Arizona Learning Technology Partnership
225 West Orchid Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85021
602-944-8557(o) 602-861-9150(f) tkraver@qwest.net
Emerging Learning Technology Task Group Report
Author Theodore C. Kraver Ph.D.
November 29, 1997
Introduction
This report is written to support advocacy and strategic planning. It is one of four ALTP reports from summer of 1997 study groups. This report has been merged with the other three reports to produce a 28-page planning support document. It is far from an academic paper. The technical depth is limited since this a planning document, with focus in the broad issues. The audience is learning technology stakeholders in education, business, and government. The task was to create a broad understanding of the issues dealing with next generation of learning technology in the context of the current and historical situation. The scope includes all education and training, not just K-12.
This report will remain a working document as new approaches and information emerge. A follow-on but difficult task would be to describe, rank the development level, provide examples, identify the lead research organizations and forecast the use of each of the many emerging technologies. This industry is just hitting its accelerate growth period and there are many unknowns in both the technology and market arenas. Also, the emerging technologies are synergistic and interdependent. Vision, conjecture, concept and facts are mixed within the report and should be self-evident. The facts are mostly derived from the sources in the reference section. Unfortunately we have not yet tied the facts cited to the specific reference.
Definition of Emerging Technology
This ALTP divides learning technology into two broad software classes. The first is the current technology that includes productivity tools adopted from the office such as word processors, Internet browsers, spreadsheets, and graphics-paint programs, and multimedia CD-ROM based content applications. Also included are instructional management systems with content commonly called Integrated Learning Systems, multimedia authoring systems, videoconference systems for distance learning and school/classroom administration systems.
The second is emerging technology which as a unique feature, it is research based with usually a foundation in cognitive psychology. This technology is still mostly in the research laboratories with a few products on the market, mostly in the military and high-end workforce training. Universities and colleges, military laboratories, research institutes, consulting organizations and corporations are conducting learning technology research. Technology areas include computer aided instruction (CAI), intelligent CAI (ICAI), intelligent agents, distributed learning systems, collaborative group ware, multi-media tutors, dynamic modeling systems, simulated events, sensory, synthetic environments, network-classroom, and network-integrating school, home, workplace and community.
Emerging learning technology is based in cognitive psychology, which engages the mind in a research and learning environment. Learning types supported include: authentic, apprenticeship, case based, collaborative/cooperative, distance, goal-based scenario, individual self-paced, integrated, inquiry, just-in-time, meta-cognitive, problem based and project based. Methods for training teachers and integrating the new technologies into current curriculum are also part of the research question.
Learning Performance Improvement
The overriding reason to adopt learning technology is to increase learning performance of students. Increased performance can be manifest as learning at a higher level during a given time on task or learning at the same level in a shorter period of time. Performance for a given effort is express at all levels of education by grades: typically A, B, C, D, and F. This system is based on the following "bell curve" statistical representation (prior to "grade inflation"). An improvement of "one sigma / s " or standard deviation approximates moving the performance of the entire group of students up one grade level.
If we are indeed serious about improving K-12 education performance then we need to work on improving performance by sigma’s not just minor improvements relative to other districts, states or nations. A one-sigma increase has all C students performing as B students. Two sigma’s moves most students to the A level producing the Lake Wobegon effect, "all children are above average."
Most industries have experienced this effect through adopting technology. The airline industry doubled speed and range by replacing the piston engine with the jet engine. Food industry has decreased farm labor from 65% of the population to 2% using biological and mechanical technology. ALPT believes education will experience the same level of performance gains through information technology.
In 1994 Department of Defense launched their Computer Aided Education and Training Initiative (CAETI). The vision included using digital resources to support individualized, collaborative, authentic and interactive learning anywhere and anytime in worldwide DOD dependent schools. Delivery systems are affordable, scaleable and maintainable, and include multi-user environment and simulation advancements. Evaluation addressed both performance and technical considerations. The goal of CAETI is to increase learning performance by one sigma, decrease learning time by 30% and increase access to information by a factor of 10. If the military believes this is important enough for their dependent schools, then maybe the states can capture a similar vision.
