The UCI School of Education November Newsletter has just come out and members of the ISI lab make an appearances! Click here to view the full newsletter as well as get updated on the accomplishments of Dr. Connor and her colleague Dr. Vandell.
The UCI School of Education November Newsletter has just come out and members of the ISI lab make an appearances! Click here to view the full newsletter as well as get updated on the accomplishments of Dr. Connor and her colleague Dr. Vandell.
Learning Ovations, Digital Promise, the University of California, Irvine and MDRC have been awarded a U.S. Department of Education five-year Education Innovation and Research (EIR) expansion grant totaling $14.65 million for the United2Read project!
The Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and rigorously evaluate such innovations. The EIR program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions to serve substantially larger numbers of students.
Voice of Literacy Podcast
Listen to bi-weekly podcasts (available 1st and 3rd Mondays) of interviews with literacy researchers as they discuss the implications of their research. Teachers, parents, principals, and policymakers are invited to listen and discuss ways to improve literacy instruction.
Join Dr. Elizabeth A. Baker (Professor, Literacy Studies, University of Missouri) as she interviews top literacy professors, including Dr. Connor, on her podcast Voice of Literacy (VOL)!
VOL is celebrating 9 years of broadcasting interviews with top literacy researchers and the VOL podcasts have been requested nearly 2.5 million times! To celebrate the accomplishments, Season 10 (which started September 4, 2017) will feature the most requested podcasts from Seasons 3 and 4. This includes Dr, Connor’s episode titled The Using children’s literacy skills to differentiate reading comprehension instruction. Find it here!
When I enrolled in “Technology in the Classroom” as a part of my Master’s in Curriculum and Instruction the year my public school district adopted a one-to-one device program, I was hopeful. But after that first class my interior monologue went something like this: “I’m a teacher, not a technician!” “How am I supposed to meet all my students’ learning needs and use technology?” “If I don’t know how to use it, how can I expect my students to use it?” “What if…what if…what if?”
But after this self-doubt waned, I committed myself to a journey in search of answers to an important question.
“How can instructional technologies support my high school students’ learning in individualized ways?”
And in my pursuits of answers to this question, my “what ifs” of uncertainty became “what ifs” of possibility.
As a former ELA teacher in a 21st Century classroom equipped with various technologies, I learned to play many roles. Yes, I still provided direct instruction (think sage-on the-stage), but I also became a flexible technician, digital literacy coach, and writing collaborator (more like a guide-on-the-side). I came to know and use a few digital tools that helped me to better meet all my students’ learning needs. Once I recognized that some instructional technologies were making my practices more efficient (i.e., Edmodo and Polleverywhere), as well as more inclusive (i.e., Backchanneling; Krishnan & Poleon, 2013), I was ready to explore other technologies that would help me meet my students’ widely differing needs as writers.
Using my Professional Learning Network, both online and off, I started to vet the many resources available for writing instruction. Some free tools appeared engaging and student-centered but seemed to only meet the goal of using technology. Because I was focused on student learning and outcomes, I questioned how much value these tools would add. Would the time it would take to introduce the tool be worthwhile? Would it help my students’ learning in their other classes? Would they ever use the tool again?
This was not my reaction when I learned about Noodletools, a program designed by educators for supporting online research and online writing. At this point, I think it’s important to stress that online tools are only a support for evidence-based instructional practices. I must also note that it is crucial to understand each student’s digital literacy skills prior to introducing these tools into classroom practices. Through regular reading and writing tasks designed to develop students’ background knowledge and literacy skills (including digital literacy), I knew my 11th graders were ready to tackle a literature review scaffolded by Noodletools. Because this tool provides tailored scaffolding to each student’s pre-writing needs, I was empowered to encourage each student to choose a topic that aligned with their own interests, an instructional practice that supports student writing motivation (Bruning & Horn, 2010).
Noodletools’ Dashboard helps students stay organized and focused during searches for scholarly research articles and while engaging in research writing.
Users are prompted to set writing goals (i.e., “To-do items”), a practice that aligns with recommendations in IES’ Educator’s Practice Guide for Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively—developed by experts in the field of writing pedagogy and writing research. Users can also save their research question(s), so each student is reminded of their specific research purpose each time they log in.
