Evaluation of interactive media in science education

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 55-65

  Kumar, David ^a   Altschuld, James ^b  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contextual factors; Environmental factors; Evaluation; Interactive media; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039883853     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009429504881     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Abell, S. K., Cennamo, K. S., and Campbell, L. M. (1996). Interactive video cases developed for elementary science methods course. Tech Trends 41(3): 20-23.
2. Altschuld, J. W., and Kumar, D. D. (1995). Program evaluation in science education: The model perspective. New Directions for Program Evaluation 65: 5-17.
3. 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.
4. 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 Publishing Company, New York.
5. Branscum, D. (1992). Educators need support to make computing meaningful. It is time to wield technology wisely. Macworld September 1992, pp. 83-88.
6. Exline, J. D. (1985). Virginia's Long Range Plan for Science Education. National Science Teachers' Association Supplement of Science Education Suppliers.
7. 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.
8. Field, S. L., and Hill, D. S. (1988). Contextual appraisal: A framework for meaningful evaluation of special education programs. Remedial and Special Education 9(4): 22-30.
9. Goldman, E. S., and Barron, L. C. (1990). Using hypermedia to improve the preparation of elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 41(3): 21-31.
10. Grandgenett, N., Ziebarth, R., Koneck, J., Farnham, M. L., McQuillan, J., and Larson, B. (1992). An investigation of the anticipated use of multimedia by preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 1: 91-102.
11. 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(4): 28-34.
12. Pollack, R. A. (1989). Generic videodiscs in education and training. Instructional Delivery Systems 2(5): 22.
13. Small, L. (1988, April). Science Process Evaluation Model. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
14. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1968). Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision-Making. A paper presented at the working conference on assessment theory sponsored by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sarasota, Florida.
15. 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(9): 915-928.
16. Welch, W. W (1974). The process of evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11(3): 175-184.