Student Pairs May Be Key to Learning- Christine Malecki

CISLL affiliate Dr. Christine Malecki has a story to tell.

It starts in 1997 when Malecki was a practicing school psychologist in Iowa.

She wanted to help children learn how to write better using curriculum-based measurements (CBMs). Teachers use CBMs in their classrooms to assess students’ progress on a number of skills (reading, writing, arithmetic) fairly easily.

A CBM for writing might involve a student completing a prompt like, “One day I went for an airplane ride and…”. The teacher can score the response and keep a log of the student’s progress.

Here is where our story begins.

Malecki knew that there were different ways to score the writing CBM. A simple measure was just counting the number of words the student wrote. A more complex method would require calculating and summing scores based on grammatical accuracy or complexity (or another component of writing) across a number of words in the writing.

“The more complicated measure seemed like it would be more accurate, but it seemed cumbersome to do.” recounted Malecki.

When she joined the psychology faculty at NIU, she wondered whether the more complex scoring method was worth the effort.

Like any good scientist, she collected data. She and her graduate students timed how long it would take to score around 1,000 writing samples taken from first- through eighth-graders using both simple and complex methods.

“The more complex method took three times longer to score than the simpler method, but it only correlated more highly with standardized measures of writing for students beyond the fourth grade. Up to fourth grade, the simpler method was fine,” explained Malecki.

That finding in itself would save first- through fourth-grade teachers a lot of time grading.

But that finding wasn’t enough for Malecki.

“I remember a graduate student at the time wondering whether just having students write more often would increase writing skill,” mused Malecki. That would jibe with a lot of informal advice from professional writers—to improve your writing, just write more.

So Malecki and Jennifer Jewell, her graduate student, had students write either weekly or daily for several weeks.

Counter to the advice from professional writers, students who wrote weekly improved more than students who wrote every day.

“It was burnout. The students who wrote every day just got tired. In fact, many of them told us so in no uncertain terms in their writing samples,” laughed Malecki.

Yet the weekly writing assignment did increase writing skill, although perhaps not to the level of a professional novelist.

This gave another of Malecki’s students, Julie Alitto, an idea. Why not make a CBM assessment into an intervention? This was a fairly novel idea at the time.

So, in a new study, Alitto and Malecki had students write in one of two conditions. The practice-only condition wrote weekly in much the same way as students in the prior study. In a goal-and-feedback condition, the students were reminded about the goal to improve their writing and given feedback from their instructors.

As one might expect, giving students feedback and reminding them of their writing goals improved students’ writing skill more than just writing alone.

“We were pleased with the results, but teachers told us that it was just impractical to give feedback to each and every writing sample,” Malecki said.

Then Alitto got an idea.

Why not have students give feedback to one another?

Peer-mediated intervention (PMI) is when students give each other feedback in a structured environment.

Alitto tested the idea of using PMI to increase children’s writing skill, and her dissertation was born. In an experiment, she showed that using well-crafted worksheets, students working in pairs can give accurate feedback to their partner.

“It worked. Students’ writing improved as a function of peer-mediated intervention. I think it surprised many teachers who thought that having students grading each other was just an ‘easy way out’,’’ explained Malecki. The PMI research was published in the Journal of School Psychology by Malecki and former student Sammi Coyle, now a professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey.

In fact, peer-mediated intervention has caught on in the education community. Students learn by receiving and giving feedback, and teachers can catch up on sleep rather than grading late into the night.

“There is definitely more research to be done to understand the boundary conditions of when PMI works and when it doesn’t,” said Malecki. For example, does it work for all ages? What components of PMI are most instrumental for change? Does it promote social skills?

Her story is not over, but a provisional ending seems appropriate.

Peer-mediated intervention may very well be instrumental to the future of education, one suited for both face-to-face and online courses, especially with massively open online courses (MOOCS). As the old saying goes, “No one learns more than the teacher.”

If you are an instructor wishing to try PMI in your classroom, Malecki has four suggestions for you:

• Identify and target your skill of interest, 

• Teach the students the routine of how to assess each other, presumably by using clear worksheets or guides,

• Think about how to pair students. Having two low-skilled students assessing each other may be problematic, and 

• Monitor the students’ behavior. They need to be on task. If you are interested in learning more about PMI, Malecki and Coyle have a chapter in an upcoming book, Peers as Change Agents, published by Oxford University Press. It is due out next summer. 

