A New Perspective for Evaluating Innovative Science Programs

Science Education

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 539-563

  Hickey, Daniel T ^a   Zuiker, Steven J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037757656     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10087     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. Anderson, J. A., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456-462.
2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
3. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
4. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 47-94.
5. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of activity: An in-situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 63-112.
6. Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences (special issue). The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1/2).
7. Barab, S. A., & Leumann, A. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation (special issue). Science Education, 87, 454-467.
8. Bloome, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 265-291.
9. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
10. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
11. Bruner, J. S. (1984). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development: The hidden agenda. New Directions for Child Development, 23, 92-97.
12. Case, R. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and the impact on educational research and practice. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 75-99). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
13. Chelimsky, E. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 35-55.
14. Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15. The Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Cole, M. (1991). On socially shared cognitions. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Behrend (Eds.), Socially shared cognitions (pp. 398-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of educational research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. B. Schulman (Eds.), Issues in educational research. Problems and possibilities (pp. 289-298). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Confrey, J., Castro-Filho, J., & Wilhelm, J. (2000). Implementation research as a means to link systemic reform and applied psychology in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 35, 179-191.
19. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Osborne, & J. Leach (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 185-206). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
20. Fasse, B. B., & Kolodner, J. (2000). Evaluating classroom practices using qualitative research methods: Defining and refining the process. In B. Fishman & S. O'Conner-Devilbliss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 193-198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Gray, J. (2001, April). Science talk as a way to assess student transfer and learning: Implications of formative assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
22. Greeno, J. G., & the Middle School Mathematics through Applied Projects Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
23. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan.
24. Greeno, J. G., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Situativity and symbols: A response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 49-60.
25. Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Stemberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26. Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative activities in higher education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 265-279.
27. Hay, K. E., & Barab, S. A. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 281-232.
28. Hay, K. E., Hickey, D. T., Elliot, D., Kim, B., & Hand, B. (2002 Jan.). Integrated Temporal Multimedia Data (ITMD) research system: The present and future of digital tools for research. Presentation at the 15th Annual Conference on Interdisciplinary Quantitative Studies, Athens, GA.
29. Hickey, D. T. (1999). Effects of Learning by Design on Content Knowledge, Conceptual Understanding, and Collaboration Skills in the 1998-1999 Implementation. Unpublished Project Report, Georgia State University.
30. Hickey, D. T. (2000a). Assessment, motivation, & epistemological reconciliation in a technology-supported learning environment. Grant REC-0196225 from the National Science Foundation, Division on Research, Evaluation, & Communication to the University of Georgia.
31. Hickey, D. T. (2000b). Effects of Learning by Design on Content Knowledge, Conceptual Understanding, and Collaboration Skills in the 1999-2000 Implementation. Unpublished Project Report. Learning & Performance Support Laboratory, University of Georgia.
32. Hickey, D. T. (2001). Dimensions of collaboration and participation. Grant from the Center for Innovative Learning Technology's Seed Grant Program. Learning & Performance Support Laboratory, University of Georgia.
33. Hickey, D. T. (in press). Engaged participation vs. marginal non-participation: A stridently sociocultural approach to achievement motivation. Elementary School Journal.
34. Hickey, D. T., Hand, B., Kyser, B., & DeCuir, J. (2002). Technology-supported formative and summative assessment of collaborative scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
35. Hickey, D. T., & Holbrook, J. (2000, April). PALS-supported performance assessments for the Learning by Design project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED445008).
36. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181(2), 1-33.
37. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (in review). Integrating instruction, assessment, & evaluation in a technology-supported genetics environment. American Educational Research Journal.
38. Hickey, D. T., & McCaslin, M. (2001). A comparative and sociocultural analysis of context and motivation. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical and methodological implications (pp. 33-56). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
39. Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of two innovative mathematics environments: Do curricular innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38, 611-652.
40. Hickey, D. T., Wolfe, E. W., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technology-supported genetics environment: Evidential and consequential validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6(3), 155-196.
41. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
42. Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79, 33-41.
43. House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. House Resolution 4875. (2000). Scientifically based education research, statistics, evaluation, and information act of 2000. [Original resolution available electronically at http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/ed_res_pol/HR4875_000718.htm]
45. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35-44.
46. Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. (2000). Computer-based manipulatives for teaching scientific reasoning: An example. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the twenty-first century: Theory, research, and the design of advanced technology learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