Arizona Vision in Year 2003
1. K-12 educational performance has moved from the fourth quartile to the first quartile within five years as evidenced by tests reflecting current national standards and the emerging assessments addressing production and capability of the higher level skill sets needed by post secondary schools and workplace;
2. K-12 learning integrates with post-secondary education, the workplace, and informal lifelong learning via learning technology;
3. A new economic cluster arises within the GSPED framework made up of globally dominate software based learning technology companies that have commercialized technology emerging from federally supported R&D operations to serve a huge world wide market.
Technology Improves Learning
Vision for Future: Research has shown that learning within small groups can significantly increase learning. The ultimate small group is one-on-one tutoring. Bloom in 1984 showed that tutoring can increase learning by two sigma. Over the past 25 years, average student count per teacher has dropped from 25.8 to 17.6 to serve special needs children. Average class size has remained and so has learning performance. GroupWare and Internet collaboration, technology can support small group learning. Over the next 10 to 20 years, research and development on intelligent computer aided instruction with simulation and synthetic environments is expected to improve to the one-on-one tutoring level. Distributed learning systems comprised of Web based instructional management systems built to deliver object oriented applications and content will provide access and equity. The promise exists for all Arizona children "to be above average!"
Current Target Model: Studies examining the success of "technology-rich" schools have revealed key features. These included concentrated, conscious, and explicit planning among school leaders, families, and students to create "learner centered" environments. Goals within curriculum frameworks and challenging standards for student achievement are clearly articulated.
A near universal access to computer technology is provided with a computer for each of 4 students in the classroom. The school is restructured to support the learner-centered environment and achievement of standards. Adults are more consultative about curriculum and individual student progress. There was improvement in multiple outcomes. This development is typically pushed by initial increment of external funding. On going technology funding is 3 to 5 times higher than average of $75 for all US schools. The average level is $300 per student.
Current Technology Rich Results: Technology rich schools have higher attendance rates and lower dropout rates, and improved student performance. Meta-studies of 500 studies of learning technology research show students learn more in classes, learn in less time, like classes more, and develop positive attitudes toward computers but not toward the subject matter. Nora Sabelli of NSF has research that shows tests scores increase with use of networking. Authentic tasks, such as editing a distant person's writing engages the student and raises performance. Technology stimulates and motivates the student, but must be wisely crafted to increase learning. Studies support use of online communications, authentic tasks, technology to support curriculum reforms, higher order thinking skills, home computers with modems, and self paced learning.
Christopher Columbus middle school of Union City, NJ, is in a poor, densely populated urban district. Eight years ago the district initiated a technological and philosophical makeover resulting in "technology rich" district with 3000 computers for 9000 students. Test scores at the Christopher Columbus, the early adopter, are double similar schools in other districts.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow had students performing better on standardized tests plus improvement in eight attitudinal and higher-level performance areas not covered by standard tests. They verify that the teachers must be deeply involved in the technology adoption.
Standardized Four Levels of Adoption: The CEO Forum has assessed U.S. schools based on their four pillars: Hardware, Connectivity, Digital Content and Professional Development. They have created the STaR (School Technology and Readiness) chart so schools can compare their progress in adopting technology. The STaR assessment (renewed annually) has the 1997 results based on QED data. Their four school categories and assessments (%) for schools are: Low Tech with 10 to 26 students per outdated classroom computers (59%), Mid Tech with 7 to 14 students per mix of outdated and multimedia computers (26%), High Tech 4 to 9 students per mostly multimedia computer (11%) and Target Tech (4%). Target Tech has fully integrated curriculum and technology with 2 to 5 students per multimedia computer in the classroom, connected to the Internet and local area network. ALTP is focused on bringing Arizona’s K-12 schools into the Target Tech level. "Technology rich" is equivalent with the Target Tech level defined by the CEO Forum. For Target Tech the four pillars must be integrated and the innovative business model created via: analysis-planning, initial capital investment, and readjustment followed by emergence of new work and organizational models.
Military Training Results: Department of Defense (DoD) has aggressively studied learning technology. Standard Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) or (CBT) demonstrates a 0.4-sigma improvement. A one-sigma increase roughly corresponds to one grade level improvement. Research on latest Intelligent CAI technology (ICAT) shows a one-sigma increase. The next generation of intelligent technology promises two-sigma improvement, reaching the ultimate of one-on-one tutoring level.
Past and Future Modeled as Three Waves
The ALTP study conceptualized three Waves of K-12 technology adoption.