 

 

 
About the author: Keith Millis is on CISLL’s executive board and is a professor of psychology at NIU.

Crossing Lines in the Sand with AR Sandboxes: Nicole LaDue

Nicole LaDue and student Justin Moore

How many years ago did you last play in a sandbox? 20 years ago? 40 years?

For NIU Geology Professor Dr. Nicole LaDue, it was about a year ago.

However, LaDue’s recent experiences with sand are likely different than yours from your childhood.

For one thing, her sandbox is called an augmented reality (AR) sandbox. In this high-tech sandbox, an Xbox Kinect is placed over the sand facing down.

The Xbox Kinect sensor detects different elevations of the sand and sends that information to a computer which processes the data. A program then computes a 3D representation of the sand underneath and then computes a 2D representation from that information.

“It essentially computes a dynamic topographic map of the sand as a person manipulates the sand with their hands” explains LaDue. “A projector sends that information back onto the sand.”

A topographic map is a 2D representation of a 3D world. It uses lines to represent boundaries of the terrain which have the same elevation.

How do topographic maps represent elevation?

Imagine slicing off the top meter of a large pyramid by making a horizontal cut perpendicular to the Earth. Now image tracing the outline of that object on a huge piece of paper when placed in the center. You would get a square, right?

Now imagine taking another slice a meter down from the top of our (mutilated) pyramid and again trace it on the paper. And then repeat this process until you reach the ground.

What you would see on the paper?

You would see a series of concentric squares.

The number of and distance between the lines would tell you about the pyramid’s height and steepness. For example, if the distances between squares become larger towards the outer perimeter then that would suggest that the pyramid becomes flatter towards the base, similar to the Eiffel Tower. If some squares are more ragged than others then that would indicate damage or corrosion.

Topographic maps usually contain wavy lines and circles that represent mountain ranges, valleys, glacial deposits, and many other landscapes. People use this type of map to navigate while they are hiking and to develop plans for building roads and buildings.

“Learning how to read topographic maps is very difficult. We call it the ‘spatial hurdle’” said LaDue. “It is a symbolic system which requires a specific type of literacy to understand them.”

Here enters the wonderful world of AR sandboxes.

According to LaDue, there are over 600 of the AR Sandboxes across the country, located in museums, academic centers and other places of learning. They are relatively cheap to make since all you need is 300 pounds of sand, an old Xbox Kinect sensor, a computer and a projector. UC Davis provides the design plans and the computer code for free online.

“The prevailing belief is that projecting the lines onto the sand as the student manipulates the sand helps the student learn how to read topological maps. However, several previous research studies failed to demonstrate any learning gains in the classroom. We were the first ones to find a strategy for engaging students that helps them learn with the AR Sandbox.” mused LaDue.

LaDue, her M.S. student Justin Moore, Tom Pingel (now at VaTech) and colleague Tim Shipley (Temple University) tested whether it was important to project the lines onto the sand or whether projecting them onto a regular computer monitor beside the sandbox would suffice. The project was funded in part by a CISLL PoP grant awarded to LaDue, and a NIU Student Engagement Fund Project awarded to Pingel.

In their experiment, participants were first measured on their topographic map reading skills by taking a modified version of the Topographic Map Assessment (TMA). Then they manipulated the sand, with or without the presence of the AR lines serving as feedback. In addition, one-half of the participants saw the lines projected onto the sand versus a monitor. Then all participants once again took the TMA.

“Most groups saw improvement on the TMA. Surprisingly, however, having the lines projected on to the monitor produced larger learning gains than when they were projected onto the sand. This was exciting to learn because in all instances of AR sandboxes that I know of, the lines are projected onto the sand” marveled LaDue.

Why would projecting the lines onto a monitor be better than projecting them onto the sand?

“Essentially, the monitor helps because it is closer to a real topographic map than having lines projected onto the sand. They are both 2D representations” said LaDue.

Their results suggest that to help students learn topographic maps, the 600 or so AR sandboxes should display the lines onto a monitor in addition to the sand. “Students are excited to play with the sand and see the lines move in real time. But learning happens when they see how the mountains they build in the sand become a topographic map on the computer screen”, said LaDue.

In essence, cool toys can get people engaged with science, but keeping the game close to the learning outcome is what will make the toys educational.

LaDue hopes to replicate the study in a classroom and with a larger sample size.

“I credit being part of an interdisciplinary team for this project” said LaDue.

So next time you are playing in a sandbox, imagine those lines. Who knows, perhaps you will learn how to read a topographic map.

Learning a Language in the Virtual Wild: Iwona Lech

Iwona Lech

Learning a new language is difficult. Especially if you are an adult.

Of course, you probably already knew that.

According to Dr. Iwona Lech, recipient of CISLL’s Outstanding Graduate Student Award (COSSA) in 2017, students are dropping out of college-level foreign language courses at an unprecedented rate.

“It’s a real problem, especially in the last five to ten years,” said Lech.

In part, this problem sparked Lech’s interest in how to increase learning and engagement in college-level foreign language courses.

“The majority of the FL programs use a “grammar + vocabulary lists” approach, in which students learn lists of words and practice grammar rules as separate systems. They are then expected to connect the two into actual speech instances,” said Lech. “Since such skills require hours and hours of practice and additional input, language learning becomes a long and tedious journey that does not fit into a culture that celebrates immediate results. Learners achieve poor results and quickly lose interest, with only few determined enough to persevere.”

She noted that in Europe, many students teach themselves English through exposure to authentic uses of the language in virtual spaces, which she refers to as the “virtual wild”.

“English learners in Europe immerse themselves in the language in virtual worlds through reading the Web, watching original movies and television shows, and listening to music and podcasts,” elaborated Lech. “They also chat with strangers who are native English speakers through games, forums, blogs, or vlogs.”

Researchers call this phenomenon OILE (online informal learning of English), and are increasingly interested in the outcomes of this type of language learning and the ways it can be implemented in classrooms. Many explain OILE’s success through its incidental character—learners decide to engage in the activities because of their interest in a show, music, or game, and are largely unaware that learning takes place. They feel relaxed, engaged, and motivated.

This positive facet of OILE appeals to Lech. She is a proponent of positive psychology, a movement within psychology that encourages researchers to focus on the more positive side of the human condition.

“If OILE is indeed able to foster positive emotions, they, in turn, have the potential to broaden and build invaluable resources for learning a language, as per Barbara Fredrickson’s ‘broad and build’ theory of positive emotions,” explained Lech. “Removing one of the most limiting experiences in learning a new language, foreign language anxiety, could be a key solution to addressing the lack of retention in FL classes. Moreover, with today’s affordances of technology we can create immersion experiences for every language learner, despite geographical borders.”

So, if OILE is effective for Europeans learning English, could a similar approach be used for Americans learning a language other than English?

Lech attempted to find out.

For her dissertation, Lech randomly placed intermediate- to advanced-level German learners in an online German “class,” in either a traditional instruction condition or one based on OILE. In the “OILL” (online informal learning of language) condition, students were asked to find, read, listen to and watch authentic German on the Web.

She gave all participants in the experiment a pre-test, and those who completed 10 hours of engagement in the study took a post-test. She also administered an ESM (Experience Sampling Method) survey during learning sessions to find out participants’ emotions in the moment.

Unfortunately, so many people dropped out of the study it is difficult to interpret the results with any confidence.

Interestingly, the dropout did not appear to be random. Of 16 participants who completed the full 10 hours of the study, 12 had been randomly assigned to the OILL condition, whereas only four had been assigned to the experimental condition.

This pattern suggests that the OILL condition was more engaging for students than the traditional method and could potentially keep three times as many learners persevering to the end of an FL class.

Lech, who left NIU in 2018, is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Language and Culture Learning Center of the University of Illinois at Chicago.

She is not done studying how to improve foreign language learning.

“I am continuing to analyze data that did not make it into my dissertation, such as measures of emotion that I collected during the duration of the study,” volunteered Lech. “I am confident we can teach languages better and increase interest in FL courses.”

A chapter by Lech that overviews her dissertation project appeared in the 2018 book, “Teaching Language and Teaching Literature in Virtual Environments,” edited by María Luisa Carrió-Pastor.