Grantee Meeting Cognition and Student Learning 2010 IES Research Conference Carol O

1
Grantee MeetingCognition and Student Learning
2010 IES Research Conference Carol
ODonnellProgram Officer
2
Agenda for Grantee Meeting (130 135)

• 135 145 Introductions (and important note re
  2011 IES conference)
• 145 215 State of the CASL Portfolio
• Statistics
• Highlights
• Trends and Gaps
• 215 245 Discussion Groups Making Findings
  Relevant
• 245 315 Report Out Making Research Relevant
• 315 400 Research Issues Solutions
• 400 430 Grant Monitoring Tips (Refresher
  for New Grantees)
• Grants Administration
• Website
• New Funding Opportunities

3
Introductions (135 145)

• Note about 2011 IES Conference size is
  increasing, need program committee to conduct
  peer review of papers, panels, poster grantee
  meetings will piggyback off of SREE conference.
• See list of grantees (handout) and posters (pp
  105 115)
• Rapid Introductionsput a face to a name
• Name
• University
• Goal (Exploration, Develop., Efficacy,
  Measurement)
• Area of study

4
State of the CASL Portfolio (145 215)

• Purpose of CASL Program
• Portfolio Statistics
• CASL Highlights
• Trends and Gaps in the CASL Portfolio

5
Purpose of CASL Program

• To establish a scientific foundation for
  education by building on the theoretical and
  empirical advances of cognitive science and
  applying them to education practice with the goal
  of improving student learning and academic
  achievement.

6
Portfolio Statistics
7
Number of CASL Awards (2002-2010)
From FY02-FY10 IES funded 78 CASL research
projects, averaging 9 grant awards per year.
Funding rate ( awards / responsive apps)
average around 10-12 but will drop as the number
of applications increases.
8
Content CASL Studies (2002-2010)
Majority of CASL projects focus on math or
science, the primary areas of need identified by
Bob Bjork in his 2002 address to the IES staff.
Fewer focus on reading or writing. Study skills
are often contextualized within a domain. Some
projects overlap domains.
9
Age of Participants in CASL (2002-2010)
of apps for college students alone dropped to
0 in FY09 many pre-K apply to Early Childhood
Program.
10
Number of Funded CASL Projects Per Goal
(2002-2010)
11
CASL Highlights(see highlights handout)
12
CASL Highlights

• More than 20 CASL projects were highlighted in
  the IES Internal Weekly Report and IES Online
  Newsletter this past year.
• More than 18 articles with positive findings were
  submitted to the Commissioner for our IES
  management goals.
• See the attached sheet for some examples.
• Thank you to those who send their publications to
  me at the time of their publication (not in
  press).

13

• Findings from 38 separate CASL projects were
  highlighted in ten accepted symposia presented at
  the Association for Psychological Science 2009
  and 2010 annual conventions. Symposia topics
  included
• Developing students mental models using animated
  pedagogical agents.
• Learning from concrete and abstract
  representations.
• Test-enhanced learning, spacing, and
  retrieval-feedback-monitoring.
• Self-regulated learning.
• Fundamental understanding of mathematics.
• Conducting RCTs of attention interventions in
  school settings.
• Argumentation for critical thinking.
• Problem solving in schools.
• Neurocognitive functions underlying academic
  achievement.
• Perceptual characteristics and concept mastery.

14

• 12 CASL grantees contributed to a compendium,
  Handbook of Metacognition in Education (2009),
  which provides comprehensive coverage of the
  theoretical basis of metacognition and its
  applications to educational practice.
  Contributors include CASL grantees
• John Dunlosky (editor)
• Arthur C. Graesser (editor)
• Margaret McKeowen
• Danielle McNamara
• Joe Magliano
• Keith Thiede
• Thomas Griffin
• Jenny Wiley
• Joshua Redford
• Barry Zimmerman
• Adam Moylan
• Janet Metcalfe

15

• National honors bestowed upon two CASL grantees
• David Klahr honored by the 37th Carnegie
  Symposium on Cognition for his lifetime of
  scientific and education contributions to
  cognitive development, scientific discovery, and
  reasoning.
• Katherine Rawson received the 2009 Presidential
  Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers
  for her research on improving the comprehension
  of text and on helping students self-regulate
  their learning. Nicole McNeil won this
  prestigious honor last year.
• CASL findings highlighted in national education
  news outlets and publications
• Education Week reported on three CASL studies
  focused on argumentation (Britt, Kuhn, and
  Anderson) and one focused on test-enhance
  learning (Roediger).
• The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the
  findings of CASL PI Henry Roedigers work, which
  confirmed that frequently quizzing students on
  reading material helps them retain what they have
  learned.
• Rohrer and Pashlers review of experimental
  studies on optimal instructional strategies
  published in Educational Researcher.

16
Trends and Gaps in the CASL Portfolio(see chart
handout)
17
(No Transcript)
18
Trends and GAPS in CASL Portfolio

• Attention addressed in earlier grades (Neville,
  Steiner, Hooper, Rabiner), but not in middle or
  high school.
• Perception studied in all grades (Cottrell, Mix,
  Siegler, Sloutsky, Uttal, Goldstone, Kellman,
  Alibali, Whitten, Novick, Puntambekar, Pavlick),
  but limited to Goal 2 with one exception
  (Pasnakefficacy of patterning).
• Memoryincluding retrieval, learning, and general
  conception and misconceptionand optimal
  conditions of learning are the most
  comprehensively addressed in the portfolio all
  grades and all Goals (Russell, Ward, Pashler,
  Rawson, Heckler, Metcalfe, Bjork, Roediger,
  Delaney-Black, Millis, Anderson, Blair, Aronson,
  Biswas, Thiede, Wiley, Zimmerman, Dunlosky).

19
Trends and GAPS in CASL Portfolio

• Language studied predominantly in the early
  grades (Anthony, Mostow, Connor, Hooper, and
  Glenberg), with one in middle grades (McCutchen).
  None in high school.
• Problem solving covers all grades in Math and
  Science but mostly Goal 2 (Whitten, Swanson,
  Star, Sternberg, Beal, Bottge, Booth, McNeil,
  Ward, Ross, Rabinowitz).
• Argumentation and reasoning (including scientific
  and mathematical) are well-represented (Katz,
  Klahr, Lorch, Anderson, Kuhn, Gholson, Holyoak,
  Rips, Britt), but there are no CASL studies of
  reasoning in the earlier grades.
• Bigger gaps exist within teacher cognition
  (Alibali) and social cognition / goal orientation
  (Dweck, Aronson, Mangels, Beilock).

20
215 245 Discussion Groups Making Findings
Relevant(suggested division into Groups 1-7)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Classroom Scenario Group Discussion

• The previous list of Trends and Gaps in the CASL
  portfolio represents a series of interdependent
  cognitive processes involved in making sense of
  new information within the education
  settingattention, perception, memory and
  learning, language, problem solving,
  argumentation, and reasoning.
• At a practical level, all of the processes and
  structures of the cognitive system are
  interdependent and influenced by both the
  environment and by student characteristics.
• Review the list of select CASL findings
  highlighted on handout.
• Read the scenario, which attempts to demonstrate
  the complexity of what a teacher and student
  might consider if the findings from CASL were
  implemented into one school day.

23
Classroom Scenario Group Discussion

• Knowing your own findings and those highlighted,
  discuss the following
• What trends exist in the CASL portfolio that can
  cohesively inform a teachers instructional
  practice, development of instructional materials,
  and students study skills?
• What gaps are missing? For example, while the
  CASL portfolio has several studies using
  artificial intelligence (Millis, Ward Cole,
  etc) which involve constructing computer systems
  that produce intelligent outcomes, there are
  fewer CASL studies of computational modeling,
  which involves programming computers to model or
  mimic some aspect of human cognitive functioning
  (Anderson, Katz). Other gaps include teacher
  cognition social cognition.
• How can CASL researchers continue to contribute
  to the development and testing of basic theory
  (e.g., neuro-education) yet make research
  questions relevant to education settings?
• How can we ensure CASL exploratory studies are
  methodological rigorous yet ecologically valid
  and lead to the development of feasible education
  interventions?

24
245 315 Report Out As you report out your
groups discussion of the 4 questions, consider
how we might move forward by making Research
relevant.
25
Problems and Solutions (315 400)Continue our
Discussion of Last Years Topics

• Methodological Issues (measurement challenges,
  observational techniques, translating laboratory
  research to the classroomeffect size reduction
  from lab to school JREE)
• Logistical Issues (obtaining preK-12 samples
  reducing attrition maintaining school
  collaboration ensuring feasibility fidelity of
  implementation)
• Dissemination Issues (getting research into the
  hands of practitioners, sustaining the
  intervention after the grant ends)
• Future Grant Issues (Goal 1 vs Goal 2 moving
  from a Goal 2 to 3 applying to Ed Tech vs CASL)
• Others?