Wave 1: the past 20 years, is now the "End of the Beginning." Through great efforts and sporadic funding K-12 school districts now have positive attitudes, partially trained staffs, some support ($110 per student on average) and adequate knowledge and champions to adopt technology to increase student performance. Wave 1 is the early adoption of available technology by innovation leaders and is the learning phase.
Wave 2: the next 5 years, is the "Buildup." Wave 2 is the adoption of Wave 1 technology throughout the school and transformation of the teaching process. Following the practice of technology rich schools, Arizona schools aggressively adopt add computers and connect to the Internet in the classroom, train staffs, build support systems and integrate software with curriculum. Student performance increases one sigma. Funding grows from $110 to $300 per student. The needs of post-secondary education and workplace are addressed. The stage is set for Wave 3.
Wave 3: the next 20 years, is the "Final Push." Wave 3 is the adoption of next-generation (emerging) learning technology phase. The second generation of research based learning technology is developed by laboratories during Wave 2. By year 2003 this next generation software is being delivered by (Arizona) commercial companies. School purchases shift toward software and digital media. Funding is maintained at $300 per student. In twenty years we have transformed teaching practice, intelligent tutors, simulated environments, student and small group centered learning. Performance tops out at two-sigma improvement. All are in a rich life long learning mode.
Hardware - Telecommunications Technology Forecast
The theme of More, Better, Faster and Cheaper will continue for the seeable future for computer hardware, software systems and telecommunications. Factors of ten in capability, power and speed with dropping costs are well in hand.
Hardware transformation to multimedia, local area networks and file servers are well underway. Lap tops with flat panel display screens and lightweight display projectors will become affordable in the classroom. Voice recognition is emerging now for educational use, along with pen and hand writing input. The hand held and "thin" computers will project learning out of the classroom and into the home and work place.
Wireless connectivity will provide another boost to access and flexibility. Synergistic technologies such as television and digital videodisks will further enhance the multimedia capability of computers. Communication devices, and video and still cameras open the window to distance learning, video conferencing and collaborative group learning.
Telecommunications is expanding at a furious pace due to deregulation, home computers, Internet and wireless technology. Plain old telephone service (POTS) is being pushed to 80Kbps modems. ISDN (128Kbps) is being overtaken by xDSL that should provide, as one option, 704 Kbps over the POTS system at $125 a month. Arizona is the first state in country for major deployment of xDSL by the end of 1997. We are also the rollout state for Cox Communications fiber optic deployment. Their @Home service is accelerating into neighborhoods and promises 30 Mbps with cable modems. New forms of high-speed wireless (1Mbps) will compete directly with POTS for local access. Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service can be used within a six-mile radius as wireless cable controlled by modem over the Internet. Local communities around neighborhood schools can have access to very low cost service. Direct Broadcast Satellite proliferation such as Hughes DirectPC (400 Kbps) provides Internet, especially promising for remote communities. This level of accessibility will expand the classroom into the home, play and work place.
Software systems based on object oriented methods will accelerate cost effective learning technology development. Network browsers, content delivery upon demand, smart interfaces, simulation methods and intelligent engines are becoming the pacing components for development of learning technology.
Wave 1 The Early Years => End Of The Beginning
Over the past 15 years word-processing, calculation, drill and practice, Internet communication and information retrieval, multimedia, and drawing programs have automated part of the manual work of K-12 learning. There has had little change in curriculum, teacher training, and classroom processes. Enlightening technology adoption mistakes have been made, creating a rich learning environment for teachers and administrators. Computers have penetrated 10% to 20% of classrooms. Technology expenditures have risen to 2% of school funding (including E-Rate).
Our national educational technology goals advocate teacher training and support, state-of-the-art computers in the classroom, broadband telecommunications connectivity to the world, and effective software and on-line learning resources integrated into the curriculum. A trained cadre of K-12 technology directors is in place. Student, teachers, administrators, parents and the voting public now accept computers as valuable K-12 learning tools. Wave 1 has prepared the acceptance, advocacy and foundation for Wave 2.
