Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 142–158 | Cite as

Using Handheld Computers to Support Improved Classroom Assessment in Science: Results from a Field Trial

  • Louise Yarnall
  • Nicole Shechtman
  • William R. Penuel
Article

Abstract

A variety of handheld applications and curricular materials have been developed to support inquiry science learning in recent years, but there are few handheld-supported assessment activities available to teachers. In Project WHIRL, researchers from SRI International worked in partnership with teachers from Beaufort County School District (SC) to develop a suite of handheld software applications that could be used to support classroom assessment in upper elementary and middle school science classrooms. In this paper, we will analyze results from a field trial conducted in 2003–2004 with 18 teachers in the district, focusing on how teachers’ enactment of handheld-supported assessment activities altered the frequency and quality of their assessment practices.

Keywords

assessment computer technology handhelds middle school PDAs science 

References

  1. Becker, H. J., and Riel, M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use. Retrieved July 9, 2001, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/Google Scholar
  2. Berger, L., and Lynn, E. (2002). Formative visions: Using handheld computers to support diagnostic instruction. /Insight Leadership, 2/, 83–97. Accessed online 7/26/2006 from http://www.wirelessgeneration.com/pdf/BergerLynn_White_Paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80(2): 139–144, 146–148Google Scholar
  4. Bol L., Strage A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology course. Science Education 80(2): 145–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb P., Confrey J., diSessa A. A., Lehrer R., Schauble L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32(1): 9–13Google Scholar
  6. Danesh, A., Inkpen, K. M., Lau, F., Shu, K., and Booth, K. (2001). Geney: Designing a collaborative activity for the palm handheld computer. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  7. Davey B., McBride S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1): 5–8Google Scholar
  9. Eltron L. R. B. (1982). Assessment for learning. In Bligh, D., (Ed.), Professionalism and flexibility for learning. Society for Research into Higher Education, Guildford, Surry, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  10. Erickson J., Lehrer R. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7(3&4): 351–386Google Scholar
  11. Feldman A., Konold C., Coulter B. (2002). Network science: A decade later. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishman B. J., Krajcik J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? A commentary Science Education 87(4): 564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gobert J. D., Clement J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries of conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 36–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsi, S. (1999). Assessment anytime, anywhere with ubiquitous computers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsi, S. (2000). Using handheld technologies to connect web-based learning to outdoor investigations. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
  16. Klopfer E., Yoon S., Perry J. (2005). Using palm technology in participatory simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(3): 285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. King A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology 14: 366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luchini, K., Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., Farah, C., Nandihalli, N., Reese, K., Wieczorek, A., and Soloway, E. (2002). Scaffolding in the small Designing educational supports for concept mapping on handheld computers. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  19. Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., Bilezikjian, M., Klemmer, S. R., and Landay, J. A. (2001). Supporting children’s collaboration across handheld computers. In Extended abstracts of CHI, Conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  20. Marbach-Ad G., Sokolove P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 854–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Means, B., and Haertel, G. D. (2002). Technology supports for assessing science inquiry. In Board on Testing and Assessment (Ed.), Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead. Proceedings from a workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 12–25Google Scholar
  22. Means B., Roschelle J., Penuel W. R., Sabelli N., Haertel G. D. (2003). Technology’s contribution to teaching and policy: Efficiency, standardization, or transformation? Review of Educational Research 27: 159–181Google Scholar
  23. Metcalf, S. J., and Tinker, R. (2003). TEEMSS: Technology Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  24. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Novack A. M., Gleason C. I. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In Tinker, R. F., and Krajcik, J., (Eds.), Portable technologies: Science learning in context, Kluwer Press, NY, pp. 29–62Google Scholar
  28. Ogle D. S. (1986). K-W-L group instructional strategy. In Palincsar, A., Ogle, D. S., Jones, B. F., and Carr, E. G. (Eds.), Teaching reading as thinking (Teleconference Resource Guide). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, pp. 11–17Google Scholar
  29. Palincsar A. S., Brown A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parr C., Jones T., Songer N. (2004). Evaluation of a handheld data collection interface for science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13(2): 233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penuel W. R., Roschelle J., Crawford V., Shechtman N., Abrahamson A. L. (2004a). Workshop report: Advancing research on the transformative potential of interactive pedagogies and classroom networks. SRI International, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., and Shechtman, N. The WHIRL co-design process: Participant experiences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (under review)Google Scholar
  33. Penuel W. R., Tatar D., and Roschelle J. (2004b). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 30(4): 331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Penuel, W. R., and Yarnall, L. (2005). Designing handheld software to support classroom assessment: An analysis of conditions for teacher adoption. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 3(5), available from http://www.jtla.orgGoogle Scholar
  35. Petrosino, A. J. (1998). The use of reflection and revision in hands-on experimental activities by at risk children. Unpublished dissertation. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  36. Roschelle J., and Pea R. D. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology 1(1): 145–168Google Scholar
  37. Rosenshine B. V., Stevens R. J. (1986). Teaching functions. In Wittrock, M. C., (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 376–391Google Scholar
  38. Ruiz-Primo M. A., Shavelson R. J., Hamilton L., Klein S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(5): 369–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stiggins R. J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Merrill, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  40. Stiggins R. J., Conklin N. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practice of classroom assessment. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Stiggins R. J., Rubel E., Quellmalz E. (1988). Measuring thinking skills in the classroom. NEA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Wertsch J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilensky, U., and Stroup, W. M. (2000). Networked gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the hubnet architecture. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  44. Young V., Haertel G. D., Ringstaff C., Means B. (1998). Evaluating global lab curriculum: Impacts and issues of implementing a project-based science curriculum. SRI International, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Yarnall
    • 1
  • Nicole Shechtman
    • 1
  • William R. Penuel
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Technology in Learning, SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations