Jim Jenkins asks about how attribution and copyright works when you copy resources from one system to another. In Send2Wiki we address this by embedding it in the database. In eNLVM we track the source and attribute it in a status bar along the bottom.

This vision of providing tools for teachers to create online content is similar to what I envisioned for my dissertation work which led to the eNLVM. My eyes were soon opened to the fact that most teachers do not have the time or skill to create online content, especially from scratch. I suggested to Turadg that if he wanted to encourage better and more problem submissions that they could provide example problems from which teachers could base similar problems. I also pointed out that there is already a massive supply of math problems in textbooks that could be tapped. He and others present mentioned concerns about copyright. To me, this is not a problem. By looking at a math problem you can extract the essence of the problem or it’s “problem type” and use that to easily generate many more of the same type of problem with different cover stories and values. Of course, until you solve a problem it can be difficult to know that the problem has similar solution structure as another. This is the basis for a project I would like to do some day: a library of math problem generators coupled with math test generators that leverage the problem generators and their alignments with standards and textbooks.

Ido presented a study that measured metacognition, specifically help seeking behavior. He began by flaming simple recall as a learning outcome, showing the example of the YouTube video of the child who can point to the names of the countries that her parents name. He did this probably because a PostDoc sitting in the presentation focuses on fact learning (Chinese). Ido’s study compared a new measure to the “assistment” measure used by Carnegie Learning’s tutors as predictors of learning. It seems to me that they pretty much measured the same things, and both are somewhat good predictors of learning.

This is an interesting area. Information seeking is a metacognitive skill: knowing when you know enough to proceed and when you don’t. Having the will to not take the lazy out when you know enough. Knowing where to go to find information you need. The picture is actually much more complex than this. When you are first learning something, or solving a novel problem, it is expected that you would need more information. Better problem solvers and learners recognize this and seek the needed information effectively. As you learn more in an area, you don’t need as much help and so you should stop relying on it. In a situation where making a wrong decision could cause someone to die, the good problem solver relies on additional sources to verify that what they think is a good decision is actually one .

Measuring information seeking behavior is an important way to measure problem solving ability. Unfortunately, school, and even worse, school testing situations, are very unnatural problem solving situations where information seeking behavior is called cheating

Summary

• Searching and Publishing – People come to the MTDL to find and share resources
• Overcoming Isolation – People come to the MTDL to help overcome isolation
• Discuss Development – Talk with others about the development of math software

Personas

• Teacher Developer
• Professional Developer
• Educational Researcher
• Inexperienced Developer
• Hobbyist Developer

Metaphor and Principles

• Workshop metaphor
• Design for multiple roles
• Design for multiple levels of expertise
• Provide activity indicators

I like the workshop metaphor, though I think that perhaps there are better. I can’t really discern the implication of designing for different roles and different levels of expertise. I lilke the idea of activity indicators. I realize that this is an area of recent interest throughout the field.

Of course, like life is, I’m not any less busy now that I’ve defended. The only difference is that I now have 8 projects all more or less equally competing for my time instead of having one obvious first priority.

What are your thoughts as a teacher? Which would rather have, a prepared lesson (not a description of a lesson, but the actual materials to use such as black line masters, manipulatives etc), or a catalogue of pieces (e.g. CDs full of clip art, handouts, and worksheets) from which you can assemble lessons?

Does your answer change if we are talking about web based lessons that can be easily adapted?

• User interface design � What are the principles and processes can be followed when designing user interfaces to increase their usability?
• User centered design / action research / design research � What processes can be followed to put developers in contact with users to efficiently gather data to inform their designs?
• Cross platform issues � What are the common problems that developers encounter when trying to develop mathlets for multiple platforms? What are the ways that developers often approach these problems?
• Authoring tools for teachers � What are the functionalities and characteristics of authoring tools that are accessible by teachers?
• Free and open software � What are the different options available for licensing software to and from others? What are the business models that the various licensing support?
• Software reuse � What is out there that can be reused? What do mathlet developers want to be able to reuse? Where can I find software that I can reuse? If I want to provide software that can be reused, what issues should I consider?
• Strengths of instructional software � What are the strengths of instructional software in general and for math specifically that can be taken advantage of? (dynamic representations, linked representations, learner modeling, instructional feedback, problem sequencing, automated testing, collaboration over distances)

• ESCOT (dev, JavaDocs)
• Instructional Architect
• CreateStudio
• Create@Brown
• CourseWare
• E-Slate

I welcome pointers to additional projects like these. When I get a chance I will write reviews of each of these projects. I’m hoping to find synergy with projects like these.

