Evaluation of educational software

Journal of Dental Education

Volumn 67, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 1221-1228

  Schleyer, Titus K L ^a   Johnson, Lynn A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer assisted instruction; Computers; Education; Educational software; Evaluation; Methods

Indexed keywords

CONTAMINATION; EDUCATION; EFFECT SIZE; ETHICS; HUMAN; LEARNING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RELIABILITY; SOFTWARE; TEACHING; VALIDITY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DENTAL EDUCATION; EVALUATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION, DENTAL; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; PATIENT SIMULATION; SOFTWARE; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SOFTWARE VALIDATION; UNITED STATES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 0642343538     PISSN: 00220337     EISSN: 19307837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. The web-based education commission: the power of the Internet for learning. At: www.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/ FinalReport/index.html. Accessed: October 24, 2003.
2. Alexander S, Hedberg J. Evaluating technology-based learning: which model? In: Beattie K, McNaught C, Wills S. Interactive multimedia in education: designing for change in teaching and learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 1994.
3. Lord M. Getting a degree by e-mail. US News and World Report, October 30, 1005, 91-3.
4. Daniel JS. Why universities need technology strategies. Change, July/August 1997, 11-7.
5. Harasim L. A framework for online learning: the virtual- U. Computer 1999;32(9):44-9.
6. Carnevale D. U of Maryland university college forms forprofit company for on-line courses. Chron Higher Educ December 7, 1999.
7. Loose C. Online education to be free. Washington Post Online 3-14-2000:1-4. At: n/.newsbank.com/n/search/we/ Archives?p-action-list&p-topdoc-21. Accessed: October 24, 2003.
8. Clark RE. Evaluating distance education: strategies and cautions. Quart J Distance Educ 2000;1(1):1-15.
9. Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge, 1993.
10. Geissinger H. Educational software: criteria for evaluation. At: www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/ Geissinger/Geissinger.html. Accessed: October 24, 2003.
11. Bhola HS. Evaluating "Literacy for development" projects, programs and campaigns: evaluation planning, design and implementation, and utilization of evaluation results. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education; DSE [German Foundation for International Developement], 1990.
12. Friedman CP, Wyatt, JC, Evaluation methods in medical informatics. New York: Springer, 1996.
13. Chambers DW, Glassman Paul. A primer on competencybased evaluation. J Dent Educ 1997;61(8):651-66.
14. Clark RE. Media will never influence learning, 1993. At: www.usq.edu.au/material/unit/resource/clark/media.htm. Accessed: October 24, 2003.
15. Friedman CP. The research we should be doing. Acad Med 1994;69(6):455-7.
16. Kozma RB. Will media influence learning? reframing the debate. Educ Tech Res Dev 1994;42(2):7-19.
17. Kozma RB. Learning with media. Rev Educ Res 1991;61(2):179-212.
18. Salomon G. Television is easy and print is "tough": the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. J Educ Psych 1984;76(4):647-58.
19. Haertel G, Means B. Stronger designs for research on educational uses of technology: conclusion and implications. SRI International, October 17, 2000.
20. Clark RE. Dangers in the evaluation of instructional media. Acad Med 1992;67(12):819-20.
21. Clark RE. Confounding in educational computing research. J Educ Comput Res 1985;1:28-42.
22. Ehrmann SC. Asking the right question: what does research tell us about technology and higher learning. Change March/April 1995:20-7.
23. Cohen PA, Dacanay LS. A meta-analysis of computerbased instruction in nursing education. Comput Nurs 1994;12(2):89-97.
24. Twigg CA. Innovations in online learning: moving beyond no significant difference. Monograph 4. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation, The Pew Learning and Technology Program, 2001.
25. Rosenberg H, Grad HA, Matear DW. The effectiveness of computer-aided, self-instructional programs in dental education: a systematic review of the literature. J Dent Educ 2003;67(5):524-32.
26. Cork RD, Detmer WM, Friedman CP. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes toward computers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5(2):164-76.
27. Copeland HL, Hewson MG. Developing and testing an instrument to measure the effectiveness of clinical teaching in an academic medical center. Acad Med 2000;75(2):161-6.
28. Schleyer TK, Humberto T, Gadd CS. Validation of an instrument to measure students' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes towards computers. J Dent Educ 2001;65(1):50.
29. Cronbach LJ. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
30. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology. 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1995.
