ Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Law- experience with KITE. Furthermore, research is currently in progress to rence Erlbaum Associates. better understand the characteristics of users’ mental models when searching Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate traditional information retrieval systems and CBR systems. With training and peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer- additional research, we hope to help teachers refocus their attention from the sity Press. search environment itself to discovering novel and creative ways to integrate Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human the experiences of other teachers into their own teaching practice. sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press. Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. References Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Founda- Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: tional issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39–59. Sage Publications. Bronack, S. C., & Thornton, P. C. (1999). Web-based learn- ing environments: Issues and perspectives for international teacher David Jonassen is Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Missouri, training and instruction. International Electronic Journal for Leader- where he teaches in the areas of Learning Technologies and Educational Psychology. ship in Learning, 3(17). Available: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/vol- Since earning his doctorate in educational media and experimental educational ume3/bronack.html. psychology from Temple University, Dr. Jonassen has taught at the Pennsylvania State University, University of Colorado, the University of Twente in the Netherlands, Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to reme- the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and Syracuse University. He has diate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual published 26 books and numerous articles, papers, and reports on text design, task change, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 17–34. analysis, instructional design, computer-based learning, hypermedia, constructivist Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- learning, cognitive tools, and technology in learning. He has consulted with businesses, universities, public schools, and other institutions around the world. His current sity Press. research focuses on constructing design models and environments for problem solving. Dimitroff, A., & Wolfram, D. (1995). Affective responses and He is Director of the Center for the Study of Problem Solving. retrieval performance: Analysis of contributing factors. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 121–132. David Jonassen Distinguished Professor Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects Learning Technologies and Educational Psychology of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer-Assisted University of Missouri Learning, 19, 103–114. 221C Townsend Hall Columbia, MO 65211 Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well- Phone: 573.882.2832 structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 45(1), 656–694. Dr. Sanda Erdelez is an associate professor at the School of Information Science and Kearney, A. R., & De Young, R. (1995). A knowledge-based Learning Technologies at the University of Missouri, Columbia, where she leads the Information Experience Laboratory. Her scholarly interest is the study of human intervention for promoting carpooling, Environment and Behavior, information behavior, in particular people’s information needs and uses in the context 27(5), 650–678. of electronic environments and specialized areas such as e-learning, e-health, e-gover- Kolodner, J. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. nance, and e-commerce. Dr. Erdelez’ research has been funded by SBC Communica- Artificial Intelligence Review, 6(1), 3–34. tions, Dell Computing, and the Texas Supreme Court. Most recently she co-edited a book, Theories of Information Behavior, published in 2005 by Information Today. http:// www.iste.org 72 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org Appendix I: Sample story from the KITE presentation. For example, some of the PowerPoint presentations were database only six to eight slides long. Many of those students didn’t have a lot of information. They had maybe two sentences on each slide. It wasn’t an awful lot. For both the posters and the PowerPoint, they had to select their Note: The text in italics indicates the questions asked by the KITE information and the pictures they wanted to include in the project. scout. The teacher’s response follows each question. Was there specific information about the rainforest that you were expect- Would you begin by telling us what grade level of students you are working ing them to get? with on this project and what is the content or subject area? No. Basically, it was very open. Some students were really more into The grade level is second grade level. The content area is a cross between it. Others were more on the surface. Some took a specific animal and social studies and science with a rainforest project. really researched that animal. Others it was just general rainforest. The Where did you use this technology, in the classroom or in a lab setting? layers. The plants. What some of the plants are used for. Where you find the rainforest in the world. We used it in the classroom since we don’t have a lab setting in our school. What did you expect the students to learn from this? As they were going through, what did you expect them to learn from listening to others? Can you tell me the name of the project and the purpose of the project? I expected them to not only learn some of the social studies and sci- The purpose of the project was a rainforest research project that the ence standards about habitats and the environment, but also we have a students were supposed to complete by themselves. They were supposed listening standard. They can listen to others. A speaking standard. They to do most of it in class, but I did want the parents to help their children have to be able to present information. All of the students had to tell find some information. about their project. They had to do it in a way that was easy for the audi- Why did you decide to do this particular project? ence to listen to. Also for them to speak in a voice that was understood. I believe in teaching with more than one way of letting students Some students are very quiet. You couldn’t hear them. Some would play respond to the teacher. I think that some students can do better if it is with the mouse or the poster. It took away from their presentation. I told not a written report. This is a report that appeals to visual learners. Some them, ‘You can’t do that. You have to be professional.’ Then, the others students like to create songs or raps. I want the students to feel free to who were listening, they were listening for facts. express and describe their information in multiple ways. I also tell the Were there any problems along the way, with the Internet, Microsoft Word, parents that I do this in second grade because I am preparing the students PowerPoint, or the digital video camera? for future research projects. Sometimes we couldn’t always find the pictures we wanted on the Can you describe the project from start to finish? Tell me things you did to Internet. I wasn’t sure about all of the sites that you can go to. That plan and the steps the students went through as they completed the project. was a problem. Another problem is only having two computers in the We had been studying about the rainforest, and the students had been classroom. Then it takes second graders so long to type. For them to type reading different things by themselves and in class. We had been doing small amounts. It was hard for them to wait on others. A paraprofessional quite a bit. This was the culminating activity that I wanted them to do. came in and she helped them. They were on the school computers. She It was a formative evaluation, but it was also a summative evaluation for burned the projects onto CDs so that the students could take them home. me to see how much they had learned from the study of the rainforest. I think they can play it on their regular computer at home. So I first planned it. Then I told parents in newsletter what we would be You mentioned that you have only two machines. How many students doing. I gave the students and parents what would be required. I gave did you have? them a very basic rubric of what I wanted to see. I went over it with the I had twenty five students. students and I gave them a list of ideas that they could do. It wasn’t just write a report. You could make a poster using word processing. Then tell They worked individually? about the things in the poster. It could be a song that you have recorded This time they did. using the digital video camera. It could be a poem that was recorded using Do you have any special populations of students, English Language Learn- the digital video camera. It could be a PowerPoint presentation. Whatever ers or special education students, that you made accommodations for? they wanted to do. I introduced it that way toward the end of our study. We had a special education student. He was allowed to have help from They were working on it during class time and when they had free time. the resource teacher. The speech teacher also helped him. I didn’t water They started looking up information. Some used a little Internet, but it the expectation down. He still needed to do it. He needed to learn these wasn’t as much Internet as I would probably use now. They used a lot skills too. It was non-threatening. They do get rated. However, it is not of resources. I tried to furnish them with the resources. They all knew that every project has to have glitz or show. Every project that is done, you that they were going to present it in class. They knew that they would be can always find good in it. He did very well. ESOL students had tested out rated not only as a presenter, but also as a listener. When a student was of that program. There were a few times they struggled with terminology. done presenting, the other students had to share two things that they had But we worked through that. Really there wasn’t a problem. learned or they had found out. How long did the project last? How much time did you devote each day When they were finished, did they share this project with anyone? or a week? We shared it with our class, and we invited two other second grades Between thirty to forty minutes a day. There were some days we didn’t. to come in and watch. We invited the parents. Unfortunately, the times Other days ended up being longer. Per week we probably spent two to were during school times, so we didn’t have many parents. I have shown three hours a week. It lasted a little bit over a month. Five or six weeks. a few of the finished projects during staff meetings with our staff. What would you say your role was during this project? You mentioned the rubric. What were some of the things that you were looking for in that rubric? I was trying to be a facilitator. Trying to find the right Internet sites. Get on them. Guide them. Help them find information. Not get it for I was looking to see if the information was correct or if they had fudged them, but oversee what was going on. on it a little bit. It wasn’t quantity, it was quality of the information and Appendix I continued on p. 74 Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 73 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org Appendix I continued from p. 73 Their role during the project? Overall thoughts about how it went? Things you would keep the same or change? They were supposed to be active participants. This is one thing they really stayed on task for. They really worked. They liked this a little better. Just give more time for the students to work. I also might try to do When they were getting their presentations ready, the participant and it so that we could share the projects during the evening. They really the interest level rose. enjoyed it. The few parents who came. They really thought it was neat. I How do you think the project benefited them? would like to try it with something else that is easier. Some of the animals were hard to find pictures of and information about. I might go to the Some of them really enjoyed it. Some of them have made other pre- public library and see what they have too. Any advice? I would just be sentations. Some of them have asked if they can do similar projects. One patient. It was a little frustrating at times. I would have other things that little boy gave his presentation. He started by saying, ‘I’m so nervous. I students could be working on. They were really good. Most were really can’t do this.’ He got up there and he was one of the best presenters. busy all of the time. There were a couple of times where some wanted to What would you say you have learned from doing this? get on the computer and they had to wait. That might be a scheduling I would probably try and make it the schedule so that we could use problem. Next year, if we do get the computer lab, I think we won’t have the Internet at different times. If they want to stay in at recess, to give as many problems. them more time. It just really takes a lot of time. Appendix II: Indexes for KITE Case Library Reason for using technology: recommendation from colleague; read about it in journal; heard about it at a conference; administrator priority; thought it up; to meet standards Assessment of learning: quiz; test/exam; assessed product using rubric; Role of student: explorer, discover concepts and connections; student, assessed presentation using rubric; written assignment or paper; subjective learning through structured activities; apprentice, observing, applying, assessment (e.g. observation); none and refining through practice; teacher, sharing and representing what Connectivity: Classroom only (e.g., CD-ROM, computer software); they have learned; producer, creating products to represent their learning; linked to school and district-wide resources (e.g., district LAN); link to experimenter, trying out new processes world (WWW) Role of teacher: facilitator, supporting collaborative problem solving; Grade Level: 1–12 director, giving structured learning activities and explicit directions; Help/assistance used: fellow teacher; technology specialist from school or expert, providing information; monitor, circulating among students; district; Web site; manuals only; administrator; looked in journals/books; coach, providing hints, clues, and other feedback; partner, learning along participated in training with students Kind of school: primary (K–3); intermediate (4–5); middle school School location: urban, major city; suburban, major city; urban, other; (6–7); junior high (7–8) or (7–9); high school (9–12) or (10–12); magnet suburban, other; rural; charter; other. school; other Socio-economic status of students: poor (most families on support); Level of learning outcome sought: remembering information for test; mixed poverty and lower middle class; mixed lower middle and middle comprehension of information for writing or presentation; solving text- class; mixed (all classes); affluent; mixed middle class and affluent book problems; designing a product, method, or process; modeling a sys- Standards: activity not associated with standards; activity generally tem or object; decision making activity; completing laboratory activity relates to one standard; activity generally relates to more than one standard; Location of technology resources: primarily in labs; primarily in library/ activity directly address one or more standards media center; most located in classrooms in adequate numbers (more Subject: Math; Science; Social Studies; English/Language Arts; Foreign than 1–2); located in labs and distributed to classrooms; only teacher Language; Health; Physical Education; Home Economics; Business; has computer Consumer and Family Studies; Industrial Technology; Music; Visual/ Nature of activity: experimentation; presentation by students; presenta- Performing Arts; Special Education tion by teacher; data collection; virtual field trip; data analysis; drill and Teacher’s technology experience/skill level: never used before; used oc- practice; writing; using tools to represent knowledge; creative, situated casionally for personal tasks; used frequently for personal tasks; used in captivating and challenging activities; games occasionally in classroom; used frequently in classroom; used consistently Observations: students performing required activity; students refuse to at home and in classroom; used in professional settings perform; students excited; collaboration increased; writing performance Teaching experience (# years):0–35 increased; mathematical skills increased; communication skills developed; Technologies used: graphic calculator; digital camera; video camera; presentation skills increased; collaboration decreased; writing performance image scanner; graphics program; word processing; database manage- decreased; mathematical skills decreased; presentation skills decreased ment; spreadsheets; multimedia construction tools (Director, Premiere); Purpose: information searching; making a presentation; constructing hypermedia construction (StorySpace, Linkway); internet searching; multimedia programs; organizing information; assessing information; e-mail; chat rooms/MUDs; conferencing/BBS; videoconferencing; au- writing papers; viewing pre-recorded presentation; laboratory experience; dio-conferencing; data collection; presentation software (PowerPoint); creating homepages; role playing; corresponding with experts/mentors; adaptive/assistive devices; systems modeling; concept mapping; expert collaborating with learning communities; collaborating with outside com- systems/AI; programming (Visual BASIC, C++; Web page program- munities; assessing student learning; drill and practice; tutorial instruction; ming (HTML, CGI, Perl); microworlds; visualization tools; educational creating a student centered environment; increased information exchange; software (Jostins); simulations; web development tools; webpages/linklist; stimulate collaborative work environment computer assisted design (CAD); Internet searching; data exchange; video editor/Movie maker; sound editor; other 74 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 22 / Number 2 Winter 2005–2006 Copyright © 2005 ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org