Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 473–490 | Cite as

Evaluation of an Educational Computer Programme as a Change Agent in Science Classrooms

Article

Abstract

I report on benefits from 26 teacher-participant evaluators of a computer game designed to motivate learning and to ease conceptual understanding of biology in South Africa. Using a developmental, social constructivist and interpretative model, the recommendation is to include the value systems and needs of end-users (through social dialogue); curriculum issues (learning theories in the ECP and those the education authorities recommend, as well as ECP-curriculum integration); the nature of the subject the ECP presents (e.g., Nature of Science); and the compatibility of the ECP with school computers.

Keywords

Evaluation of educational computer programmes Disadvantaged schools Ubuntu 

References

  1. Adams JC (1998) The use of a virtual world to address misconceptions held by students regarding photosynthesis and respiration. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, University of Natal, DurbanGoogle Scholar
  2. Altheide DL, Johnson JM (1994) Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, pp 485–499Google Scholar
  3. Amir R, Tamir P (1994) In-depth analysis of misconceptions as a basis for developing research-based remedial instruction: the case of photosynthesis. Am Biol Teac 56(2):94–99 Google Scholar
  4. Amory A (2001) Visualisation educational games. Paper obtained from Prof. AmoryGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelides P, Evangelou M, Leigh J (2005) Implementing a collaborative model of action research for teacher development. Educ Action Res 13(2):275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbera E (2004) Quality in virtual education environments. Br J Educ Techn 35(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BECTA (2005) British educational communicational and technology agency evidence on the progress of ICT in education, BECTA, Coventry, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell J (1992) Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education and social science, 1st edn. 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Birenbaum M (1996) Assessment 2000: towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In: Birenbaum M, Dochy FJRC (eds) Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. British Educational Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2001) Computer games in education project web site. [Online] Available: http://www.becta.org.uk/technology/software/curriculum/computergames/index.html (14th May 2002)
  11. Bybee RW, Ellis JD (1988) A technology-oriented elementary school science and health program: implications for teacher education. In: Ellis JD (ed) Information technology and science education, pp 145–162Google Scholar
  12. Castellan NJ Jr (1993) Evaluating information technology in teaching and learning. Behaviour Res Methods Instrum Comput 25(2):233–237Google Scholar
  13. Chacko CC (1996) Student teachers’ views about difficult and unfamiliar topics in matriculation biology. Paper presented at the annual general meeting of Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education (SAARMSE), University of the North, Pietersburg, 24–28 January 1996Google Scholar
  14. Cobern WW (1996) Constructivism and non-western science education research. Int J Sci Educ 18(3):295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen L, Manion L (1987) Research methods in education. 2nd edn. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Conlon T (2000) Visions of change: information technology, education and postmodernism. Br J Educ Technol 31(2):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crotty M (1998) The foundations of social research. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Dede C (1995) The evolution of constructivist learning environments: immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educ Technol 35(5):46–52Google Scholar
  19. Denscombe M (1998) The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Draper SW (2000) Analysing fun as a candidate software requirement. [Online] Available: http://www.staff.psy.gla.ac.uk/∼steve/fun.html#2 (15th October 2001)
  21. Eisenhart MA, Howe KR (1992) Validity in educational research. In: LeCompte MD, Millroy WL, Preissle J (eds) The handbook of qualitative research in education. Academic Press Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliot J (1991) Changing contexts for educational evaluation: the challenge for methodology. In: Lewy A (ed) Studies in educational evaluation. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 215–238Google Scholar
  23. Fink A (1995) Evaluation for education and psychology. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Gay LR, Airasian P (2000) Educational research. Competencies for analysis and application. 6th edn. Merrill, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  25. Gredler ME (2001) Educational games and simulations: a technology in search of a (research) paradigm. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 521–540Google Scholar
  26. Greene JC (1994) Qualitative program evaluation. practice and promise. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, London, pp 531–542Google Scholar
  27. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, London, pp 428–444Google Scholar
  28. Hannafin MJ (1999) Learning in open-ended environment: tools and technologies for the next millenium. [Online] Available: http://www.it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper34/paper34.html (30th October 2002)
  29. Hannafin MJ, Kim MC, Kim H (2004) Reconciling research, theory, and practice in web-based teaching and learning: the case for grounded design. J Comput Higher Educ 15(2):30–49, SpringGoogle Scholar
  30. Hannafin RD, Sullivan HJ (1995) Learner control in full and lean CAI programs. Educ Technol Res Dev 43(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrington J (2002) Designing authentic activities for web-based courses. In: Driscoll M, Reeves TC (eds) Proceedings of E-learn, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Montreal, Canada, Charlottesville, VAGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinecke WF, Blasi L, Milman N, Washington L (1999) New directions in the evaluation of the effectiveness of educational technology. Paper given at Paper given at The secretary’s conference on educational technology. [Online] Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper8.html (30th October 2002)
