Abstract
An interesting and relevant case involving two distinct systematic evaluations, traditional as well as somewhat nontraditional, of a science teacher education project with a heavy technology emphasis is discussed. Comparisons of the two separate evaluations of the same project revealed the complexity of evaluating technology projects and the multifaceted ways in which the evaluation endeavor could be approached, and provided an unusual situation and seldom seen opportunity for thinking about such evaluations. Additionally, what some other authors have said about the evaluations of efforts that take advantage of technology in the training of science teachers will also be explored. Evaluators must become active players in guiding the infusion of technology in preservice science programs. If evaluators, don't function to identify what works and what doesn't and what induces the best supportive environment, then who will?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Abell, S. K., Cennamo, K. S., Anderson, M. A., and Bryan, L. A. (1996). Integrated media classroom cases in elementary science teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 15: 137-151.
Altschuld, J. W., Kumar, D. D., Smith, D. W., and Goodway, J. D. (1999). The changing countenance of context-sensitive evaluations: Case illustrations. Journal of Family and Community Health 22: 66-79.
Altschuld, J. W., and Kumar, D. D. (1995). Program evaluation in science education: The model perspective. New Directions for Program Evaluation 65: 5-17.
Barron, L. C., Joesten, M. D., Goldman, E. S., Hofwolt, C. A., Bibring, J. B., Holladay, W. G., and Sherwood, R. D. (1993). Improving science education:A collaborative approach to the preparation of elementary school teachers, A final report to the National Science Foundation under grant number TPE-8950310, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Berger, C. F., Lu, C. R., Belzer, S. J., and Voss, B. E. (1994). Research on the uses of technology in science education. In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Macmillan, New York.
Exline, J. D. (1985). Virginia's Long Range Plan for Science Education, National Science Teachers' Association Supplement of Science Education Suppliers, Washington, DC.
Exline, J. D., and Tonelson, S. W. (1987). Virginia's Science Education Program Assessment Model Resource Guide, National Science Teachers' Association Supplement of Science Education Suppliers.
Field, S. L., and Hill, D. S. (1988). Contextual appraisal: A framework for meaningful evaluation of special education programs. Remedial and Special Education 9: 22-30.
Goldman, E. S., and Barron, L. C. (1990). Using hypermedia to improve the preparation of elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 41: 21-31.
Grandgenett, N., Ziebarth, R., Koneck, J., Farnham, M. L, McQuillan, J., and Larson, B. (1992). An investigation of the anticipated use of multimedia by pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 1: 91-102.
Kenny, R. F., Andrews, B. W., Vignola, M. J., Schilz, M. A., and Covert, J. (1999). Toward guidelines for the design of interactive media instruction: Fostering the reflective decisionmaking of preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 7: 13-32.
Krueger, K., Hansen, L., and Smaldino, S. (2000). Pre-service teacher technology competencies. Tech Trends 44: 47-50.
Kumar, D. D., and Altschuld, J. W. (1999). Evaluation of interactive media in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 8: 55-65.
Kumar, D. D., Helgeson, S. L., and Fulton, D. C. (1994). A study of interactive video use in science teacher education. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems 8: 28-34.
Ladewski, B. (1996). Interactive multimedia learning environments for teacher education: Comparing and contrasting four systems. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 15: 173-197.
Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (1999). Will New Teachers be Prepared to Teach in a Digital Age? A National Survey on Information Technology in Teacher Education, Milk Exchange on Education Technology, Santa Monica, CA.
Pollack, R. A. (1989). Generic videodiscs in education and training. Instructional Delivery Systems 2: 22.
Small. L. (1988, April). Science process evaluation model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1968). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making. Paper presented at the working conference on assessment theory sponsored by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Sarasota, FL.
Vitale, M. R., and Romance, N. R. (1992). Using videodisc instruction in an elementary science methods course: Remediating science knowledge deficiencies and facilitating science teaching attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 915-928.
Weinburgh, M., Smith, L., and Smith K. (1997). Preparing preservice teachers to use technology in teaching math and science. Tech Trends 42: 43-45.
Welch, W.W. (1974). The process of evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11: 175-184.
Yager, R. E., Dunkhase, J., Tillotson, J., and Glass, R. E. (1995). Science-Technology reform via distance education technology. Tech Trends 40: 19-22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kumar, D.D., Altschuld, J.W. Complementary Approaches to Evaluation of Technology in Science Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11, 179–191 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014621631205
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014621631205