26
400 430 Grant Monitoring Tips (Refresher
for New Grantees)- Grants Administration-
Website - New Funding Opportunities
27
Grants Administration
28
Using the e-grants system

• Annual Reports relationship to performance
  agreement
• Final Reports
• Requesting no-cost extensions
• Requesting other administrative changes

29
(No Transcript)
30
Annual Reports (see attached Tips Sheet)

• Cover Sheet
• Section A Project Objectives
• Section B Budget Information
• Section C Additional Information

31
Cover Sheet

• Complete online
• Remember to send original signed cover sheet to
  
• Director, Grants Administration
• US Department of Education/IES
• 555 New Jersey Ave., Room 508c
• Washington, D.C. 20208
• FAX [phone]

32
Section A Project Objectives

• Select PROJ for Measure Type. Ignore all
  other Performance Measure boxes.
• Your Performance Agreement lists your project
  objectives for each year. List each objective in
  Section A, then cut and paste text beneath each
  objective to describe how you have met it (see
  the next slide).

33
Write your objective from the performance
agreement here.
PROJ
Explanation of progress on this objective goes
here. This is often several paragraphs long.
34
Section A Project Objectives

• Describe status of all steps taken toward
  completion of your projects.
• Include details of what was done and how it was
  done.
• Describe what was completed.
• Describe any findings to date.
• Describe any work planned, but not undertaken.

35
Section B Budget Information

• Provide an explanation if you did not expend
  funds at expected rate during the reporting
  period.
• Describe any significant changes to your budget
  resulting from modification of project
  activities.
• Describe any changes to your budget that affected
  your ability to achieve your objectives.
• Include a list or table of broad categories
  (e.g., Personnel, Travel, Subcontract) that
  compares the Award Amount for the given grant
  year vs. Actual Expenses.

36
Section C Additional Information

• Attach a file the contains any additional
  information that you may want to include, such
  as
• Changes you plan to make for next year that are
  consistent with scope and objectives.
• Anticipated changes to key personnel.
• Updated curriculum vitae for proposed personnel.
• Information on the measures that will be
  developed or have been used in your study
• Unanticipated outcomes or benefits from your
  project.
• List of grant-related presentations
  publications.
• Copies of papers or posters related to the grant
  - ERIC.
• Revised/anticipated timeline for the upcoming
  year
• There is no limit as to how many pages you can
  include here, but it has to be one document.

37
Other Attachments

• Charts attach the document that contains any
  figures or charts referenced in Section A.
• Tables attach the document that contains any
  tables referenced in Section A.
• Program Specific Requirements attach your
  revised IRB Certification here.

38
Final Reports

• Due 90 days after the end of your grant award.
• Include the same types of information as in the
  Annual report, described above, but summarize the
  entire project
• Must answer the final questions (1, 2, 3).

39
Final Report Question 1

• Utilizing your evaluation results, draw
  conclusions about the success of the project and
  its impact.
• Describe any unanticipated outcomes or benefits
  from your project and any barriers you may have
  encountered.

40
Final Report Question 2

• What would you recommend as advice to other
  educators that are interested in your project?
• How did your original ideas change as a result of
  conducting this project?

41
Final Report Question 3

• If applicable, describe your plans for continuing
  the project (sustainability capacity building)
  and/or disseminating the project results.

42
Administrative Changes (see NCE handout)

• No-cost extensions (why performance agreement
  updates are important)
• Changes to key personnel

43
Using e-grants
http//e-grants.ed.gov
44
Change of Key Personnel listed on GAN upload CV
for new person
No-Cost Extension (NCE)
45
IES WebsiteNational Center for Education
Research (NCER)

• Go to
• http//ies.ed.gov/ncer

46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
To learn about other CASL grantees work, pick a
Year, Goal, or PI, then click on the project URL.
50
(No Transcript)
51
ERICEducation Resources Information
Centerhttp//ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/eric.asp
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
Acknowledgement/Disclaimer

• The research reported here was supported by the
  Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
  of Education, through Grant ltinsert grant numbergt
  to ltinsert name of university or institutiongt.
  The opinions expressed are those of the authors
  and do not represent views of the Institute or
  the U.S. Department of Education.

56
New Funding Opportunitieshttp//ies.ed.gov/ncer
/funding
57
Applications for Additional Funding

• Education Research 84.305A (June 24th, Sept
  16th deadlines)
• Training Grants 84.305B (June 24th only)
• Postdoctoral Fellowships Only
• New RD Centers 84.305C (Sept 16th only)
• National Center on Cognition and Adult Literacy
• National Center on State and Local Policy
• National Center on Postsecondary Education and
  Employment
• New RD Center 84.324C (Sept 16th only)
• National Center on Working Memory Interventions
  for Students with Disabilities

58
Cognition and Student Learning
RD Center on Cognition and Adult Literacy
RD Center on Working Memory Interventions for
Students with Disabilities
59
Wrap-up and Final QA (425 430 pm)

• Carol ODonnell
• Cognition Student Learning
• Carol.ODonnell_at_ed.gov
• 202-208-3749