  33. Heron J (1996) Co-operative inquiry. Research into the human condition. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Hickey DT, Zuicker SJ (2002) A new perspective for evaluating innovative science programmes. Sci Educ 87:539–563Google Scholar
  35. Hitchcock G, Hughes D (1995) Research and the teacher: a qualitative introduction to school-based research. 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Huberman AM, Miles MB (1994) Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, London, pp 428–444Google Scholar
  37. Huysamen GK (1994) Methodology for the social and behavioural sciences. Southern Book PublishersGoogle Scholar
  38. Ivala EN (1998) Identification of misconceptions held by teachers and students with respect to concepts of mendelian genetics and assessment of teaching methods to overcome such misconceptions. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education, University of Natal, DurbanGoogle Scholar
  39. James RK (1988) Using change theory to manage the implementation of educational technology in science classrooms. In: Ellis JD (ed) Information technology and science education, pp 187–205Google Scholar
  40. Jegede O (1998) The knowledge base for learning in science and technology education. In: Naidoo P, Savage M (eds) African science and technology education into the new millennium: practice, policy and priorities, pp 151–176Google Scholar
  41. Jonassen DH, Howland JL, Moore JL, Marra RM (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology. A constructivist perspective. 2nd edn. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones A (2002) Refusing or ignoring? An investigation of student teachers’ perceptions and use of computers. Proceedings ASET Conference 2002, Melbourne, 7–10 July. [Available] http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/2002/jones.html 2nd June, 2007
  43. Karaliotus Y (1999) The element of play in learning—the role of synergetic playful environments in the implementation of open and distance learning. Online [Available] http://www.users.otenet.gr/∼kar1125/proj99.htm (2nd October 2001)
  44. Kaufman R March (2001) Toward determining societal value-added criteria for research and comprehensive universities. The center reports. Available: http://www.thecenter.ufl.edu, 6th May, 2007
  45. LeCompte MD, Preissle J, Tesch R (1993) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego Google Scholar
  46. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Lincoln YS, Denzin NK (1994) The fifth moment. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  48. Linn RL (2002) Validation of the uses and interpretations of results of state assessment and accountability systems. In: Tindal G, Haladyna T (eds) Large-scale assessment programs for all students. Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 27–66Google Scholar
  49. Lloyd M, Yelland N (2003) Adaptation and avoidance: observations of teacher reactions to information and communications technology in the classroom. Change Tr Educ 6(1):81–66Google Scholar
  50. Lloyd-Jones R, Bray E, Johnson G, Currie R (eds) (1986) Assessment. From principles to action. MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. MacDonald CJ, Farres L (2003) Constructivist instructional development models: a tool for examining context diversity. DRAFT. [Online] Available: http://www.cade-aced2003.ca/conference_proceedings/MacDonald.pdf (29th November 2004)
  52. Mammo T (1999) The paradox of Africa’s poverty: the role of indigenous knowledge, traditional practices and local institutions—the case of Ethiopia. Red Sea Press, Lawrenceville and AsmaraGoogle Scholar
  53. Martin LMW, Hawkins J, Gibbon SY, McCarthy R (1988) Integrating information technologies into instruction: the voyage of the mimi. In: Ellis JD (ed) 1989 Information technology and science education, pp 173–186Google Scholar
  54. Maykut P, Morehouse R (1994) Beginning qualitative research. A philosophical and practical guide. The Falmer Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. McKenney S, Van den Akker J (2002) Computer-based support for science education materials developers. Proceedings of the 10th annual association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 22–26 January 2002. University of Natal, Durban KwaZulu-Natal (III 406-417)Google Scholar
  56. McNamara C (1997) Basic guide to outcomes-based evaluation for non-profit organizations with very limited resources. Free management library. [Available] http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/outcomes.htm (6th may, 2007)
  57. Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  58. Mosimege MD (1997) The use of games in mathematics classrooms. Proceedings of the fifth annual meeting of the association for research in mathematics, science and technology education. 22–26 January 1997. University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, pp 530–534Google Scholar
  59. Mphahlele MK (1996) Supervision of science education research: critique of the discourse. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual meeting, 25–28 January. South African Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, pp 236–249Google Scholar
  60. Munro RG (1975) Curriculum evaluation. In: Gardner PL (ed) The structure of science education. Longman, Hawthorn VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  61. Muraskin LD (1993) Understanding evaluation: the way to better prevention programs. U.S. Department of Education, contract number LC89089001, task order number LC900940Google Scholar
  62. Muwanga-Zake JWF (2000) Is science education in south africa in a crisis? the eastern cape experience. J Southern African Assoc Res Math Technol Sci Educ 4(1):1–11Google Scholar
  63. Myers MD (2000) Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp 241–242. [Online] Available: http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQD_isworld/ (1st October 2007)
  64. Nam CS, Smith-Jackson TL (2007) Web-based learning environment: a theory-based design process for development and evaluation. J Educ Technol Educ 6:23–43Google Scholar
  65. National Research Foundation, Republic of South Africa. (2004) [Online] Available: http://nrfonline.nrf.ac.za/templates/Guide%20to%20Research%20Support%20for%202005-The%20NRF%20Focus%20Area%20Programme.doc (6th May 2004)
  66. Neuman WL (1997) Social research methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 3d edn. Allyn and Bacon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. Nichols RG, Allen-Brown V (2001) Critical theory and educational technology. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 226–252Google Scholar
  68. Pachler N, Byrom K (1999) Assessment of and through ICT. In: Leask M, Pachler N (eds) Learning to teach using ICT in the secondary school. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Peled Z, Peled E, Alexander G (1991) Ecology and experimentation in the evaluation of information technology interventions in natural classroom settings. In: Lewy A (eds) Studies in educational evaluation. Vol 17, No 2/3. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 419–448Google Scholar
  70. Percival F, Ellington H (1984) A handbook of educational technology. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Perkins DN (1996) Preface: minds in the ‘hood. In: Wilson BG (ed) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publication, Englewood Cliffs NJGoogle Scholar
  72. Pinkus J (1996) Foucault. [Online] Available: http://www.massey.ac.nz/∼ALock/theory/foucault.htm (30th October 2002)
  73. Pitman MA, Maxwell JA (1992) Qualitative approaches to evaluation: models and methods. In: LeCompte MD, Millroy WL, Preissle J (eds) The handbook of qualitative research in education. Academic Press Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. Quinn CN (1997) Engaging learning. [Online] Available: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper18/paper18.html (15th October 2001)
  75. Randel JM, Morris BA, Wetzel CD, Whitehill BV (1992) The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: a review of recent research. Simulat Gaming 23(3):261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reeves T (2000a) Socially responsible educational technology research. Educ Technol 40:19–28Google Scholar
  77. Reeves T (2000b) Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through ‘design experiments’ and other development research strategies. Paper presented at the Annual AERA Meeting, April 24–28, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  78. Reeves LP, Hedberg JG (2003) Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07630Google Scholar
  79. Rieber LP (1996a) Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educ Technol Res Dev 44(2):43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Roulston K, Legette R, DeLoach M, Pittman CB (2005) What is research for teacher-researchers? Educ Action Res 13(2):169–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sanders M (2002) Secondary school biology learners’ difficulties in interpreting diagrams of biological sections. Proceedings of the 10th annual association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. II. 22–26 January 2002. University of Natal, Durban KwaZulu-Natal, pp 85–90Google Scholar
  82. Sanders M, Mogodi G (1998) Terminology problems experienced by standard eight ecology pupils. Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the South African Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education. 14–17 January, 1998 UNISA, pp 314–319Google Scholar
  83. Savenye WC, Robinson RS (2001) Qualitative research issues and methods: an introduction for educational technologists. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 1171–1195Google Scholar
  84. Schwartz NH, Andersen C, Hong N, Howard B, McGee S (2004) The influence of metacognitive skills on learners’ memory of information in a hypermedia environment. J Educ Comput Res 31(1):77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shakeshaft C (1999) Measurement issues with instructional and home learning technologies. [Online] Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper9.html (22nd July 2000)
  86. Soriano FI (1995) Conducting needs assessment. A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  87. Stake RE (1994) Case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, London, pp 236–248Google Scholar
  88. Thorpe R (2002) How should we think about educational technology programs? Educational Technology/May–June 2002Google Scholar
  89. Vygotsky LS (1962) Thought and language. Edited and translated by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar. MIT Press, John Wiley, Cambridge, MA, NYGoogle Scholar
  90. Watson DM (2001) Pedagogy before technology: re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Educ Inform Technol 6(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Weiss CH (1998) Evaluation. Methods for studying programs and policies. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  92. Willis J (2000) The maturing of constructivist instructional design: some basic principles that can guide practice. Educ Technol/January–February. pp 5–16Google Scholar
  93. Wilson BG (1995a) Metaphors for instruction: why we talk about learning environments. Educ Technol 35(5):25–30. [Online] Available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/∼bwilson/wils95 (20th July 2002)
  94. Wilson BG (1995b) Maintaining the ties between learning theory and instructional design. Paper presented at the meeting of the American educational research association, San Francisco, March 1995. [Online] Available: http://www.cudenver.edu/-bwilson (8th October 2002)
  95. Wilson BG (1996) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs NJGoogle Scholar
  96. Winn W (1997) The impact of three dimensional immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy. [Online] Available: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97–15/ (16th November 2000)
  97. Wood-Robinson C, Lewis J, Leach J, Driver R (1997) Scientific literacy and the school curriculum: rationale, design and methodology for an investigation of young people’s understandings of genetics and their opinions on, and attitudes to, new gene technologies. Meeting of the association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 22–26 January 1997. University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, pp 181–187Google Scholar
  98. Yeaman ARJ, Hlynka D, Anderson JH, Damarin SK, Muffoletto R (2001) Postmodern and poststructural theory. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah. New Jersey, pp 253–295Google Scholar
  99. Yore LD (2001) What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electron J Sci Educ 5(4) [Online] Available: http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html (18th March 2002)
  100. Yumuk A (2002) Letting go of control to learners: the role of the internet in promoting a more autonomous view of learning in an academic translation course. Educ Res 44(2):141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations