1. Visionlearning Adaptable Technology: Developing an Online Science Learning System that Grows with Experience. Anthony Carpi, Ph.D. ASTE – NE October 28, 2005

2. Visionlearning Background Science textbooks have extensive failings (Hubisz, 2002; AAAS, 2005; Roseman et al., 1999). Science textbooks have extensive failings (Hubisz, 2002; AAAS, 2005; Roseman et al., 1999). “mile wide and inch thick (Nelson, 1998).” “mile wide and inch thick (Nelson, 1998).” 59% of teachers rely on texts (Weiss, 2001). 59% of teachers rely on texts (Weiss, 2001). " Our students are lugging home heavy texts full of disconnected facts that neither educate nor motivate them. It's a credit to science teachers that their students are learning anything at all (G. Nelson, AAAS, 2000).” " Our students are lugging home heavy texts full of disconnected facts that neither educate nor motivate them. It's a credit to science teachers that their students are learning anything at all (G. Nelson, AAAS, 2000).”

3. Visionlearning Historical Perspective Historical perspective conveys science as a process (Haywood, 1927; Matthews, 1988). Historical perspective conveys science as a process (Haywood, 1927; Matthews, 1988). Most textbooks present “popular” versions of history, and avoid controversy (Brush, 1974). Most textbooks present “popular” versions of history, and avoid controversy (Brush, 1974). History of science as a process allows appreciation of controversy (Schmidt, 1996; Monk & Osborne, 1998). History of science as a process allows appreciation of controversy (Schmidt, 1996; Monk & Osborne, 1998).

4. Visionlearning Project Goals Overcome the documented deficiencies of textbooks. Overcome the documented deficiencies of textbooks. Integrate the history of discovery to show science as a process. Integrate the history of discovery to show science as a process. Integrate multiple learning tools to accommodate different learning styles. Integrate multiple learning tools to accommodate different learning styles. Empower instructors to tailor curriculum to individual needs. Empower instructors to tailor curriculum to individual needs.

5. Visionlearning Project History & Evaluation 1998 – Prototype 1 st Evaluation 1998 – Prototype 1 st Evaluation 2000 – Visionlearning 1.02 nd Evaluation 2000 – Visionlearning 1.02 nd Evaluation 2002 – Visionlearning 2.03 rd Evaluation 2002 – Visionlearning 2.03 rd Evaluation 2005 – Visionlearning 3.04 th Evaluation 2005 – Visionlearning 3.04 th Evaluation

6. Visionlearning Site Resources http://www.visionlearning.com/library http://www.visionlearning.com/libraryhttp://www.visionlearning.com/library

7. Visionlearning Quantitative Evaluation Student Comprehension Scores in 7 course sections (n = 423) Group 1: Sections Using Visionlearning Group 2: Sections Using Textbook Quiz Score by Section ± 95% CI 77 ± 3 76 ± 4 78 ± 3 62 ± 5 61 ± 3 66 ± 5 63 ± 4 Mean 77 ± 2 63 ± 2

8. Visionlearning Customization

9. Full Customization

10. Visionlearning Acknowledgements National Science Foundation, DUE, EMD grants. National Science Foundation, DUE, EMD grants. Information http://www.visionlearning.com http://www.visionlearning.comhttp://www.visionlearning.com Anthony Carpi - acarpi@jjay.cuny.edu Anthony Carpi - acarpi@jjay.cuny.eduacarpi@jjay.cuny.edu