Wave 2 Full Adoption Of Current Technology => Buildup
Current Arizona Adoption: Arizona has the fourth quartile ranking blues. Arizona ranks in the bottom third on the NAEP tests, eighth lowest on seniors going on to higher education, sixth lowest in spending when adjustments are made for regional costs and sixth highest pupil-teacher ratio. Suburban districts are extraordinary good and four cities have difficult inner city problems. There are many poorly supported small rural and Indian reservation schools. Schools face severe facility problems when debt limits are reached or real property values are low. The legislature has not yet produced an equitable funding system to address Federal court rulings. Arizona leads the country in school restructuring innovation with over 200 charter schools. Arizona has an opportunity to jump to the first quartile by accelerate learning technology implement. But we need careful planning, creative adoption and a committed leadership with knowledgeable legislature.
Four major issues must be addressed:
Use Within Schools: The studies of successful rich schools show that that students per multimedia computers should be in the 4 range. High minority schools average 17 students per computer (only 50% are multimedia). Internet access is growing by 15% a year. But only 15% of all classrooms have Internet access compared to 64% of all schools. Technology use penetration varied widely depending on grade, course and usage. Arizona ranks in the 3rd quartile for teacher training in technology. Arizona is one of 33 states that require courses in education technology to gain a teaching license.
Current Software Technology: Support for Individual learning activities include stand-alone drill and practice units for particular skills. CD-ROM- or Internet-access provides resource bases, assistance in searching for information and communication with experts. Computational and writing tools include word processors and spreadsheets. Simulations help visualize systems, or mathematical or scientific concepts. Support for instructional management includes integration of curriculum, standards, and assessments, management of student portfolios, and support for development of individual student instructional plans. Technology is expected to transform curriculum frameworks.
Technology Adoption: Wave 2 accelerates the adoption of current technology over the next five years. Most teachers accept technology as a boon to their profession. Technology skilled cadres of teachers, technology directors and administrators are addressing the demands of parents and students for more technology. Technology is being integrated with the curriculum and more teachers are being trained. But most instructional tools are from Wave 1. Of the over 15,000 software packages available, only the top few percent are recommended as excellent by the leading California software assessment agency.
School to Work: Wave 2 technology will become a major component of the School to Work (STW) transformation. STW is being integrated into our schools and workplaces. Students are preparing to enter the work force by acquiring the tools and tactics. They also address the world of education as it relates to acquiring the skills and knowledge they need to succeed throughout their lifetime. STW has curriculum-driven school-based learning, work-based learning and connecting activities designed to build bridges between the classroom and the workplace. However, the "classroom" is available to youth who are in school, out of school, home-schooled, enrolled in alternative programs, incarcerated and found in almost any imaginable setting that supports formal instruction. Computer skills are required for over half of the high-skilled workers. Computers are driving the wage differential increase between high skill and low skill workers. To meet the deadline for the end of federal funding, full implementation of Arizona specific technology needs to be completed mid-way through Wave 2.
Telecommunications: All states are involved in national telecommunication projects such as Netday, and federal programs such as Title 1, E-Rate from the FCC and Technology Literacy and Challenge grants from the DoEd. Some are using telecommunications base systems to convert to electronic administration of schools. Arizona has Arizona State Public Information Network, ADE initiatives both for administration and Internet access, and the new Project Eagle with the Arizona Learning System for distance learning. We assume that the new E-Rate federal funding and installation momentum of broad band telecommunications will carry to every school by year 2000 and then into every classroom.
Funding Per Student: A RAND study in 1996 estimated that 1994-1995 K-12 technology expenditures were $3.2 billion at $70 a student. This is 1.3% of the annual per pupil funds of $5400. The federal, business ($200 million) and foundation support is at approximately $1 billion or $20 for each of 50 million K-12 students. E-Rate promises $2 billion a year starting in 1998 for telecommunication equipment (including servers), installation and line charges at an average of $40 per student. If federal levels stay constant, and state and local increase by 15% a year, a level of $7 billion will be reached by 1999-2000 school year ($140/student). If 15% per year funding growth continues then expenditures will reach "rich school" levels by 2004-2005 school year of $15 billion ($300/student). With 50,000,000 U.S. K-12 students, this level is 5% of the $300 billion spent on K-12 education.
Transforming to Technology Rich Schools: Studies of exemplars of technology rich schools produced a range of cost estimates of $180 (3%) to $450 (8%) per student. The most plausible number was $300 per student or 5.4% of the total cost per student of $5400. The approximate split should be hardware and telecommunications infrastructure at 50%, software and digital media resources 25% and staff development and support 25%. Current buying patterns are focusing on hardware and under funding software, teacher training and support.
