LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/science/11robots.html

If we want to find ways to achieve greater utilization of…research, merely thinking about utilization cannot take us very far (Beyer & Trice, 1982)

SRI’s Team considers the activities at the base of the LIFE pyramid–educational collaborations, partnerships, capacity building–as elements of the complexity of work leading to LIFE Center-wide impact. It does so by conducting research on activities that contribute to the larger aims of the LIFE Center. The Team’s current work is represented by two research examples: (a) the study of a successful research partnership to understand the reasons for its success and (b) the cross-study of the implementation of new designs for learning in the work of three Social Learning Drivers, to look at the translation of basic research into practice across projects in the Center. The Social Learning Drivers we are addressing include Guiding and Collaborating, Choosing and Valuing, and Simply Believing a Virtual Interaction is Social .

Current areas of focus include studies of partnerships and the translation of research into practice.

Partnerships and LIFE: Partnerships are essential to the work of LIFE, as they extend our collective research expertise, help test our ideas in the field, and help support larger research efforts at dissemination and adaptation. In its first six years, LIFE researchers have partnered with institutions of higher education, national professional organizations, state departments of education, school districts and schools, museums, public media producers, and companies producing new designs to improve learning.

Partnerships with minority-serving institutions in particular contribute to capacity building in the learning sciences. To understand what makes a partnership successful, we examined the long-lasting LIFE partnership with the University of Texas in San Antonio, which involves a Research University 1 and a Hispanic-serving institution engaged in an interdisciplinary collaboration. Early findings suggest that one of the conditions for partnerships to work well for capacity building when collaborators have spent iterating the process of defining and aligning their goals together.

Translation of Research into Practice aims to apply theories of organizational learning and innovation to analyze the impact of different designs on practice, help correlate the lessons learned from each implementation, and study the impact of implementation on re-design and hypothesis generation.

This work makes visible several other types of work that are important for crossing the multiple boundaries between research and practice. When the focus is on researchers’ aims and designs, classroom research is focal; teachers’ actions that either follow or subvert the aims of designers are the primary objects of study. By contrast, when the focus is the classrooms when a new design is enacted, researchers and educators along with teachers and administrators have negotiated goals for their work, agreed on a division of labor, and organized around a set of artifacts whose meanings they have negotiated. Additional arenas come into focus, such as the “backstage” work to establish trust and plan for implementation. When we consider future trajectories for the joint work, how the current work furthers both shared and separate institutions’ goals similarly comes into focus.

A key study in our program on translating research into practice is the implementation of Teachable Agents in a suburban school district in Northern California. This study entails an arc of work that began in the lab, expanded into school settings, and then returns to the lab, allowing researchers to make new discoveries and form new hypotheses as a consequence of their engagement with settings of practice. The Teachable Agents study looked at different dimensions of student engagement both in and out of school, and helps contribute to understanding how students view the formal and informal environments differently.

Charlie Rose Brain Series Episode Five webpage and video stream: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10877

The Charlie Rose Brain Series explores one of science’s final frontiers, the study of the human brain.
Over the next year Charlie will interview the most knowledgeable scientists and researchers in hopes of illuminating a new topic of study. Each monthly episode will examine different subjects of the brain, including perception, social interaction, aging and creativity.

The Charlie Rose Brain Series will also look at scientific discovery and advances in technology, in the hope that someday terrible illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s will be history.

Co-host of the series is Dr. Eric Kandel, psychiatrist, neuroscientist and professor at Columbia University. Dr. Kandel was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2000.

Download the workshop report in PDF format: Media Multitasking (82)

Other details, papers, and related materials can be found at the Media Multitasking web site: http://multitasking.stanford.edu

Preface from the Report:

New technology sometimes brings change that is so swift and so sweeping, that the impact and implications are hard to grasp. So it is with the rapid expansion of media use by children and adults–at work and at play, alone and in groups, for ever larger portions of their waking hours. Media multitasking–engaging in more than one media activity at a time–has rapidly become a way of life for American youth, according to a 2005 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (Roberts, Foehr, & Rideout, 2005), and yet little is known about how this behavior affects their learning and development, their ability to attend, to plan, to think, and to relate to other people. The same may be said for adults, many of whom have taken to media multitasking to the point of “crackBerry” obsession. Aside from the recent alarming reports about the dangers of cell phone use while driving1 or the impact of web surfing on worker productivity, little is known about the larger implications of this now ubiquitous
behavior.

