Using handheld computers to support improved classroom assessment in science: Results from a field trial

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 142-158

  Yarnall, Louise ^a   Shechtman, Nicole ^a   Penuel, William R ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Computer technology; Handhelds; Middle school; PDAs; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749234796     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-9008-4     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Becker, H. J., and Riel, M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use. Retrieved July 9, 2001, from http://www.crito.uci.cdu/tlc/findings/report_7/.
2. Berger, L., and Lynn, E. (2002). Formative visions: Using handheld computers to support diagnostic instruction. /Insight Leadership, 21, 83-97. Accessed online 7/26/2006 from http://www.wirelessgeneration.com/pdf/ BergerLynn_White_Paper.pdf.
3. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delia Kappan 80(2): 139-144, 146-148.
4. Bol, L., and Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers' instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology course. Science Education 80(2): 145-163.
5. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32(1): 9-13.
6. Danesh, A., Inkpen, K. M., Lau, F., Shu, K., and Booth, K. (2001). Geney: Designing a collaborative activity for the palm handheld computer. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA.
7. Davey, B., and McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 256-262.
8. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1): 5-8.
9. Eltron, L. R. B. (1982). Assessment for learning. In Bligh, D. (Ed.), Professionalism and flexibility for learning, Society for Research into Higher Education, Guildford, Surry, England.
10. Erickson, J., and Lehrer, R. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7(3&4): 351-386.
11. Feldman, A., Konold, C., and Coulter, B. (2002). Network science: A decade later, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
12. Fishman, B. J., and Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? A commentary. Science Education 87(4): 564-573.
13. Gobert, J. D., and Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries of conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 36-53.
14. Hsi, S. (1999). Assessment anytime, anywhere with ubiquitous computers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
15. Hsi, S. (2000). Using handheld technologies to connect web-based learning to outdoor investigations. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting.
16. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., and Perry, J. (2005). Using palm technology in participatory simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(3): 285-297.
17. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students' comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology 14: 366-381.
18. Luchini, K., Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., Farah, C., Nandihalli, N., Reese, K., Wieczorek, A., and Soloway, E. (2002). Scaffolding in the small Designing educational supports for concept mapping on handheld computers. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
19. Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., Bilezikjian, M., Klemmer, S. R., and Landay, J. A. (2001). Supporting children's collaboration across handheld computers. In Extended abstracts of CHI, Conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI, Seattle, WA.
20. Marbach-Ad, G., and Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 854-870.
21. Means, B., and Haertel, G. D. (2002). Technology supports for assessing science inquiry. In Board on Testing and Assessment (Ed.), Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead. Proceedings from a workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 12-25.
22. Means, B., Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., Sabelli, N., and Haertel, G. D. (2003). Technology's contribution to teaching and policy: Efficiency, standardization, or transformation? Review of Educational Research 27: 159-181.
23. Metcalf, S. J., and Tinker, R. (2003). TEEM SS: Technology Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
24. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
25. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
26. National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
27. Novack, A. M., and Gleason, C. I. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In Tinker, R. F., and Krajcik, J. (Eds.), Portable technologies; Science learning in context, Kluwer Press, NY, pp. 29-62.
28. Ogle, D. S. (1986). K-W-L group instructional strategy. In Palincsar, A., Ogle, D. S., Jones, B. F., and Carr, E. G. (Eds.), Teaching reading as thinking (Teleconference Resource Guide), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, pp. 11-17.
29. Palincsar, A. S., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117-175.
30. Parr, C., Jones, T., and Songer, N. (2004). Evaluation of a handheld data collection interface for science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13(2): 233-242.
31. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., Crawford, V., Shechtman, N., and Abrahamson, A. L. (2004a). Workshop report: Advancing research on the transformative potential of interactive pedagogies and classroom networks, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
32. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., and Shechtman, N. The WHIRL co-design process: Participant experiences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (under review).
33. Penuel, W. R., Tatar, D., and Roschelle, J. (2004b). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 30(4): 331-348.
34. Penuel, W. R., and Yarnall, L. (2005). Designing handheld software to support classroom assessment: An analysis of conditions for teacher adoption. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 3(5), available from http://www.jtla.org.
35. Petrosino, A. J. (1998). The use of reflection and revision in hands-on experimental activities by at risk children. Unpublished dissertation. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Roschelle, J., and Pea, R. D. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handholds may change computer-supported
36. collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology 1(1): 145-168.
37. Rosenshine, B. V., and Stevens, R. J. (1986). Teaching functions. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edn., Macmillan, New York, pp. 376-391.
38. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., and Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(5): 369-393.
39. Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment, Merrill, Columbus, OH.
40. Stiggins, R. J., and Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers' hands: Investigating the practice of classroom assessment, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
41. Stiggins, R, J., Rubel, E., and Quellmalz, E. (1988). Measuring thinking skills in the classroom, NEA, Washington, DC.
42. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Wilensky, U., and Stroup, W. M. (2000). Networked gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the hubnet architecture. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
44. Young, V., Haertel, G. D., Ringstaff, C., and Means, B. (1998). Evaluating global lab curriculum: Impacts and issues of implementing a project-based science curriculum, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.