The digital notecards page asks students to differentiate between “Direct Quotation,” “Paraphrase,” and “My Ideas.” This is an important feature because some students may plagiarize unintentionally, due to a lack of awareness. I recommend encouraging students to write their in-text citation directly in each digital notecard to avoid this problem. Students can construct their writing outline or they can drag and drop notecards into an outline that they have previously created.
Areas in their outline that do not feature notecards can serve as a visual cue to students that they need to continue their search for source-based evidence. This represents both “Goal Setting” and “Planning,” two important elements of the writing process (p. 7). Once students complete the outline and develop notecards that address components of their outline, they will have a solid blueprint from which to start drafting.
But what impact did this technology have on students’ future source-based writing? Was it worth the trouble of learning how to use this platform? For one student, the answer was a resounding yes! In an email to me, this student, now majoring in Human Services wrote,
“Our professor was truly impressed with the quality of work all of your former students had not only in their writing, but also in their research skills. And yes, I still use Noodletools to this day to help me out!”
Although anecdotal, this suggests that Noodletools has the potential to support students’ research writing at the college level and reflects efforts to support college students’ writing development through principles of Universal Design for Learning (Gradel & Edson, 2009).
The student success and improved motivation that I witnessed by using Noodletools to scaffold individual student research projects piqued my curiosity about other digital programs that support students’ writing development in individualized ways. This led me down the path to Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) software.
AWE programs evaluate each student’s draft and some programs even provide formative writing feedback in real-time. Although the feedback algorithms are not perfect, there is still utility in these fallible tools. Most clearly, the instant feedback given to each draft is not possible during paper-based writing instruction.
Learn more about Revision Assistant, an AWE program, by watching this brief video.
In my experience, AWE encouraged students to write and revise- a crucial and often underappreciated component of the writing process. But when they received automated feedback, I encouraged my students to think critically about these suggestions. They were coached to ask themselves, “Does this feedback help me meet my writing goals, or should I choose to do something different?” In turn, they became writing detectives, critically rereading their own words, and each other’s, in new and exciting ways.
One surprising consequence of using an AWE program during writing instruction was the unsolicited conversations sparked between writers. Students talked willingly about their writing in ways I had not seen previously. These peer-to-peer learning opportunities, along with the support of AWE, helped my students tackle significant revisions as well as minor edits in grammar and mechanics. Because of these revision efforts, I became less of a copy editor for my students’ writing and forged a path marked by more meaningful writing feedback.
I witnessed the development of one particular student’s writing as she took up what Geertz (1988) calls a “writerly identity” (p. 9). The writing support from all her teachers, the individualized learning affordances of the AWE program, and her own commitment to writing improvement all contributed to this student’s writing journey.
Julia (a pseudonym) entered 11th grade with 4th grade level writing skills. This likely attributed to her struggle with grade-level writing assignments. One writing task posed a significant problem, yet she would need to write this type of essay as a part of the (former) New York State Regents examination, a prerequisite for high school graduation.
Click here to see Julia’s writing development from her initial essay in September to the last one in June when she used ETS’ Criterion, an AWE program, to support her revisions. Despite lingering concerns, Julia’s final piece represents many improvements.
Julia’s development of ideas and use of textual evidence are more apparent. She included a thesis statement, discussed her reasoning behind this claim, and demonstrated emerging use of punctuation. Ultimately, Julia’s progress is an example of how automated feedback can support individualized writing instruction, feedback, and student success.
In general, my classroom experience with AWE reflected the results of one study (Warschauer & Grimes, 2008). The researchers reported that AWE “encouraged more revision” (p. 22). The researchers also found that AWE saved teachers time.
In writing this, my hope is to inspire teachers to explore evidence-based instructional technologies that have the power to support student writing development in individualized ways. Whether it is a tool students can take with them to college or one that helps struggling writers practice the basics, teachers who take this road might make all the difference.
Images used with permission from Noodletools, Inc.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford University Press.
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2009). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111-121.
Graham, S., Bruch, J., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L., Furgeson, J., Greene, K., Kim, J., Lyskawa, J., Olson, C. B., & Smither Wulsin, C. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively (NCEE 2017-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6). http://www.jtla.org.
Krishnan, J., & Poleon, E. (2013). Digital Backchanneling: A strategy for maximizing engagement during a performance-based lesson on Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Teaching English with Technology, 13(4), 38-48.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317-345.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22-36.
