Exploring the potential of a computer tool for instructional developers

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 77-98

  Nieveen, Nienke ^a   van den Akker, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033426351     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02299635     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Akker, J.J.H. van den. (1988). Ontwerp en implementatie van natuuronderwijs [Design and implementation of science education]. Doctoral dissertation. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
2. Akker, J.J.H. van den, Boersma, K.Th., & Nies, A.C.M. (1990). Ontwikkelstrategieëm in SLO-projecten [Development strategies in SLO projects]. Enschede: SLO.
3. Akker, J. van den, & Verloop, N. (1994). Evaluation approaches and results in curriculum research and development in the Netherlands. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20(4), 412-436.
4. Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (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), 6-14.
5. Brinkerhoff, R.O., Brethouwer, D.M., Hluchyj, T., & Nowakowski, J.R. (1983). Program evaluation: A practitioner's guide for trainers and eduacators. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
6. Dumas, J.S., & Redish, J.C. (1994). A practical guide to usability testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7. Flagg, B.N. (1990). Formative evaluation for educational technologies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Flechsig, K.H. (1989). A knowledge-based system for computer-aided instructional design (CEDID). In Education and Informatics: Proceedings of UNESCO Conference (pp. 400-403). Paris: UNESCO.
9. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teacher College Press.
10. Gayeski, D.M. (1991). Software tools for empowering instructional developers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 4(4), 21-35.
11. Gery, G.J. (1991). Electronic performance support systems: How and why to remake the workplace through strategic application of technology. Boston, MA: Weingarten.
12. Gery, G.J. (1995). The future of EPSS. Innovations in Educational and International Training, 32(1), 70-73.
13. Gettman, D.J. (1994). The guided approach to instructional design advising: Theory, history, and research. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Military Testing Association, October 24, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
14. Grabinger, R.S. (1993). Computer screen designs: Viewer judgments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 35-73.
15. Gustafson, K.L., & Reeves, T.C. (1990). IDioM: A platform for a course development expert system. Educational Technology, 30(3), 19-25.
16. Herman, J.L. (Ed.). (1987). Program evaluation kit. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Hudzina, M., Rowley, K., & Wager, W. (1996). Electronic performance support technology: Defining the domain. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(1), 36-48.
18. Jonassen, D.H., & Wilson, B.G. (1990). Automated instructional systems design: A review of prototype systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2(2), 17-30.
19. Keursten, P., & Nies, A. (1993). Evalueren van lesmateriaal [Evaluation of lesson materials]. Enschede: SLO.
20. Laws, R.D., & Howell, S.L. (1994). "QUE": An expert system that supports course designers. Technical Horizons in Education, 22(4), 91-94.
21. McGraw, K. (1992). Designing and evaluating user interfaces for knowledge-based systems. New York: Ellis Horwood.
22. McKenney, S., & Akker, J. van den. (1998). CASCADE-SEA: Computer-assisted curriculum analysis, design & evaluation for science education in Africa. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 13-17, San Diego.
23. Merrill, M.D. (1993). An integrated model for automating instructional design and delivery. In J.M. Spector, M.C. Polson, & D.J. Muraida (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 147-189). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
24. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25. Nieveen, N.M. (1993). Computerondersteunde curriculumontwikkeling: Een verkennende studie. [Computer-supported curriculum development: An exploratory study]. Master's thesis. Enschede: University of Twente.
26. Nieveen, N.M. (1997). Computer 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.
27. Nieveen, N., & Akker, J., van den. (1996). Computer-supported curriculum development. In Tj. Plomp, & D.P. Ely (Eds.), International encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 153-158). Oxford: Pergamon.
28. Nieveen, N.M., Akker, J.J.H. van den, & Plomp, Tj. (1993). Computerondersteundecurriculumontwikkeling: Een verkennende studie [Computer-supported curriculum development: An exploratory study]. Paper presented at the OnderwijsResearch Dagen, May 26-28, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
29. Paquette, G., Aubin, C., & Crevier, F. (1994). An intelligent support system for course design. Educational Technology, 34(9), 50-57.
30. Patton, M.Q. (1986). Utilization-focused evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Raybould, B. (1995). Performance support engineering: An emerging development methodology for enabling organizational learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 7-22.
32. Richey, R.T., & Nelson, W.A, (1996). Development research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 1213-1245). London: Macmillan.
33. Rivlin, C., Lewis, R., & Davies-Cooper, R. (Eds.) (1990). Guidelines for screen design. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
34. Rosendaal, B., & Schrijvers, J. (1994). Handelingsondersteuning voor opleiders in organisaties [Performance support for trainers in organizations]. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
35. Scriven, M. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In M.W. McLaughlin, & D.C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 19-64). Chicago: University of Chicago.
36. Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37. Spector, J.M., Poison, M.C., & Muraida, D.J. (Eds.) (1993). Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
38. Stevens, G.H., & Stevens, E.F. (1995). Designing electronic performance support tools: Improving workplace performance with hypertext, hypermedia and multimedia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
39. Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (1992). What is human performance technology? In H.D. Stolovitch, & E.J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehnsive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations (pp. 3-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40. True, S. (1994). User interface evaluation: A structured approach. New York: Plenum.
41. Valcke, M., & Vuist, G. (1995). A model-based design approach for the flexibilisation of courses. In F. Lockwood (Ed.), Open and distance learning today (pp. 185-196). London: Kogan Page.
42. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43-57