Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
CENTER FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
2004 FACULTY FELLOWSHIP
APPLICATION FORM
Name
Campus Address
Campus Phone
Email
School
Department
Title of Proposal
Grant Amount Requested
Disciplines Involved
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
101B ANSC, MC – 0281
740-3948
lmiller@usc.edu
Annenberg School for Communication
School of Communication
Socially Optimized Learning in Virtual Environments (SOLVE)
$49,000
Psychology, Communication, Engineering, Linguistics, Education
List all key faculty involved:
Name
1.
Stephen J. Read, Ph.D.
Department
i-SOLVE Co-PI; Professor, Department of Psychology, USC
2.
Lewis Johnson, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE Co-PI; Research Associate Professor of Computer
Science and Director of the Center for Advanced Research
and Technology for Education, ISI, USC
Professor; Linguistics/Psychology, USC
3.
Elaine Anderson, Ph.D.
4.
Eva Baker, Ph.D.
5.
Randy Bennett, Ph.D.
6.
Gregory Chung, Ph.D.
Professor, Co-Director, National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST);
Education (UCLA)
Distinguished Presidential Appointee; Director of Strategic
Planning, Educational Testing Service (ETS)
CRESST/Education (UCLA)
7.
Michael Cody, Ph.D.
Professor, Communication, USC
8.
JoAnn Farver, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Psychology, USC
9.
Alexander Francois, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor, IMSC, USC
10.
John Gratch, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, ICT, USC
11.
Stephen Itoga, Ph.D.
12.
Patrick Kyllonen, Ph.D.
Professor, Chair, Dept.Information/Computer Science (U. of
Hawaii at Manoa)
Educational Testing Service (ETS)
13.
Chris Kyriakakis, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, IMSC, USC
14.
Pat Langley, Ph.D.
Research Professor, Symbolic Systems, (Stanford)
15.
Kwan Lee, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Communication
16.
Debra Lieberman, Ph.D.
Research Associate Professor, Communication (UCSB)
See attached list for additional
i-SOLVE faculty and collaborators (continued)
__________________________________
________________________________
Applicant’s Signature
Director of the School of Communication, Signature
Date
Geoff Cowan, Annenberg School for Communication
________________________________
Dean’s Signature
1
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
List all key faculty involved:
Name
17. Mark Lepper, Ph.D.
Department
Professor and Chair, Psychology (Stanford)
18.
Stacy Marsella, Ph.D.
Information Sciences Institute, USC
19.
Richard Mayer, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology (UCSB)
20.
Margaret McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Professor, Communication, USC
21.
Shrikanth Narayanan, Ph.D.
22.
Harry O’Neil, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Electrical Engineering, IMSC,
Linguistics, USC
Professor, Education, USC
23.
Ute Ritterfeld, Ph.D.
Research Associate Professor, Communication, USC
24.
Ken Sereno, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Communication, USC
25.
Cyrus Shahabi, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor, Engineering/IMSC, USC
26.
Stacy Smith, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Communication, USC
27.
Lazar Stankov, Ph.D.
Educational Testing Service (ETS)
28.
Michael VanLent, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor, ICT, USC
29.
Terry Vendlinski, Ph.D.
CRESST, Education (UCLA)
30.
Hannes Vilhjalmsson, Ph.D.
ISI,USC
31.
Peter Vorderer, Ph.D.
Professor, Communication, USC
32.
Barbara White, Ph.D.
Professor, Education (UC, Berkeley)
33.
Wee Ling Wong, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor, IMSC, USC
2
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
This past fall, a collaborative group of over 30 researchers at USC (IMSC, ICT, ISI, Annenberg School,
Psychology, Linguistics, and Education), UCLA, Educational Testing Service, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Barbara, and U of Hawaii Manoa submitted a proposal (see Appendix) entitled “Institute for Socially Optimized
Learning in Virtual Environments (i-SOLVE) to NSF for a Science of Learning Center (SLC). NSF Panel reviewers
felt that "if the goals of the proposals are fulfilled, the result would be a major pedagogical achievement, reaching large
numbers of diverse populations of students" and "there was a strong team with good synergy between the research
groups and the Annenberg [School]." Reviewers pointed to the need for additional integration and work (on our part)
to allay fears that a center of this scope was premature. The PI of that SLC effort will use the Provost’s fellowship to
lay the groundwork for a resubmission for the next SLC competition (May, 2005) and to facilitate the procurement of
center-related interdisciplinary grants among center faculty and with corporate collaborators. She will also facilitate
the development of center intellectual exchanges to advance the goals of the center and its future NSF competitiveness.
Interdisciplinary Nature of the Problem and Its Importance
Recently, a committee of the National Research Council identified one of four areas where research in the Science
of Learning was critically needed. They argued that “there is no commonly accepted unifying theory [of motivation],
nor a systematic application of what is known to educational practice… It is recommended that research be conducted
to elucidate how student interests, identities, self-knowledge, self-regulation, and emotion interact with cognitive
competence”[1]. An understanding is, in fact, emerging regarding the complex psychological factors that impact
intrinsic motivation, engagement, and deeper learning ([2]). A growing body of work points to the role of a host of
skills (e.g., communication skills, meta-cognitive skills, problem solving skills) [3] and beliefs (e.g., about the nature
of ability) in enhancing motivation and deeper learning [4]. Some of these (e.g., beliefs in the malleable nature of
ability) may bolster motivation in the face of social threats such as stereotype threats for girls and children of color [5].
But, how do we engage and maintain children’s attention so that they learn these skills and stay engaged in learning?
Children are intrinsically motivated in games and simulations [6] and respond well to some types of one on one
tutoring and social engagement in learning with others [7]. And, we know that the optimal state for engagement and
learning is one in which children are challenged, but not bored – and not too overwhelmed. What if we could build
tomorrow's immersive worlds where learning is embedded in a fun adventure? Where the technology was sensitive to
the needs of the child, monitored that, and enhanced the responsiveness of the world to enhance learning? What if this
was all happening automatically, for example, on a mission with virtual and real other children and intelligent agents in
game-like immersive worlds? That’s part of the futuristic vision of i-SOLVE.
3
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
First, there is considerable agreement that games and simulations are likely to be part of our educational future
landscape [6]. But, we need to better understand why computer games are (sometimes) motivating, so that we can
draw lessons for learning system design. That is why one of the areas of i-SOLVE, called Entertainment Education
(EE) will study how narrative structure, immersion, and interactivity all contribute to motivation and engagement.
Another emphasis of our proposed research is on the social mechanisms for providing scaffolding and
feedback, i.e., from teachers, tutors, and peers, drawing on research in how such interaction promotes learner
motivation [7]. We plan to make extensive use of intelligent agents for this purpose; their “personalities,” cultural
attributes, and behaviors can be carefully tailored and controlled so as to optimize scaffolding for each learner, and
they fit naturally into virtual environments as guides and other non-player characters. This research will deepen our
understanding of social processes in learner motivation and deep learning. Work in the Socio-Cognitive
Responsiveness Group (SCR) will focus on the development of these responsive and challenging agents. Work in the
Socially Engaging Agents (SEA) group will focus on creating realistic agents that children will interact with who
resemble a range of potential personalities with realistic emotions from whom they may learn a variety of skills and
competencies relevant to engagement and deeper learning.
Finally, our vision depends critically upon learner modeling and cognitive and motivational assessment methods
suitable for interactive virtual environments that measure deep learning as well as affect, motivation, and other
characteristics. These will enable teachers, parents, and learners to track learner progress, and will enable the learning
environments to adapt and respond appropriately in real time. They will enable teachers to make most effective use of
socially engaging virtual environments to meet their curriculum objectives. These techniques will be developed in the
Cognitive and Socio-Affective Assessment Group (CSAA).
A major overarching goal of i-SOLVE is to develop a systematic, testable theory of motivation and learning that
builds upon this research, and that affords a technology-enabled real-time test-bed for testing these system links and
parameters and their integration, as depicted in Figure 1 (below). The implementation of this vision requires extensive
collaborations across a range of disciplines (Communication, Education, Linguistics, Psychology, and Computer
Science and Engineering). These connections (and collaborations) have been established (many are of long standing).
Nature of the Interdisciplinary Research
The Learning Federation Roadmap[6], based on extensive reviews and interviews with researchers, argues for
the critical need to understand the basic science that affords the technology for enhancing learning in effective tutoring
systems, and in virtual and gaming environments. We concur and have devised a working conceptual framework
4
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
(Figure 1) to guide our research in advancing these technologies (Green Research Areas) and the science of learning.
Four major factors, gleaned from a considerable body of research, appear to play important roles in children’s
declining intrinsic motivation with years in school [2]. For each we consider what technology could do to help. First,
there is a decline in the control and autonomy granted to the child generally, and especially at the time that their desire
for control and autonomy increases in the transition period into junior high. Technology could scaffold students in
subtle ways through environmental manipulation so that they feel more control and access, which should enhance
their motivation, engagement, and learning. Second, there is an increasing tendency to present material in a
decontextualized, abstract fashion, separated from the uses to which it is put in the “real” world. Virtual worlds,
including games, virtual and real social others, and inquiry tools can contextualize learning and make it clear how
learning affords the achievement of a larger goal important to the child. Third, there is an increasing tendency for
teachers and the school system today to focus on performance goals (e.g., high grades, high test scores) and to use
competitive activities and normative comparisons (“which child is doing best“). Stressing the latter goals, rather than
mastering the material, leads to large decreases in students’ interest in math [8]. Virtual worlds can manipulate, test,
and tune alternative strategies for enhancing student interest and motivation. (4) There may be
decreases in the level of challenge of the tasks being learned in school. Moreover, it may be that because of changes in
the organization of the system and the increasing depersonalization, it is increasingly difficult for teachers to provide
individualized instruction and attention, and tune the level of challenge. Technology could provide tailored, real-time,
responsive feedback that challenges students and do so in subtle ways, tuned to the child. Technology-assisted virtual
worlds, in short, could provide solutions to each of these problems to aid teachers, parents, and other educators in
keeping our children motivated, engaged, and learning.