A new research article about A2i titled Using Technology and Assessment to Personalize Instruction: Preventing Reading Problems and written by Dr. Connor has just been published in Prevention Science. Take a look at the abstract below and check out the full article here.
Children who fail to learn to read proficiently are at serious risk of referral to special education, grade retention, dropping out of high school, and entering the juvenile justice system. Accumulating research suggests that instruction regimes that rely on assessment to inform instruction are effective in improving the implementation of personalized instruction and, in turn, student learning. However, teachers find it difficult to interpret assessment results in a way that optimizes learning opportunities for all of the students in their classrooms. This article focuses on the use of language, decoding, and comprehension assessments to develop personalized plans of literacy instruction for students from kindergarten through third grade, and A2i technology designed to support teachers’ use of assessment to guide instruction. Results of seven randomized controlled trials demonstrate that personalized literacy instruction is more effective than traditional instruction, and that sustained implementation of personalized literacy instruction first through third grade may prevent the development of serious reading problems. We found effect sizes from .2 to .4 per school year, which translates into about a 2-month advantage. These effects accumulated from first through third grade with a large effect size (d = .7) equivalent to a full grade-equivalent advantage on standardize tests of literacy. These results demonstrate the efficacy of technology-supported personalized data-driven literacy instruction to prevent serious reading difficulties. Implications for translational prevention research in education and healthcare are discussed.
How do you take middle school literacy improvement efforts beyond the English-language arts classroom? Several sets of recent standards encourage literacy learning across content areas (Common Core State Standards, C3 Framework, and NGSS), but how can middle school teachers work together to promote their students’ literacy?
WordGen Weekly is an interdisciplinary, supplementary curricular resource for middle schools desiring to foster their students’ academic language and argumentation skills. It was developed in collaboration between Strategic Education Research Partnership (or, SERP), and Boston Public Schools and other districts in Massachusetts and Maryland, under the direction of Catherine Snow at Harvard University. Numerous foundations supported the development of the original WordGen Weekly series for grades 6-8. The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences later supported the development of three additional Word Generation programs (WordGen Elementary, Science Generation, and Social Studies Generation) through Reading for Understanding grants.
Word Generation is now used by thousands of teachers across the U.S. In a typical WordGen Weekly unit centered on a discussable topic (for example, Cloning: Threat or Opportunity?), students learn relevant academic vocabulary words, and they learn about the controversial issue through a math activity, a science activity, and then a debate in social studies class. Classroom discussion is emphasized throughout the lessons. At the end of the week, students are challenged to apply higher order thinking in an argumentative writing piece where they synthesize their position on the topic.
These learning activities may sound like they take a lot of time. But the organization of WordGen makes it fairly easy to implement. Students spend about 15-20 minutes per day using the program, and the math, social studies, science, and ELA teachers each spend one of those segments per week, with the exception of ELA having two 15-20 minute segments per week due to the writing activity. (However, some schools choose different ways to configure the time.)
A key ingredient to smooth school-wide implementation? A collaborative school culture already in place, although trying out WordGen could be a great way to start on the path of organizing teacher teams for professional learning.
WordGen has been the focus of a number of research studies and articles. For example, some of them focus on academic vocabulary, some address disciplinary literacy, and some of them point to the quality of classroom discussion as a promising instructional practice.
Considering the developmental period of early adolescence in relation to literacy learning, noted reading researcher Jean Chall puts it this way; once students have cracked the code of learning to read, then they can begin to move into the next level of reading to learn (Chall, 1983). From an education policy standpoint, a lot of attention has been dedicated to the primary grades (K-3) and reading instruction. However, in recent years, the subject of adolescent literacy has also gained traction (see the Carnegie Report, Reading Next).
WordGen is a promising example of a middle school literacy resource that has flowed out of the tide since Reading Next. And although programs such as WordGen and the newer educational standards emphasize literacy across subject areas, the issue of adolescent literacy has a long history (see this article to see how Vicki Jacobs puts everything in context).
In a lesson video of the unit on secret wiretapping, Mr. Buttimer asks his students, “So why do some people think that secret or covert wiretapping is a bad idea? Why are people opposed to it?” A student responds, “Because, well it says (referring to the text in her WordGen notebook), they think wiretapping violates a person’s right to privacy.” In this brief conversational turn, Mr. Buttimer begins a discussion about the perspectives surrounding secret wiretapping, and later the students adopt various positions on the issue in order to have a classroom debate.