Major pacing factors are management process transition, building a support organization, teacher training and curriculum integration. The US Office of Technology Assessment predicted that five years was needed to effectively infuse technology into a school.
The following annual funds are averages for Arizona students. Federal funds from Title 1, Technology Literacy Grants, and foundation-business support is about $30 per student. The new federal E-Rate funding for telecommunications starting January 1998, will provide an average of $40. Arizona spending is slightly above average compared to other states. From local bonds, capital and M&O funds Arizona schools are spending an estimated $80. This provides a current base of $150 a student for hardware, software, media, teacher training, telecommunications, and system support.
An increase of $30 per student each year would produce the $300 level in five years. At 750,000 students the funding increases would be $22.5 million a year. The total additional funding would be $112 million by 2002. A five-year buildup of funding synchronized with five years of school transformation seems to be a viable strategy.
Equity: The $70 of federal funding is biased toward the poor school districts. The $80 of district funds is biased toward the richer school districts. The new State level funds would go equally to all schools. The result should be a fairly equitable distribution.
Vision of Wave 2 Results: Within five years Arizona teachers are well trained and supported. Teachers and students has sufficient modern multimedia computers in their classrooms, every classroom is connected to the information highway and effective software and on-line digital resources are integrated in every school's curriculum. Wave 2 has pushed student performance gains toward the one sigma level bringing Arizona into the national 1st quartile.
Wave 3 Research Based Software Systems => Final Push
Wave 3 will be driven by emerging research-based learning technology. By year 2003 basic telecommunications, computers, support, media access and trained teachers are in place. Over the following 15 years the transformation of K-12 education will mature. Wave 3 will focus on software and digital media. Costs are not expected to grow significantly over the 5.4% of budget. Special hardware such as virtual reality goggles may be needed but the cost percentage should be smaller than Wave 2. Let’s examine the expected technology.
Typical Technology - ICAI: ICAI has five components: Expert Model is a detailed cognitive representation of expert knowledge. Instructional Model teaches by applying cognitive theories of human learning through tailored coaching and intervention on the fly. Student Model diagnostically evaluates student skills and adjusts instruction. Simulations provide interactive contextual practice. Advanced Interfaces support student centered learning.
ICAI teaching performance is monitored, evaluated and improved during operation. Instructional interactions are based on student real-time performance. Low aptitude students require more guidance that would frustrate high aptitude students. In certain areas of maintenance and mathematics the design expertise is mature, but in the huge number of other domains the instructional engineering expertise is rudimentary. Many ICAI features and attributes must be heavily researched to escape the cut and try methods of instruction design. Over the next five years much work must be done to develop instructional engineering from its current roots in instructional design.
Multidimensional Learning Support: Dual roles will emerge. Learner-workers will mix on-the-job, schooling, and informal off the job learning. Telecommuting to classes, intelligent coaches and guides assist the student. Authoring tools are provided for the expert - teacher. Tools for teacher-authors include libraries of interface elements, representations of content materials and task activities, design rules, course templates, and exemplars based on solid pedagogical theories, automated collection of in-field usage data, and knowledge acquisition tools. Teachers are supported in changing roles with artificial intelligence (AI) evaluation, portfolio management, and multi-media libraries of starter examples.
Barriers: There are two current barriers to the timely development of Wave 3 learning technology. These are market buying power and research funding for emerging technologies. For example, United States spends $15 billion of federal and private monies on medical technology research. Less than $100 million is being spent on emerging learning technology research. This minimal funding is currently available in NSF Applications of Advanced Technology Program, DoD, DARPA, DoEd, and DoC.
Market Buying Power: The purchasing power of doctors and hospitals result in a continuous flow of innovative products from a $100 billion pharmaceutical and medical device industry. Although all of US education expends $635 billion each year, learning software is purchases are only at the $1 billion level, including home purchase of edutainment software. In 1996 K-12 schools purchased $600 million in curriculum software while colleges and universities spent $250 million. Static markets do not invite new product investments or upgrading of outmoded products. There is even less incentive for costly investment in cognitive science and comprehensive testing of new products.