48. Kelly, A. E. (2001, April). Design experiments, or engineering prototypes of interactive learning environments in science and mathematics. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
49. Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
50. Kolodner, J. L. (2001). A note from the editor. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 1-4.
51. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. In J. Kolodner, M. Guzdial, & A. Bruckman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 16-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (in press). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in Learning by Design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly.
53. Kruger, A. C., Hickey, D. T., Fredrick, L. D., Schafer, N. J., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2002, April). Balancing formative and summative science assessment practices: Year one of the GenScope assessment project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
54. Kvale, S. (1995, April). Evaluation as construction of knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
55. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
56. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
57. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE designs for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
58. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, and peers: Computers as learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438-490). New York: Macmillan.
60. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622-673). New York: Macmillan.
61. McGee, S., & Howard, B. (1998). Evaluating educational multimedia in the context of use. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 4, 273-291.
62. Moshman, D., & Thompson, P. A. (1981). Hypothesis testing in students: Sequences, states, and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 341-342.
63. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Available online], http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html.
64. National Science Foundation. (2002). Interagency Educational Research Initiative (IERI) Program Solicitation. Washington, DC: Author. [Available online] http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02062/nsf02062.html.
65. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (2002, Feb. 6). Scientifically-based research. Conference Proceedings. [Available online] http://www.ed.gov/nclb/research/index.html.
66. Olson, D. R., & Bruner, J. S. (1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 9-27). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
67. Olson, L., & Viadero, D. (2002, Jan. 30). Law mandates scientific base for research. Education Week. [Online], www.edweek.org.
68. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69. Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification. Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 167-182.
70. Pea,R. (1999). New media communications forums for improving education research and practice. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in educational research: Problems and possibilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
71. Pepper, S. C. (1942/1970). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
72. Public Law 107-110. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. [Available online] www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/.
73. Pogrow, S. (1998). What is an exemplary program and why should anyone care? A reaction to Slavin & Klein. Educational Researcher, 27(7), 22-28.
74. Pogrow, S. (1999). Rejoinder: Consistently large gains and high levels of achievement are the best measures of program quality: Pogrow responds to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 28(8), 24-26, 31.
75. Pomplun, M. (1996). Cooperative groups: Alternative assessment for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 1-17.
76. Quellmalz, E., Schank, P., Hinojosa, T., & Padilla, C. (1999). Performance assessment links in science (ERIC/AE Digest Series EDO-TM-99-04). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Maryland.
77. Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., Steinmuller, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyzw, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 342-349). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2001). Integrating educational research and practice: Reconceptualizing the goals and process of research to improve educational practice. Unpublished manuscript. National Science Foundation. Retrieved May 5, 2001 from the World Wide Web: www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/integrating.htm.
79. Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
80. Sechrest, L. (1992). Roots: Back to our first generation. Evaluation Practice, 13, 1-7.
81. Shadish, W. (Ed.). (1995). Special feature. The quantitative-qualitative debate. "DeKuhnifying" the conceptual context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 47-96.
82. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific inquiry in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Available online] www.nap.edu.
83. Siegler, J. W., Gallimore, R., Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMMS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87-100.
84. Slavin, R. (1999). Rejoinder: Yes, control groups are essential to program evaluation: A response to Pogrow. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 36-38.
85. Solano-Flores, G., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Development of performance assessments in science: Conceptual, practical, and logistical issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(3), 16-25.
86. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490-516.
87. Squire, D. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Leuhmann, A. L., & Barab, S. A. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87, 468-489.
88. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student involved classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
89. Stroup, W. M., & Wilensky, U. (2000). Assessing learning as an emergent phenomenon: Moving constructivist statistics beyond the bell curve. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 877-912). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
90. Tomlinson, T. M., & Cross, C. T. (1991). Student effort: The key to higher standards. Educational Leadership, 49, 69-73.
91. Venezky, R. L. (2002). An alternative perspective on Success for All. Retrieved on-line from www.alt-sfa.com on Feb. 15, 2002.
92. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
93. Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 239-261.
94. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, & identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
95. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. London: Oxford University Press.
97. Willinsky, J. (2000). If only we knew: Increasing the public value of social science research. New York: Routledge.
98. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Fransicso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
99. Zimmerman, B. J. (1993). Commentary. Human Development, 36, 82-86.