Computer-based support for curriculum designers: A case of developmental research

  • Susan McKenney
  • Jan van den Akker
Development

Abstract

In this article, we explore the potential of the computer to support curriculum materials development within the context of secondary level science and mathematics education in southern Africa. During the four-year course of the study, a computer program was developed named CASCADE-SEA, which stands for Computer Assisted Curriculum Analysis, Design and Evaluation for Science (and mathematics) Education in Africa. By carefully documenting the iterative process of analysis, prototype design, evaluation, and revision, we sought insight into the characteristics of a valid and practical computer-based tool that possesses the potential to affect the performance of its users. The results of this study include the CASCADE-SEA program itself, which assists users in producing better quality materials than they otherwise might, while they also learn from the development process. Further, this research has contributed to the articulation of design principles and related developmental research methods. This article highlights the research and development that took place, and only briefly addresses the tool itself.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, (25) 9, 6–8, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990)The teacher-curriculum encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Atkin, J. (Eds.), (1996).Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bracht, G., & Glass, G. (1968). The external validity of experiments.American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caillods, F., Göttelman-Duret, G., & Lewin, K. (1996).Science education and development: Planning and policy issues at secondary level. Paris: unesco/iiep.Google Scholar
  6. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.)Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401), New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. de Feiter, L., Vonk, H., & van den Akker, J. (1995).Towards more effective science teacher development in southern Africa. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1978). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making.Interchange, 8(3) 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenhart, M., & Borko, H. (1991). In search of an interdisciplinary collaborative design for studying teacher education.Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisner, E. (1994).The educational imagination (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Fullan, M. (2001).The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gery, G. (1991).Electronic performance support systems: How and why to remake the workplace through the strategic application of technology, Boston: Weingarten.Google Scholar
  13. Goodlad, J., (1994) Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.)The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262–1267).Google Scholar
  14. Guskey, T. (2000),Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative research: Working with, not working on...Educational Leadership, 43(5), 4–8.Google Scholar
  16. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998).Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  17. Marsh, C., & Willis, G. (1995).Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  18. McKenney, S. (2001a).Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa: Exploring potentials. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  19. McKenney, S. (2001b).The CASCADE-SEA program Website [Online]. Available: http://projects.edte.utwente.nl/cascade/seasite/.Google Scholar
  20. McKenney, S. (2001c).The CASCADE-SEA research Website [Online]. Available: http://projects.edte.utwente.nl/cascade/seastudy/.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, B. (1997).What is in the realm of possibilities may not be possible [Online]. Available: http://www.pcd-innovations.com/design_ideas.htm.Google Scholar
  22. Nieveen, N. (1997).Computer-based support for curriculum developers: A study on the potential of computer support in the domain of formative curriculum evaluation. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  23. Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 125–136). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Nieveen, N., & Gustafson, K. (1999). Characteristics of computer-based tools for education and training development: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen & T. Plomp (Eds.)Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 155–174). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (1996). Computer supported curriculum development. In T. Plomp & D. Ely (Eds.),International encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 153–158). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  26. Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching teacher education and research for teaching.Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 496–510.Google Scholar
  27. Ogunniyi, M. (1996). Science, technology and mathematics: The problem of developing critical human capital in Africa.International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 267–284.Google Scholar
  28. Raybould, B. (1990). Solving human performance problems with computers.Performance and Instruction 29(10), 4–14.Google Scholar
  29. Reeves, T. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research.Educational Technology 40(6), 19–28.Google Scholar
  30. Richey, R., & Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1213–1245) London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Sanders, M. (1999). Implementing outcomes based education in South Africa: What lessons can science educators learn from classroom practitioners in New Zealand? InProceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 382–405). Harare: University of Harare.Google Scholar
  32. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.) (1993).Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994).Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, N. (1990). Flexibility in the evaluation of emergent programs.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 16, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens, G., & Stevens, E. (1995).Designing electronic performance support tools: Improving workplace performance with hypertext hypermedia and multimedia. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Taba, H. (1962).Curriculum development: Theory and practice: New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, N. (2000).Sustainable change for educational systems in transition. Keynote address at the Designing Education for the Learning Society International conference, Enschede. Available: Http://192.87.215.20/bslo/AnythingNick.doc.Google Scholar
  38. Tessmer, M. (1994). Formative evaluation alternatives.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  39. Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1990). Beyond instructional effectiveness: Key environmental decisions for instructional designers as change agents.Educational Technology, 30(7), 16–20.Google Scholar
  40. Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies and criticism.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thijs, A. (1999). Supporting science curriculum reform in Botswana: The potential of peer coaching. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  42. van den Akker, J. (1994). Designing innovations from an implementation perspective. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.). The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1491–1494). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  43. van den Akker, J. (1996).Het Studiehuis: Ook een leeromgeving voor docenten? [The study house: Also a learning environment for teachers?] (Inaugural address). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 45–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, D. (1990).Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, B. & Jonassen, D. (1991). Automated instructional systems design: A review of prototype systems.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2(2), 17–30.Google Scholar
  47. Yager, R., (1994). Science teacher education. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.),The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 5342–5345). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Zumwalt, K. (1988). Are we improving or undermining teaching? In L. Tanner (Ed.),Critical issues in curriculum (87th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education) (pp. 148–174). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan McKenney
    • 1
  • Jan van den Akker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum, Faculty of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of Twente in the NetherlandsNetherlands

Personalised recommendations