To begin to address this gap in knowledge and to frame a coherent research agenda, a multidisciplinary group of scholars in the emerging field of multitasking assembled for a one-day seminar on media multitasking and its impact on children’s learning and development at Stanford University on July 15, 2009. With grants from the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, the seminar was jointly organized by Principal Investigator Clifford Nass, the CHIME (Communication between Humans and Interactive Media) Lab Director and the Thomas M. Storke Professor at Stanford University; co-Principal Investigator Roy Pea, representing the LIFE (Learning in Informal and Formal Environments) Center and Professor of Education at Stanford University; and co-Principal Investigator Michael Levine, Executive Director of the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Participants included recognized scholars from neuroscience, child development, cognitive science, communication, and
education fields, along with business, policy, and advocacy leaders.

This report summarizes the ideas brought to light at the seminar, including an agenda for next steps by participants and for the larger research community. A glossary of terms, list of seminar participants, a background paper, and a list of questions generated at the seminar appear in the Appendices. Brief memos written by seminar participants on media multitasking in advance of the seminar may be downloaded from http://multitasking.stanford.edu/artifacts.html#memos and http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/

To coordinate, develop and disseminate research tools that promote communication and cumulativeness in the learning sciences congruent with LIFE Purposes and Missions.

Research Commons content will arise from partial solutions and Center-integrative activities of Theory Kitchen & Design Studio

Types of Tools in RC

Three broad classes of tools for discovering or advancing roles for the social in learning:

Data capture tools (DCT) – for documenting learning and following learning across settings

Learning Analysis Tools (LAT) – representation tools and techniques for depicting and analyzing learning phenomena across settings and different time scales

Bridging Tools for Educators (BTE) – allowing them to make learning visible and coordinate learning across settings

Research Commons List

• Web Diver
• Interactive Learning Timeline Tool
• Research Commons: Child & Preschool IAT
• Research Commons: Learning Ecologies Survey

What is Learning Ecologies Survey?

A learning ecology is defined as the set of contexts found in physical or virtual spaces that provide opportunities for learning [Barron, 2004]. Each context is comprised of a unique configuration of activities, material resources, relationships, and the interactions that emerge from them.
Learning Ecologies Survey is a data gathering tool to be used to study learning ecologies.

Lead Creator(s)
Barron, Brigid

Point of contact
Martin, Caitlin
ckmartin@stanford.edu

Category of Research Commons Tool:
DCT

Learning Ecologies Survey Files

The Child and Preschool Implicit Association Test is a psychological testing tool, and, in particular, a method and system for administering child-appropriate implicit tests of social cognition.

Lead Creator(s)
Dr. Dario Cvencek, UW Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences (I-LABS); Dr. Andrew Meltzoff (I-LABS); Dr. Anthony Greenwald (Department of Psychology); Craig Harris, (I-LABS).

Point of Contact
Dr. Andrew Meltzoff, Co-Director, Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences.

Category of Research Commons Tool:
DCT

Child and Preschool IAT FAQ

1. What is the purpose of this tool?

The purpose of this tool is psychological testing and, in particular, a method and system for administering child-appropriate implicit tests of social cognition.

2. Who were the primary researchers involved in the development of this tool?

The primary researchers involved in the development of this tool are the following four University of Washington researchers: Dr. Dario Cvencek, UW Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences (I-LABS); Dr. Andrew Meltzoff (I-LABS); Dr. Anthony Greenwald (Department of Psychology); Craig Harris, (I-LABS).

3. When was it developed and what was the original context of the research project in which it was developed (links to project website if available)?

The tool was developed in 2005 for a research project examining the mechanisms involved in the development of self-concepts for math and how such self-concepts interrelate with stereotypes in the culture.

4. Where can I find documentation - reference/technical documentation, research and analysis related to this tool, and data sets if available?

Scientific article currently under review.

5. Is there continuing research toward newer versions of this tool? If so, who is the point of contact for exploring possibilities of participation/collaboration?

There is continuing research toward newer versions of this tool. The point of contact for exploring possibilities of participation/collaboration is Dr. Andrew Meltzoff, Co-Director, Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences.