The K-12 school market is narrow and fractured. Edutainment products can be sold to 20 million homes with both modern computers and children. There are only 120,000 school-buying units. A single word processing package can serve office needs across all industries. But learning is much more complex. Learning support software must deliver content and address the many significant differences in learn situations. These include subject, content within a subject, teaching methodoly, grade and ability level, learning style, motivating factors, formative and summative evaluation of student performance and learning group size.
States need to aggressively adopt the current K-12 technology, while demanding the newest generation of software systems. They need to coordinate with rapidly expanding markets of learning technology for work force training in private sector, government and military, and in post secondary colleges and universities.
"The educational software market is considered a feel-good thing, and that is not good," Nora Sabelli, NSF. Lacking a significant market demand for next generation technology, corporate investment in research and development is small. The small market – lack of investment is a viscous cycle. To create a virtuous circle the research base must mature rapidly and become widely used for commercial products. The learning technology software companies must then multiply and grow into an industry.
Federal: R&D Support Aggressive development of emerging technologies requires powerful collaboration between the software/digital media industry, the federal government R&D agencies and the K-12 market via the technology directors. Industry software markets have historically matured with well-supported commercial packages that adapt to the customer needs. These packages, with some exceptions like Finite Element Analysis, were not research based.
Emerging learning technologies are much more complex than manual word processors and spreadsheets. They must effectively engage the student mind. Each student has unique of learning attributes and style. Sophisticated and easy to use component-based authoring systems are needed so teacher-experts can author-assemble their own courseware. These authoring products must be research based, just multimedia assembly programs.
Federal government has the national mandate to support research. It invests $75 billion in R&D each year to support our economy and our way of life. Departments and agencies currently active in learning research are Commerce, Education, NASA, Energy, Labor, Aviation, NSF, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, DARPA and DOD Educational Agency. Comprehensive research is needed over all the known parameters to develop a complete set of instructional engineering tools. Like the NACA 1920's program for airfoils or the current human Genome project, government has played a decisive role in developing the basic tools for emerging industries. It seems prudent to allocate at least 1.3% or $1 billion a year to the study of learning supported by technology.
The Air Force Research Laboratory estimates that approximately $100 million would drive ICAI toward commercialization. Half would be used to empirically identify instructional engineering principles and most of the rest would be used for additional authoring systems over a wide range of domains. Voice-based dialogue capabilities could be adapted from current commercial systems for $5 million. The many other technology areas need comparable levels of support.
Federal support for agencies, institutes and universities is needed for basic research and development tasks on object oriented courseware, advanced distributed learning techniques, tools and effectiveness. Also needed are methods to measure, diagnose, and enhance human performance, and certify competence; reengineering of education and training processes, and new learning strategies; and public and private collaboration. Better understanding of human cognition and learning is needed including how to adapt information technology to both. As this basic research bears fruit, development is needed to generate tools to create usable products.
Federal Agencies and their contractors can work together with commercial software companies to develop a range of software components and objects. Needed are catalogs and taxonomies of tasks and task scenarios; reusable application software; reusable content knowledge over multiple domains; design guides and samples; and frameworks to port software across multiple platforms. They can also develop libraries of management, content knowledge acquisition and authoring tools; interface utilities including voice recognition; intelligent browsers and intelligent translators; intelligent tutors; ICAI objects and ICAI lessons.
Commercial software companies are then positioned to license this technology and develop specific applications that serve the needs of their school district customers. Acceleration of research, development and adoption requires innovative methods including rapid prototyping, concurrent engineering and frequent cycles and testing. Assessments need to handle all variables changing at once, including formal, informal and work-place education, consuming and producing knowledge, and society and social expectations. Equity must address both access and outcomes. Scaling must allow prototypes to diffuse to national adoption.
A systems view of teachers, their education, educational systems organization, background and development level of students is critical. This brings in the third collaboration, K-12 school district stakeholders as test sites. Only within the crucible of real time learning can these software systems be developed to serve their customer. The application testing in schools will address motivated, in context and deep learning from authentic activities; metacognitive learning where students know when they have learned or not learned; collaborative learning where students learn from one another; and apprenticeship learning where students are supported (scaffolded) during learning. An example of a major initiative using this inclusive process is the ADL.