31. AADS House of Delegates. Competencies for the new dentist. J Dent Educ 1997;61(7):556-8.
32. Bachman MW, Lua MJ, Clay DJ, Rudney JD. Comparing traditional lecture vs. computer-based instruction for oral anatomy. J Dent Educ 1998;62(8):587-91.
33. Porter SR, Telford A, Chandler K, Furber S, Williams J, Price S, et al. Computer assisted learning (CAL) of oral manifestations of HIV disease. Br Dent J 1996;181(5):173-7.
34. Irvine NR, Moore RN. Computer-assisted instruction in mixed dentition analysis. J Dent Educ 1986;50(6):312-5.
35. Johnson LA, Cunningham MA, Finkelstein M., Hand JS. Geriatric patient simulations for dental hygiene. J Dent Educ 1997;61(8):667-77.
36. Fouad AF, Burleson JA. Effectiveness of an endodontic diagnosis computer simulation program. J Dent Educ 1997;61(3):289-95.
37. Luffingham JK. An assessment of computer-assisted learning in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1984;11(4):205-8.
38. Dentsim. At: www.denx.com/dentsim-system-desc.html. Accessed: October 24, 2003.
39. Dacanay LS, Cohen PA. A meta-analysis of individualized instruction in dental education. J Dent Educ 1992;56(3):183-9.
40. Lehmann HP, Freedman JA, Massad J, Dintzis RZ. An ethnographic, controlled study of the use of a computerbased histology atlas during a laboratory course. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999;6(1):38-52.
41. Burdea G, Patounakis G, Popescu V, Weiss RE. Virtual reality-based training for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1999;46(10):1253-60.
42. Long AF, Mercer PE, Stephens CD, Grigg P. The evaluation of three computer-assisted learning packages for general dental practitioners. Br Dent 1994;177(11-12):410-5.
43. Matthew IR, Pollard DJ, Frame JW. Development and evaluation of a computer-aided learning package for minor oral surgery teaching. Med Educ 1998;32(1):89-94.
44. Arene I, Ahmed W, Fox M, Barr CE, Fisher K. Evaluation of quick medical reference (QMR) as a teaching tool. MD Comput 1998;15(5):323-6.
45. Chan DH, Leclair K, Kaczorowski J. Problem-based small-group learning via the Internet among community family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. MD Comput 1999;16(3):54-8.
46. Lyon HC Jr, Healy JC, Bell JR, O'Donnell JF, Shultz EK, Moore-West M, et al. PlanAlyzer: an interactive computerassisted program to teach clinical problem solving in diagnosing anemia and coronary artery disease. Acad Med 1992;67(12):821-8.
47. Halloran L. A comparison of two methods of teaching: computer managed instruction and keypad questions versus traditional classroom lecture. Comput Nurs 1995;13(6):285-8.
48. Lindquist TJ, Clancy JM, Johnson LA, Wiebelt FJ. Effectiveness of computer-aided removable partial denture design. J Prosthodont 1997;6(2):122-7.
49. Marsh CM, Hannum WH, Trotman CA, Proffit WR. Design and effectiveness of a computer-based continuing education program for orthodontists. Angle Orthod 2001;71(1):71-5.
50. Ohrn MA, van Oostrom JH, van Meurs WL. A comparison of traditional textbook and interactive computer learning of neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg 1997;84(3):657-61.
51. Desch LW, Esquivel MT, Anderson SK. Comparison of a computer tutorial with other methods for teaching wellnewborn care. Am J Dis Child 1991;145(11):1255-8.
52. Horn DL, Radhakrishnan J, Saini S, Pepper GM, Peterson SJ. Evaluation of a computer program for teaching laboratory diagnosis of acid-base disorders. Comput Biomed Res 1992;25(6):562-8.
53. Grundman JA, Wigton RS, Nickol D. A controlled trial of an interactive, web-based virtual reality program for teaching physical diagnosis skills to medical students. Acad Med 2000;75(10 Suppl):S47-S49.
54. Clark RD, Weekrakone S, Rock WP. A Hypertext tutorial for teaching cephalometrics. Br J Orthod 1997;24(4):325-8
55. Maki WS, Maki RH. Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: II. contingency management to increase use of on-line study aids. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2000;32(2):240-5.
56. Turner RE, Evers WD, Wood OB, Lehman JD, Peck LW. Computer-based simulations enhance clinical experience of dietetics interns. J Am Diet Assoc 2000;100(2):183-9
57. Carr MM, Reznick RK, Brown DH. Comparison of computer- assisted instruction and seminar instruction to acquire psychomotor and cognitive knowledge of epistaxis management. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 121(4):430-4.
58. Bauer MD, Huynh MV. Nursing students' blood pressure measurement following CD-ROM and conventional classroom instruction: a pilot study. Int J Med Inf 1998;50(1- 3):103-9.
59. Plasschaert AJ, Cailleteau JG, Verdonschot EH. The effect of a multimedia interactive tutorial on learning endodontic problem-solving. Eur J Dent Educ 1997;1(2):66-9.
60. Santer DM, Michaelsen VE, Erkonen WE, Winter RJ, Woodhead JC, Gilmer JS, et al. A comparison of educational interventions. multimedia textbook, standard lecture, and printed textbook. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995;149(3):297-302.