6. What are the infrastructural, system and other requirements (such as other tools or technologies) that I need in place before I can use this tool?

The infrastructural system requirements needed for the use this tool are: PC machine with relevant software installed on it. The PC machine should be equipped with a monitor, speakers, and an adapted, color-coded computer keyboard.

7. Is there any theoretical or other special knowledge that is a prerequisite to successful use of this tool?

Theoretical and other special knowledge that is a prerequisite to successful use of this tool includes but is not limited to: Familiarity with implicit measurement in general and the standard IAT method in particular, experience in testing child subjects, programming experience.

8. Who is the point contact for technical (or other) support related to this tool?

The point contact for technical (or other) support related to this tool is Dr. Dario Cvencek, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences.

9. What are examples of other research projects in which this tool has been used?

Other examples are research examining the mechanisms involved in the development of preferences and self-identities in as young as 4 years of age. In addition, the tool has been used in research examining racial stereotypes in elementary- and middle-school children and how those relate to students’ math identities.

10. Are there contexts different from the one in which it was originally designed and used for which this tool could potentially have applicability?

This tool was originally designed for laboratory use with elementary school children. Research toward newer versions of this tool has extended the applicability of this tool to (a) classroom testing, (b) simultaneous testing of multiple children, and(c) testing of pre-school children.

What is Interactive Learning Timeline Tool?

Open source interactive web timeline software for researchers (at first, and later educators and learners) to represent and visualize social dynamics of learning over space and time – along with the research protocols for collecting such data.

Lead Creator(s)
Barron, Brigid

Point of contact
Martin, Caitlin
ckmartin@stanford.edu

Category of Research Commons Tool:
LAT, BTE
URL
http://sites.google.com/site/timelinesproject/

Interactive Learning Timeline Tool Files

Papers referring to use of Learning Timeline

Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Lewis, S. Following learners in school and out in the world: Constructing techno-biographies from interviews at multiple time points. AERA 2007, Chicago, IL.

Barron, B., Martin, C.K., Takeuchi, L. Technobiographis as a tool for conceptualizing learnng across time and setting. AERA 2007, Chicago, IL.

Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Wise, S. Building technological fluency through clubhouse participation. AERA 2009, San Diego, CA.

Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Takeuchi, L., Fithian, R. The development of dispositions to create with new technologies: A learning ecologies perspective. AERA 2007, Chicago, IL.

Barron, B., Pinkard, N., Gomez, K., Martin, C. K., Lee, A. Mapping the emergence and development of collaborative media production practices. ICLS 2008, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Interactive Learning Timeline Tool Images

Interactive Learning Timeline Tool FAQ

1. What is the purpose of this tool?

Scientific visualizations are used by researchers to help them reveal patterns, make meaning out of complex phenomena, and communicate with their peers and other audience. NSF-funded researchers at Stanford University have designed and prototyped an interactive online scientific visualization tool that allows for the creation of learning lines: timelines that map learning activities across setting and developmental time. The environment is designed as a data collection tool in addition to a visualization tool. The interface design allows a variety of ways to enter and describe learning activities including an advanced mode for research teams and a guided mode for teachers, parents, students, or research participants. Timescales and context layers are flexible. Learning activities are searchable on multiple dimensions allowing for new ways of finding patterns. In addition, learning nodes are interactive and linked to data sources and multimedia artifacts that represent learning. Export options include printed images, digital images, and interactive objects that can be web accessible. A systematic review of other software tools have revealed that this will be a unique and powerful open source environment for both social scientists and practitioners involved in education.

2. Who were the primary researchers involved in the development of this tool?

Brigid Barron, Associate professor, Caitlin Martin, researcher on the youthlab team, graduate students: Maryanna Rogers, Ugochi Analonu, Lori Takeuchi, Rachel Fithian.

3. When was it developed and what was the original context of the research project in which it was developed ?

This software project emerged after Barron and her research team developed a powerful approach to representing the learning activities of adolescents engaged in STEM learning activities in both informal and formal contexts. We began to create these timelines in the spring of 2005 using an art layout program, Adobe Illustrator, to map the technological learning of individual youth over both time and across different contexts using interview data from interviews with them, their parents, and other learning partners. The visualization approach helped the team identify important continuities between learning activities that took place at home, in clubs, afterschool programs and school activities. Maps made visible patterns of sustained engagement and contributed to a focus on interest and the creation of self-perpetuating learning processes as a key outcome to study in addition to more traditional near term knowledge gains (Barron, 2006). The visualizations were created via a time consuming process that involved a series of steps including the creation of spreadsheets, hand drawn sketches, and finally using professional graphics software to complete the visualization. A template was perfected over many versions with the help of an interdisciplinary team that included a graphic designer and project researcher (Caitlin Martin) as well as graduate student members of the original research team. We have organized a design and programming team and completed an interface design. The team is interdisciplinary and includes programmers, a developmental psychologist, teachers, and graphic designers. By turning this into an online application, we are expanding its functionality.

4. Where can I find documentation - reference/technical documentation, research and analysis related to this tool, and data sets if available?

The prototype of the tool is currently a work-in-progress, so there is not yet reference or technical documentation. There are some working paper-based prototypes, like the paper shown above. (pdf)

Some papers which refer to timeline visualizations are:

Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Lewis, S. Following learners in school and out in the world: Constructing techno-biographies from interviews at multiple time points. AERA 2007, Chicago, IL.
Barron, B., Martin, C.K., Takeuchi, L. Technobiographis as a tool for conceptualizing learnng across time and setting. AERA 2007, Chicago, IL.
Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Wise, S. Building technological fluency through clubhouse participation. AERA 2009, San Diego, CA.
Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Takeuchi, L., Fithian, R. The development of dispositions to create with new technologies: A learning ecologies perspective. AERA 2007, Chicago, IL.
Barron, B., Pinkard, N., Gomez, K., Martin, C. K., Lee, A. Mapping the emergence and development of collaborative media production practices. ICLS 2008, Utrecht, Netherlands.

5. Is there continuing research toward newer versions of this tool? If so, who is the point of contact for exploring possibilities of participation/collaboration?

The online prototype of the tool is currently in the works. Brigid Barron is the point of contact. The design and programming team has completed an interface design. The team is interdisciplinary and includes programmers, a developmental psychologist, teachers, and graphic designers.

6. What are the infrastructural, system and other requirements (such as other tools or technologies) that I need in place before I can use this tool?

The tool is a web-based application, so any computer with an Internet connection can be used to access the interactive learning timeline tool.

7. Is there any theoretical or other special knowledge that is a prerequisite to successful use of this tool?

The goal is for the tool to be intuitive to any user, be it a researcher, teacher, or even a student mapping their own learning across place and time.

8. Who is the point contact for technical (or other) support related to this tool?

Brigid Barron is the point of contact for all inquiries.

9. What are examples of other research projects in which this tool has been used?

Because a prototype of this tool is currently in development, it has not been used yet. The timeline representations have been used in a multiyear research project in Bermuda government funded schools to develop curriculum and professional development for high school students. Timelines of focal students were created beginning from their first year in high school to two years after graduation to map their learning events over time. Learning timelines have also been used with youth in a community center technology program, using interview data with program coordinators, youth, and their parents.

10. Are there contexts different from the one in which it was originally designed and used for which this tool could potentially have applicability?

Presentations of this research work have led teachers, parents, and other research teams to request the help of this team in learning to create similar representations for their own purposes. Other possibilities:

Researchers Researchers studying learning, identity formation, career development, health, psychopathology often collect life history narratives. This tool might be used for qualitative researchers who want to see patterns over many cases or it might be used to map and communicate information about a single case.
Teachers For portfolios of projects or even growth in basic skills like reading.
Therapists To chart progress over time or to collect clinical histories.
Parents Parents might use this to create an interactive baby book.
Medical Doctors Collection of medical history and tracking of changes in health, symptoms.
Patients Same as above.

What is DIVER?

DIVER is essentially a ‘video collaboratory’ – a Web services platform for video uploading, and collaborative transcoding, point-of-view clip annotations/transcriptions/coding,and remixing. It is distinctive in enabling users to explore, discover, create, annotate, search and share points of view on precise regions of space and time in video. DIVER has been used for research in the social sciences and arts, and for teaching discussions about video content from K-16 teaching to clinical practice.