WordGen is freely available online.
Permission to use the images in this post was granted by Strategic Education Research Partnership in accordance with the following Creative Commons License.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading Next-A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
The UCI School of Education September Newsletter has just come out and members of the ISI lab make a few appearances! Click here to view the full newsletter as well as get updated on the accomplishments of Dr. Connor and graduate student Taffeta Wood.
“We are at a point in the history of education when radical change is possible, and the possibility for that change is directly tied to the impact of the computer.” – Seymour Papert
In the 1980s, while pencil and paper still dominated U.S. classrooms, Dr. Seymour Papert, one of the world’s leading educational theorists, envisioned the revolutionary potential of computers in education. Dr. Papert predicted that children and teachers would use computers as instruments for learning and enhancing innovation. It has been three decades since Dr. Papert wrote about the potential radical change in education, and his prediction seems to have come to fruition.
According to the National Statistics of Education, Public schools in the United States, on average, provided at least one computer for every five students in 2013. Annually, public schools spent more than $3 billion on digital content. In addition, achieving equity of technology access and usage at school has been a priority for policy makers. Led by the federal government, the country is making a great effort to make affordable high-speed Internet and free online teaching resources available to the rural and remote schools. Moreover, during the 2015-16 school year, state standardized tests for the elementary and middle school grades were administered via computer more than by paper and pencil.
All these actions are taken with the rationale that technology can improve students’ learning. However, such improvement has not always proven to be the case, as the wealth of technological resources in today’s schools are still underutilized and have failed to make a significant impact on educational practices and student learning.
“The wealth of technological resources in today’s schools are still underutilized and have failed to make a significant impact on educational practices”
Access to technology devices does not necessarily lead to abundant classroom technology use by teachers and students (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Proctor & Marks, 2013). According to a national report, 60% of the surveyed teachers indicated that they and their students did not often use computers in the classroom during instructional time. This disconnection between access and usage in schools is slightly more common in high-poverty schools. In addition, even though technology is used in classrooms, it may not be used wisely and constructively – that is in a way that can actually improve learning and prepare students for the twenty-first century workplace. Further, academics and parents alike have expressed concerns about a number of potential problems of technology, such as digital distractions, ways in which unequal access to and use of technology might widen achievement gaps.
In 2013, the Los Angeles public school system undertook a $1.3 billion effort, to give each teacher, administrator and 640,000 pupils an Apple iPad preloaded with educational software provided by publishing giant, Pearson. This program was once seen as a way to boost the city’s low-income students, who previously had limited access to digital educational tools at schools. However, the program did not achieve its original goal and soon turned into a crisis. One year after the program was initiated, the superintendent suspended the contract with Apple and Pearson, as problems had been occurring almost daily with either the technology or the curriculum. This situation even resulted in the resignation of the superintendent (see the timeline of this program here).
But what went wrong?
A team led by the U.S. Department of Education investigated the project and identified several inter-related issues that had brought about the failure of this ambitious project. Among the causes of the failure were a lack of district-wide instructional technology strategy, deficiency in teachers’ professional development, and insufficient instructional support of technology. Simply put, there was a breakdown in technology integration. Similarly, the most recent National Educational Technology Plan by the U.S. Department of Education also emphasized the importance of integration:
“Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions – as accessible as all other classroom tools.”
However, Los Angeles is just one classic case of school districts getting caught up in the educational technology frenzy without fully thinking through a practical plan. Because no one wants to be the next LA Unified, an important lesson must be learned – having access to the technology devices is just the first step; technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions.
More and more policay makers and educational practitioners have agreed on the crutial role teachers plays in implementating technogloy in classroom instruction. Teachers should be viewed as the agent of technology integration.
In general, most teachers have recognized the potential of technology in enhancing student’s learning, and believe that technology helps them accomplish professional and/or personal tasks more efficiently. However, they are hesitant to adopt curricular and/or instructional innovations and may even view technology as “disruptive” (Laurillard, 2008). What forms this gap between high perceived utility value of technology and low usage?
In a review article titled Teacher Technology Change, several reasons why teachers are reluctant to incorporate the technology into the classroom are identified (see Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010 for an overview). Those reasons included:
How can those barriers be overcome?
Several effective approaches have emerged from previous studies.
Fortunately, we have recently witnessed a trend that more and more technological interventions are coming with a package of rigorous teacher training, demonstrating an increasing national recognition for the importance of teacher technology professional development. Plus, more and more States are now requiring teacher’s technology skill training in order to acquire the teaching certificate.
This enhanced professional development, in general, has demonstrated satisfactory results for both the teachers and students. Studies have reported that teachers tend to have positive attitudes and higher confidence toward technology integration, and students benefit more from the classroom technology, as a result of providing teachers with such professional development.
Several best practices of professional development have been identified by Lawless and Pellegrino, such as activities being tailored to individual teachers’ needs, the settings in which the teachers serve, as well as the school’s overall vision for change and administration (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
Regular professional development is important, but not enough. Teachers need daily support from their fellow colleagues in the same community. In an article on technology integration, Macdonald (2008) wrote that “to effect lasting educational change”, collaboration for teachers needs to be facilitated in “authentic teacher contexts”. Teachers not only share their knowledge, but also share their emotions, especially the common frustration in implementing technology in the classroom.
One case study explored the modeling practices of teacher collaboration in a California middle school (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). In this school, more than ten technology facilitators were selected from teaching staff in different disciplines, who received intensive in-service technology training which provided technical and pedagogical support to their colleagues. One teacher explained the benefits of this strategy:
“Those teachers are in the various different [subject area] departments and they’re available for the other teachers to come to as a kind of mentor. So if they get stuck on something, they’ve got another teacher that can help them in the classroom, someone that teaches the same subjects as they do and maybe have some ideas about how the technology can be used to teach.”
Technical support is another factor that influences technology use (Lim & Khine, 2006). Technical problems make it difficult to use technology in classrooms, and slow network performance and inadequate computers are an obstacle to using technology in education (Pelgrum, 2001).
In a qualitative study, Warschauer and colleagues recognized the crucial role of technology support in improving teacher’s technology integration (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). Let us consider a school that has implemented technology into classroom instruction successfully, has a broad-based technology committee and a full-time media specialist. This school must have made a conscious decision to free up specialists within the teaching staff to provide technical and pedagogical support to other teachers, and students have been recruited for maintenance, installation, and other technology-related work as well.
When Salisbury Township School District in Pennsylvania started its 1-to-1 laptop initiative named Teaching and Learning 2020 (TL2020) for grades K-12 in 2011, they designed a series of technology trainings for all teachers in the district for four years. Much of the training focused on progressive concepts, such as learning to support each individual student’s needs, as opposed to directing them; maintaining student engagement in learning; and creating activities that integrate technologies into the existing curriculum. Four actions have been taken by the district to maximize the effectiveness of their teacher training program: aligning professional development (PD) goals with 1:1 program goals; hiring technological support personals; personalizing the PD program through differentiation and choice; and evaluating PD efforts to meet developing needs.
Even though the final results have not been revealed, as the initiative is still on-going, we can still foresee the potential of the program to cause substantial changes in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and culture regarding technology integration. Once the teachers’ mindsets have changed to include the idea that teaching is not effective without the appropriate use of technology resources to achieve student learning outcomes, and once they are equipped with knowledge to use technology wisely, our education will have reached a significant milestone.
The most recent encouraging news is that Salisbury School District was awarded the No. 2 spot on the 2014-15 Digital School Districts Survey for communities with student populations of 3,000 or less, which is released annually by The Center for Digital Education and the National School Boards Association.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher education, 33(2), 139-154.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97.
MacDonald, R. J. (2008). Professional development for information communication technology integration: Identifying and supporting a community of practice through design-based research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 429-445.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.
Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 37(3).
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163-178.
Proctor, M. D., & Marks, Y. (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use, and access of computer-based games and technology for classroom instruction. Computers & Education, 62, 171-180.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
Shapka, J. D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 319-334.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
An exciting story was posted on the University of California, Irvine news blog related to a recent grant received by Dr. Connor! This grant will allow the ISI lab to continue their work on the ongoing Word Knowledge e-Book (WKe-Book) project. The goal of WKe-Book is to improve students’ comprehension monitoring, strategy use, word knowledge, and word knowledge calibration. This project will also allow the ISI to expand the e-Book library into additional topic areas, such as science and social studies. You can read more about the WKe-Book here.