CC licenses are being developed as an alternative to copyright. In the case of copyright items, if you want to copy, use publically, create derivative works, or otherwise use the item, you must contact and obtain permission from the copyright holder (with the exception of fair use exceptions).

The idea with CC is to create alternative CC symbols that have recognizeable meaning to them so people who want to use the work can do so in the ways the associated licenses allow without having to get explicit permission. Of course this does not preclude people from contacting the creator to obtain permission to use the work in ways not specified by the CC license.

If this understanding is correct, I agree with Wiley’s latest proposal, that CC-EDU be a single symbol and license that has a single meaning, so all that see the symbol could know exactly what it means without further investigation. I also agree with Wiley’s the license options that Wiley has suggested.

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but it seems that the other option is one that is currently practiced by many websites, which is to place a statement of allowed use that describes in detail how the works hosted on the website can be reused. I guess the advantage of the the CC license is that people won’t have to try to read and decypher those statements.

In TADRIOLA, teachers can share classes, lessons, or activities that they create or assemble. I give them the options provided by CC, plus some additional ones (screen capture). Then when teachers go to borrow resources, they are notified of the conditions. The point I think of the previous discussion, is it may be better to simply define one set of use conditions that all must agree to if they are to play in my sandbox, thus avoiding potential confusion. It might be interesting to gather some data.

Many thanks to my Ph.D. chair David Wiley for getting me started.

My primary interest is in completing my dissertation study titled Design Theory for Authoring Tools that Support Teacher Adaptation of Mathlets (TATSTAM).

While my wider interest is the reuse and adaptation of all kinds of interactive online resources, for the purpose of my study I have narrowed my focus to middle school math teacher reuse of mathlets.

The three areas of investigation of my dissertation study are:

• In what ways do middle school math teachers want to reuse and adapt interactive online resources?
• What barriers do middle school math teachers encounter when trying to reuse and adapt interactive online resources?
• What design guidelines support the development of authoring tools that support teacher reuse and adapt interactive online resources?

As part of the study I’m developing a web-based authoring tool called TADRIOLA. Following a slightly adultrated formative research methodology (Reigeluth & Frick, 1999) TADRIOLA is an instance of the initial version of TATSTAM that I created by synthesizing the literature and personal experience. My main deviance from “orthodox” formative research methodology was to use it to develop software design theory as opposed to instructional design theory.

A simple explanation of what I have done is:

1. Review the literature to identify ways that teacher want to reuse and adapt interactive online learning resources a well as barriers that they encounter.
2. Propose a design theory for authoring tools that support teacher reuse and adaptation of interactive online learning resources (TATSTAM).
3. Design a web-based authoring tool (TADRIOLA) that is an instance of the design theory.
4. Conduct focus groups with middle school math teachers to gain empirical evidence about teacher wants, barriers, and the “goodness” of TADRIOLA and TATSTAM.
5. Analyze data and revise TADRIOLA and TATSTAM based on the analysis of the data.
6. Repeat.

I’ve utilized a case study methodology (Yin, 1984) and analyzed data using qualitative coding methods (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

So far I’ve conducted focus groups with middle school math teachers at 6 different locations. At the first location I worked 1-on-1 with 7 teachers using questionnaires, structured interviews, and user tests. At the other groups I have worked with groups using surveys, questionnaires, group discussions, and user tests. In all I have worked with 59 middle school teachers and some 20 other types including technology specialists and college professors who teach students preparing to be math teachers.

Reigeluth, C.M., & Frick, T.W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for improving design theories. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. [PDF]

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Analyzing qualitative data: A source book for new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.