Lead Creator(s)
Pea, Roy

Point of contact
Rosen, Joe
joro@stanford.edu

Category of Research Commons Tool
DCT; LAT; BTE

URL
http://diver.stanford.edu

webDIVER Files

DIVER Images

DIVER FAQ

1. What is the purpose of this tool?

DIVER is an IRB-secure, browser-based service for video uploading, precise reference, annotation, coding, analysis and collaboration for learning sciences and education. Users ‘dive’ into video by using a virtual camera to point to video moments and express their perspectives by annotating such moments for sharing, comparisons, and conversations.

The Diver project makes available tools for collaboratively authoring and sharing annotated points-of-view and commentary on video recordings. DIVER continues to be supported and developed as a web-based service used for video-based research by a global community, including researchers affiliated with the LIFE Center.

2. Who were the primary researchers involved in the development of this tool?

Roy Pea, principal investigator and project lead; Stanford University
Joe Rosen; engineering; Stanford University
Sarah Lewis; Robb Lindgren; student/PhD assistants; Stanford University

3. When was it developed, and what was the original context of the research project in which it was developed (links to project website if available)?

DIVER received its first support in 2002, in the form of a Major Research Instrumentation grant from the National Science Foundation. The Diver tools are designed for the video archiving and analysis of learning events to enable education researchers to return as often as they wish to the original event, refining, modifying, or rejecting their conjectures. The networked features of Diver also facilitate collaborative discussion between remotely located education research communities, helping to mediate group perspectives and hypotheses about what aspects of a recorded learning event are significant.
The early days of Diver (and the beginning context for the project) are documented at the original Diver project information website:
http://diver.stanford.edu

4. Where can I find documentation - reference/technical documentation, research and analysis related to this tool, and data sets if available?

Users can automatically sign-up for a “test-drive” account at the DIVER application web site, visit the sign-up page at:

http://diver-101.stanford.edu/signup.php

A “test-drive” account gives users access to a collection of random videos and Dives (annotated perspectives on video records), and a scratch space where users can experiment with adding commentary and creating new Dives, without interfering with the community’s private research videos and groups. If a researcher would like their own private DIVER space, where they can upload videos and invite others to collaborate, please send a request to joro@stanford.edu, and we’ll create the new group.

DIVER Help pages can be found at:
http://diver-101.stanford.edu/help.php
To read more about the DIVER project download the PDFs above.

5. Is there continuing research toward newer versions of this tool? If so, who is the point of contact for exploring possibilities of participation/collaboration?

The Diver tool-suite is continually being supported and improved. We’re striving towards a 100% open-source Diver code base, and invite other engineers in the research community to consider joint development initiatives with us. Please contact Roy Pea for details regarding access to the Diver code base. For Diver technical questions please e-mail or call Joe Rosen , 650-924-8946.

6. What are the infrastructural, system and other requirements (such as other tools or technologies) that I need in place before I can use this tool?

Access to Diver requires only an Internet connection, a web browser, and the ubiquitous Adobe Flash Player browser plug-in. Diver is compatible with the Windows and Mac OS, and the Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer browsers.
Digital video files can be uploaded to Diver in the following formats: avi, flv, mov, mp4, mpg, wmv, and 3gp. Diver accepts video files of any size or duration.

7. Is there any theoretical or other special knowledge that is a prerequisite to successful use of this tool?

Anyone who knows how to open a browser and access a web page can immediately start using Diver. Any source file, from professionally prerecorded videos to those captured with inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras (e.g. the Flip, www.theflip.com/ ) can be used to create movies for upload and analysis in Diver.

8. Who is the point contact for technical (or other) support related to this tool?

Dr. Roy Pea is Diver’s principle investigator and project lead, roypea@stanford.edu. Technical questions can be directed to Joe Rosen, joro@stanford.edu | 650-924-8946.

9. What are examples of other research projects in which this tool has been used?

To date, approximately 200 different research groups have employed DIVER. The DIVER servers currently house a collection of 7,000 video files and 1,400 total hours of video.

What follows are several examples that highlight (in the researchers’ own words) how and where Diver’s currently in use.

–Teacher preparation–Teacher education at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

“Diver has become a pedagogical tool that allows candidates to deepen their conceptual and practice-based inquiry/reflective stances by re-seeing a lesson they have taught on Diver. Then, with the questions that colleagues pose, candidates have a deepened understanding of how to look at, analyze, understand and then take action into their developing teaching practices.”

Contact:
Ralph A. Cordova
SIU Edwardsville
rcordov@siue.edu

–Medical school training–Oncotalk Teach, Faculty development to change the paradigm of communication skills teaching in oncology

“Doctor / patient interview videotapes were collaboratively analyzed in Diver, the oncology group faculty commented on the videos and annotated specific frames or segments on each video in a threaded discussion. This enabled learners to sharpen their skills in observing communication between a fellow and patient. This virtual collaborative learning environment was intended to parallel in some way the learning that occurs in small in-person groups at the project retreats.”

Contact:
Anthony Back MD
University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA;
Email tonyback@u.washington.edu

–Children’s out-of-school-time science learning–Museums Afterschool: Principles, Data, and Design project

“The Museums Afterschool: Principles, Data, and Design project, is designed to identify and document design principles underpinning effective science teaching and learning in the out-of-school-time (OST) setting. Our research team, led by the Exploratorium, consists of educational leaders from 12 exemplary OST science programs who will observe, document, and distill learning design principles in their practices. It is expected that the design principles identified will guide future program design and assessment. We use DIVER to share, edit, annotate, and comment upon the video documentation at each participating site. We’re hoping that these asynchronous conversations will guide our identification of the underlying design principles and be the basis of our ultimate findings and products.”

Contact:
Bronwyn Bevan, Noah Rauch
The Exploratorium
bronwynb@exploratorium.edu, nrauch@exploratorium.edu

–Studying the digital media habits of kids–Sesame Workshop, The Joan Ganz Cooney Center

“The Joan Ganz Cooney Center is a nonprofit research and production institute housed at Sesame Workshop in New York City, the Cooney Center’s mission is to foster innovation in young children’s learning through digital media. Researchers at the Center are currently conducting an ethnographic study on the digital media habits of young kids, and have been using Diver to organize, analyze, and code dozens of hours of video of participant interviews, observations, and video game play. They are also using Diver’s web capabilities to share video clips with researchers and media designers outside of New York.”

Contact:
Lori Takeuchi
Sesame Workshop
loritake@gmail.com

10. Are there contexts different from the one in which it was originally designed and used for which this tool could potentially have applicability?

The short answer is, YES. Diver has received interest (and has been put to use) in unexpected contexts ranging from virtual trial deliberation in Japanese government courtroom, to Nuclear power plant operations training at France’s EDF national energy company.

Authors: Yang Zhang, Patricia K. Kuhl, Toshiaki Imada, Paul Iverson, John Pruitt, Erica B. Stevens, Masaki Kawakatsu, Yoh’ichi Tohkura, Iku Nemoto
Institutions: University of Minnesota, University of Washington, Tokyo Denki University, University College London, Microsoft Corporation, National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo

Abstract: The present study used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to examine perceptual learning of American English /r/ and /l/ categories by Japanese adults who had limited English exposure. A training software program was developed based on the principles of infant phonetic learning, featuring systematic acoustic exaggeration, multi-talker variability, visible articulation, and adaptive listening. The program was designed to help Japanese listeners utilize an acoustic dimension relevant for phonemic categorization of /r–l/ in English. Although training did not produce native-like phonetic boundary along the /r–l/ synthetic continuum in the second language learners, success was seen in highly significant identification improvement over twelve training sessions and transfer of learning to novel stimuli. Consistent with behavioral results, pre–post MEG measures showed not only enhanced neural sensitivity to the /r–l/ distinction in the left-hemisphere mismatch field (MMF) response but also bilateral decreases in equivalent current dipole (ECD) cluster and duration measures for stimulus coding in the inferior parietal region. The learning-induced increases in neural sensitivity and efficiency were also found in distributed source analysis using Minimum Current Estimates (MCE). Furthermore, the pre–post changes exhibited significant brain-behavior correlations between speech discrimination scores and MMF amplitudes as well as between the behavioral scores and ECD measures of neural efficiency. Together, the data provide corroborating evidence that substantial neural plasticity for second-language learning in adulthood can be induced with adaptive and enriched linguistic exposure. Like the MMF, the ECD cluster and duration measures are sensitive neural markers of phonetic learning.