The center proposes a series of projects over a ten year period to enhance student intrinsic motivation and
engagement in learning using technological interfaces in four work areas (in green) suggested in Figure 1. These
interfaces, would: (1) monitor children’s “real-time” cognitive representations and generate assessments for use by
teachers, learners, parents, as well as by other learning technologies, (2) measure children’s changing motivational and
emotional state and integrate cognitive and conative models to most effectively enhance individual motivation and
learning outcomes, (3) afford engaging personified social agents that support modeling, social engagement,
collaborative learning and skill development, and (4) afford immersive interactive virtual game environments
supporting collaborative interactions with real and virtual others in which learning is and remains engaging, monitored,
and supported via responsive technologies. Research in each of these areas will greatly expand the science of learning
5
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
across diverse interdisciplinary boundaries. For example, work on the entertainment experience is focused on
systematically manipulating a variety of factors (interactivity, narrativity, presence, game logic, etc.) and studying how
these factors impact attention to and engagement in the content domain that then impacts deeper learning. Expertise in
game logic and design, engineering, communication and media studies, and psychology (as well as industry
experience) will be brought to bear in these projects.
Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework for Socially Optimized Learning in Virtual Environments
This fusion of engineering and social science interdisciplinary efforts to accomplish specific sub-goals of the center
can be found in every major division of the center grant. In addition, a major goal of i-SOLVE is to develop a
systematic, testable theory of motivation and learning that builds upon this research, and that affords a technology-enabled real-time test-bed for testing these system links and parameters, as depicted in Figure 1. This will also provide
the elements for integrating these components into increasingly responsive social worlds for learning.
Proposed Work Plan and Products
To advance i-SOLVE and its chances of success in future NSF competitions (the major product is the NSF
6
Lynn Carol Miller, Ph.D.
i-SOLVE
resubmission in 2005), the PI will: a) engage center faculty at least monthly in fostering intellectual exchanges for
reviewing, rethinking, and rewriting the proposal, b) discuss critical research that could be undertaken now to
strengthen i-SOLVE’s chances in the next competition, c) assist center faculty and collaborators in developing
proposals for and securing funds for that research that would advance i-SOLVE, d) seek input from i-SOLVE’s
advisory board regarding the proposal, e) develop an effective communication and dissemination network for
intellectual exchange among center members (and for better positioning the center in the next competition), f) establish
a College-Organized Research Unit (ORU) for i-SOLVE, g) engage in discussions with relevant Deans and faculty to
enhance faculty-student collaborations and programs to advance i-SOLVE’s research goals.
References (complete 308 references in Submitted NSF i-SOLVE grant in Appendix)
(1)NationalResearchCouncil, How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. 1999, Committee on
Developments in the Science of Learning. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking, (Eds.). Commission
on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.: National Academy Press.
(2)Lepper, M.R. and Henderlong, J., Turning "play" into "work" and "work" into "play": 25 years of research on
intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation., in Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation
and performance, J.M. Harackiewicz, Editor. 2000, Academic Press: San Diego. p. 257-307.
(3) White, B., & Frederiksen, J., Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students.
Cognition and Instruction, 1998. 16(1): p. 3-117.
(4) Dweck, C.S., Self-theories and goals: their role in motivation, personalty, and development. 1999, Philadelphia,
PA: Taylor & Francis/Psychology Press.
(5) Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C., Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college
students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2002. 38: p. 113-125.
(6) Federation, L., Learning Federation's Learning Science and Technology R&D Roadmap. 2003.
(7) Lepper, M.R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J., Motivational techniques of expert human tutors. In
Computers as cognitive tools, S.P.L.S.J. Derry, Editor. 1993, Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
(8) Anderman, E., Eccles, J., Yoon, K., Roeser, R., Wigfield, A., & Blumenfield, P, Learning to value mathematics
and reading: Relations to mastery and performance-oriented instructional practices. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 2001. 26: p. 76-95.
Interdisciplinary Innovation fund Grant
7