Program Announcement: Education Technology CFDA 84.305A

Program Officers:
Dr. Jonathan Levy
Jonathan.Levy@ed.gov
(202) 219-2096

Purpose

Through its Education Technology research grants program, the Institute intends to support research on education technology tools that are designed to provide or support instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, or science (including pre-reading, pre-writing, early mathematics, and early science) or to provide professional development for teachers related to instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, or science. The Institute intends to contribute to improvement of reading, writing, mathematics, and science learning by (1) developing innovative education technology tools intended to improve reading, writing, mathematics, science, or general study skills; (2) evaluating fully developed education technology tools intended to improve reading, writing, mathematics, science, or general study skills through efficacy or replication trials; (3) evaluating the effectiveness of fully developed education technology tools intended to improve reading, writing, mathematics, science, or general study skills that are implemented at scale; and (4) developing and/or validating assessments that use education technology and that can be used in instructional settings.

The long-term outcome of this program will be an array of education technology tools that have been documented to be effective for improving reading, writing, mathematics, and science achievement.

Background

Too many U.S. students are not becoming proficient in basic academic knowledge and skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and science. For example, on the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 33 percent of fourth-graders and 26 percent of eighth-graders cannot read at the basic level; and on the 2005 NAEP 27 percent of twelfth-graders cannot read at the basic level. That is, when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words, they cannot understand what they have read. A similar picture emerges in the development of writing skills. According to the 2002 NAEP writing assessment 14 percent of fourth-graders cannot write at the basic level, 15 percent of eighth-graders cannot write at the basic level, and 26 percent of twelfth-graders cannot write at the basic level. On the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 14 percent of adults demonstrated no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills. These adults are able to sign their names and can locate information in short prose texts, but are unable to read and understand material presented in pamphlets or newspaper articles. Another 29 percent of the adult population demonstrated basic prose literacy skills, but could not perform moderately challenging literacy activities, such as summarizing a text. Given the increasing need for literacy in the workplace (Barton 2000), it is unsurprising that more than half of adults with below basic literacy levels are unemployed. In addition, adults with a basic mastery of prose literacy skills also confront challenges in the workplace. Approximately 38 percent of those individuals are currently unemployed.

In mathematics and science, large numbers of U.S. students continue to score below the basic level. In the 2007 NAEP, 18 percent of fourth-graders and 29 percent of eighth-graders scored below the basic level in mathematics. On the 2005 NAEP, the most recent assessment of twelfth-graders, 39 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the basic level. At grade 4 scoring below the basic level means that the student is likely to miss problems such as using a ruler to find the total length of three line segments. At grade 12 scoring below the basic level means that the student is unlikely to be able to solve problems such as finding the perimeter of a figure. In science, on the 2005 NAEP, 32 percent of fourth-graders, 41 percent of eighth-graders, and 46 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the basic level in science. At grade 4, students performing below the basic level are likely to miss problems such using a data table to determine which day has the most daylight. At grade 12, students performing below the basic level are likely to miss problems such as graphing the populations of two species. In mathematics and science, low levels of achievement are more likely among minority groups and students from low-income backgrounds.

Under the Institute's Education Technology research program, researchers are invited to propose rigorous research projects to develop and evaluate innovative education technology tools or evaluate existing education technology products that are intended (a) to improve student outcomes in reading, pre-reading, writing, pre-writing, mathematics, or science skills from prekindergarten through high school; (b) to teach basic reading, writing, mathematics, or study skills at the postsecondary level, including vocational education and adult education; and (c) to provide teacher professional development relevant to reading, writing, mathematics, or science from prekindergarten through high school or to basic reading, writing, or mathematics instruction for adults.

Researchers may choose to develop innovative technology that is intended (a) to provide or support instruction to students (e.g., intelligent tutors, online courses for advanced high school science and mathematics courses), (b) to deliver professional development for teachers, or (c) to assess student learning. Through this program, the Institute will also support research to evaluate the impact of such products to determine if they actually achieve their intended goals and can improve student outcomes. The Institute encourages proposals to develop and validate education technology measurement tools to be used for instructional purposes (e.g., progress monitoring). Through the Education Technology program, the Institute is interested in proposals to develop and evaluate new products, as well as proposals to evaluate the effects of existing products (including commercially available products) on relevant student outcomes (e.g., reading or mathematics achievement). The Institute encourages applicants to read its report on the evaluation of education technology products.¹

Competitive applications will have a strong rationale for the developmental appropriateness of the product's user-interface design for the targeted students as well as a strong theoretical, pedagogical, and empirical justification for the scope and sequence of the content. The Institute strongly encourages applicants interested in applying to this program to assemble research teams that collectively have expertise in the development of advanced technology (e.g., with artificial intelligence capabilities), instructional design, the targeted content domain (e.g., reading, mathematics), and implementation of rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental program evaluations.

References

Barton, P. E. (2000). What jobs require: Literacy, education, and training, 1940-2006. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service.