Federal: Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) The White House and Department of Defense launched the ADL initiative at a November 3rd and 4th 1997 kick-off meeting, in Washington DC. The ADL is to establish a cost-effective distributed learning environment for military services, DoD and other federal agencies with collaboration with university and business workforce needs. ALTP was invited to attend and meet with the leading edge R&D producers, product developers and user-customers of emerging learning technology.
ADL provided dramatic examples of what Arizona K-12 education can expect during Wave 3. (1) GM has put 1,000,000 pages of car repair technician manuals into a box the size of a telephone with screen but no mouse or keyboard. Just head set and mike for voice input and total multimedia output, continuously updated. (2) The DoD has taken a 5 week resident course and delivered it over the Internet. The maximum time for student completion was 25 clock hours (85% reduction in time to learn). The instructor was able to facilitate the learning of 200 students, vs. 30 maximum with the normal class room method. (3) The military has reviewed 30,000 training courses from all services and landed on 800 that will be recast as Internet-Web based courses. The investment will be in the range from $100,000 to $1,000,000 per course. With a $15 billion training budget, we can assume costs will be radically reduced. (4) A high level consortium is developing the specification and prototypes of the Instructional Management System as part of the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. This system may become the standard for Internet-based education.
ADL breakout groups include Content Advocacy, Business Market, Technical Solutions and Research Priorities. ALTP is chairing the Technology Management sub group of the Business Market group.
State R&D: Success for this final push requires a national vision and commitment. An Arizona vision and commitment could be a first step and a vital step. States like Florida have funded their universities and research institutes to develop learning technology systems for their schools. Arizona could be in the vanguard through K-12 schools collaboration with emerging learning technology R&D projects. We would realize multiple payoffs for our children, workplace, citizens and economy.
If Arizona could be in the vanguard of effectively using the emerging technology in our K-12 schools there would be multiple payoffs for our children, workplace, citizens and economy. There is also potential for major economic development.
Creating a Learning Technology Industry Cluster
Four factors will facilitate K-12 adoption of emerging technology:
The last is both a difficult problem and a golden opportunity.
Software Opportunity: Commercial companies need to exploit the only source of research: federally funded programs. Over the past eight years, aggressive government R&D commercialization programs have had limited success using devices such as CREDA's. One of many examples of market pull has been a $billion success. Netscape has acquired the research, technology and people from University of Illinois. Through a unique economic development system that combines all elements, Arizona may have a better system. GSPED has experienced vehicles for bringing developers, marketers, funding sources, customers and R&D technologists together to capitalize on this opportunity. The stakeholders within ALTP, a partnership of GSPED, could organize around the GSPED cluster and foundation concept to create a Learning Technology Economic Cluster.
Arizona Assets: Arizona has an accessible customer base to participate in design and development testing. The Arizona Software Association has 300 members, the Center for Software Excellence is active in Tucson with 160 members, and there are over 1400 software companies in the state. Many learning technology based organizations operate in Arizona. Examples include Learning Edge, Jostens Learning, EMG (part of Viacom), Evans Newton, Academic Research and Technologies, Mindplay, Air Force Research Laboratory (Armstrong), our universities, Assessment Technology, Bull, Intel, Motorola, Allied Signal, AG Communications, Emsquare, and Novanet.
NIST-ATP: US Department of Commerce's NIST is launching an Advanced Technology Program (ATP) in the area of learning technology. The ATP program funds private companies in consortiums with universities and national laboratory researchers to commercialize emerging technologies. The RFP should be out in March of 1998. A typical ATP program is $15 million each year for three years. ALTP hosted a region workshop in Arizona on October 23, 1997. Working with NIST, Arizona could not only be a leader in adopting learning technology for K-12 education, but become a globally competitive leader with a Learning Technology economic cluster.
Arizona Benefits
Successful adoption of emerging technology in Arizona K-12 education promises to move our failing students to C category, our C students to A level and our A students to some unimaginably high plane of achievement and consciousness. Successful adoption of emerging technology in the rest of the Arizona community will move workforce development and life span learning from rhetoric to worldwide work opportunities. We also have the opportunity to take industry leadership with the Arizona Learning Technology economic cluster of globally competitive companies. This innovation-transformation process works do to inclusion of all stakeholders under the umbrella of the ALTP statewide strategic plan for learning technology.
References: