Evaluating instructional technology implementation in a higher education environment

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 315-328

  Bullock, Cheryl ^a   Ory, John ^b  

^a Office of Instructional Resources   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034258767     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/109821400002100303     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Burnaska, K. (1998). Using Mallard to Teach An Undergraduate Economics Course. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
2. Clark, D. (1992). Getting results with distance education. The Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 38-51.
3. Clarke, R. E. (1992). Media use in education. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research in Education (pp. 805-814). New York: Macmillan.
4. Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1976). Evaluation Research in Education. New York: Irvington.
5. Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 397-418.
6. Crump, R. E. (1928). Correspondence and Class Extension Work in Oklahoma. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.
7. Draper, S., Brown, M., Henderson, F., & McAteer, E. (1996). Integrative evaluation: An emerging role for classroom studies of CAL. Computers and Education, 26, 1-3.
8. Ester, D. P. (1995). CAI, lecture, and learning style: The differential effects of instructional method. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4), 129-139.
9. Gold, L., & Maitland, C. (1999). What's the difference? paper prepared by the Institute for Higher Education Policy.
10. Goldberg, M. W. (1997). CALOS: First results from an experiment in computer-aided learning. Proceedings, Alm's 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
11. Greene, J. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In R. Stake (Ed.), Evaluation and the Post Modern Dilemma. Advances in Program Evaluation, Vol. 3 (pp. 171-203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12. Hiltz, R. S. (1997). Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1, 2.
13. Jones, A., Scanlon, E., Tosunoglu, C., Ross, S., Butcher, P., Murphy, P., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Evaluating CAL at the open university: 15 years on. Computers in Education, 26(19), 5-15.
14. Kearsley, G. (1990). Designing education software for international use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 242-250.
15. Khalili, A., & Shashaani, L. (1994). The effectiveness of computer applications: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Higher Education, 27(1), 48-61.
16. Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers and Human Behavior, 7(1), 74-75.
17. Martin, E. D., & Rainey, L. (1993). Student achievement and attitude in a satellite-delivered high school science course. The American Journal of Distance Learning, 17(1), 22-28.
18. McAteer, E., Neil, D., Barr, N., Brown, M., Drapes, S., & Henderson, F. (1996). Simulation software in a life sciences practical course. Computers and Education, 26(1-3), 101-112.
19. McKenna, S. (1995). Evaluating IMM: Issues for Researchers, Open Learning Institute. Occasional Paper #17, Charles Sturt University. New South Wales, Australia.
20. Morgan, D (1998). Planning Focus Groups. Focus Group Kit 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Oliver, M. (1997). A Framework for Evaluating the Use of Learning Technology. BP ELT Report no. 1. University of North London. London, England.
22. Parlett, M., & Hamilton, O. (1976). Evaluation as illumination. In G.V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual (pp. 141-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Popham, W. J. (1961). Tape recorded lectures in the college classroom. AV Communications Review (9).
25. Popham, W. J. (1972). An Evaluation Guidebook. Los Angeles, CA: Instructional Objectives Exchange.
26. Reeves, T. C. (1994). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. In M. Wild & D. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Computer Education: New Perspectives (pp. 219-246). Perth, Australia: MASTEC.
27. Russell, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
28. Schramm, W. (1962). What We Know about Learning from Instructional Television: The Next Ten Years. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Communication Research.
29. Scriven, M. (1972). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 3, 1-8.
30. Stake, R. E. (1978). Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.
31. Suchy, R. R., & Baumann, P. C. (1960). The Milwaukee Experiment in Instructional Television: Evaluation Report. Milwaukee, WI: Milwaukee Public Schools.
32. Tyler, R. W. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35, 492-501.
33. Worthen, B., Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. New York: Longman