October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Coombs, C. H., Milholland, J. E., & Womer, F. B. (1956). The assessment of partial knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 13–37. Dressel, P. L., & Schmid, J. (1953). Some modifications of the multiple-choice item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13, 574–595. Gretes, J. A., & Green, M. (2000). Improving undergraduate learning with computer-assisted assessment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (1), 46–4. Hagler, A. S., Norman, G. J., Radick, L. R., Calfas, K. J., & Sallis, J. F. (2005) Comparability and reliability of paper- and computer-based measures of psychosocial constructs for adolescent fruit and vegetable and dietary fat intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105 (11), 1758–1764. Haladyna, T. M. & Downing, S. M. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 37–50. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications, Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Inouye, D. K., & Bunderson, C. V. (1986). Four generations of computerized test administration. Machine-Mediated Learning, 1, 355–371. Jaradat, D. & Sawaged, S. (1986). The subset selection technique foe multiple-choice tests: An empirical inquiry. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23 (4), 369–376. Jaradat, D. & Tollefson, N. (1988). The impact of alternative scoring procedures for multiple-choice items on test reliability, validity, and grading. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 627–635. Kehoe, J. (1995). Basic item analysis for multiple-choice tests. Practical assessment, Research & Evaluation, 4 (10), retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=10. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Chi-square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8 (2), 360, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://rasch.org/rmt/rmt82.htm. Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8 th Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional education and psychological test, New York, NY: College Board Publications. Wongwiwatthananukit, S., Popovich, N. G., & Bennett, D. E. (2000). Assessing pharmacy student knowledge on multiple-choice examinations using partial-credit scoring of combined-response multiple-choice items. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 64 (1), 1–10. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis, Chicago, IL: MESA Press. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design, Chicago, IL: MESA Press. Zhu, W. (1996). Should total scores from a rating scale be used directly? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67 (3), 363–372. Zhu, W., & Cole, E. L. (1996). Many-faceted Rasch calibration of a gross motor instrument. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67 (1), 24–34. 109
Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Standardization from Below: Science and Technology Standards and Educational Software. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4), 110-117. Standardization from Below: Science and Technology Standards and Educational Software Kenneth R. Fleischmann College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA // kfleisch@umd.edu ABSTRACT Education in the United States is becoming increasingly standardized, with the standards being initiated at the national level and then trickling down to the state level and finally the local level. Yet, this top-down approach to educational standards carries with it significant limitations, such as loss of local autonomy and restrictions on the creativity of educational software designers. This paper reports findings from a study of the design and use of frog dissection simulations used in middle school and high school biology classes. The paper builds on the existing literatures on science and technology standards in education, using interviews, participant observation, and content analysis guided by grounded theory. The results highlight the ways that top-down educational standards constrain science teachers and software designers. The discussion presents an alternative to the topdown regime of educational standards, namely, a bottom-up approach of standardization from below. Finally, the conclusion argues that local control of educational experiences in the form of standardization from below can improve upon the traditional regime of top-down standards. Keywords Information technology, Computers, Science standards, Technology standards, Frog dissection simulations Introduction: Top-Down Educational Standards Standardization in education, including the growth of both science and technology standards, is a major ongoing trend in education in the United States. Although educational standards have historically been created and enforced at the state level, the recent trend has been toward the creation and enforcement of national educational standards. The explicit goal of this standardization is to enable all students within the United States to use the same computers with the same educational software. Yet, the danger is that these standards represent a one-size-fits-all approach to education that may overlook the specific needs of local communities. Going too far in the direction of standardizing education may endanger more socially, culturally, and geographically appropriate education. This paper asks two key questions. First, how do current top-down science and technology standards influence the design, marketing, and use of educational software? Second, how might bottom-up science and technology standards, in contrast, differently influence on the design, marketing, and use of educational software? Prior to the 20th Century, town meetings, gossip, and small newspapers gave citizens a local context and a shared experience. In the 20th Century, new technologies such as the telephone, the radio, and the television expanded the shared experience of humanity. Now in the 21st Century, the Internet has the potential to shape this shared experience at a global level. At each of these stages, the standardization of shared experience has depended largely on available technologies. One important form of shared experience is the educational experience, such as the secondary school experience. Educational policies and technologies are now being used to standardize this experience from one locality to another, so that the transmission of knowledges from one generation to another can become increasingly uniform. The goal of this paper is to determine the advantages and disadvantages of this topdown approach to educational standards as well as to consider the possibility of an alternative approach, a bottom-up approach to educational standards. Background: Top-Down Science Standards Traditionally, educational content standards focused on the “Three R’s” of reading, (w)riting, and (a)rithmatic. High school exit examinations focused on these three areas. These examinations not only are required for graduation, but also may be used to determine funding for different schools, and may even be used to fire teachers or principals or even close high schools. As a consequence, English and mathematics were considered the most important areas of learning, and privileged above other domains such as the sciences, social sciences, and arts. Further, these standards ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org. 110
Page 1 and 2:
October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Abstracting and Indexing Educationa
Page 5 and 6:
The Relationship of Kolb Learning S
Page 7 and 8:
a question about learning together
Page 9 and 10:
affordances of networked learning s
Page 11 and 12:
included a unit on collaborative le
Page 13 and 14:
on at different times and work indi
Page 15 and 16:
• the numerous evaluation studies
Page 17 and 18:
wanted to work. The same inquiry pr
Page 19 and 20:
usability studies have a place in t
Page 21 and 22:
Milrad, M., & Jackskon, M. (2007).
Page 23 and 24:
information- and communication tech
Page 25 and 26:
Interactive Examination, the studen
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. Criteria for grading OD st
Page 29 and 30:
content. Differences in the attitud
Page 31 and 32:
Even though further research on the
Page 33 and 34:
Olofsson, A. D. (2007). Participati
Page 35 and 36:
Etzioni (1993) points out that an i
Page 37 and 38:
programme. They are rather construc
Page 39 and 40:
to be that each individual trainee
Page 41 and 42:
Bernmark-Ottosson, A. (2005). Demok
Page 43 and 44:
The Knowledge Foundation (2005). IT
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 1. Design Theories in contex
Page 47 and 48:
attention as we frequently discuss
Page 49 and 50:
Blog Reflection This design concept
Page 51 and 52:
Narrative Structure (Form) Content
Page 53 and 54:
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (200
Page 55 and 56:
critique, neither do the single ind
Page 57 and 58:
suggested by Ljungberg (1999b) we c
Page 59 and 60:
the del.icio.us site (see figure 3)
Page 61 and 62:
Device cultures It is not only the
Page 63 and 64: uilt using a camera-equipped PDA ru
Page 65 and 66: Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L.,
Page 67 and 68: Milrad, M., & Spikol, D. (2007). An
Page 69 and 70: components to be able to deal with
Page 71 and 72: compulsory throughout the project.
Page 73 and 74: only with their existing day-today
Page 75 and 76: As our work continues, we will try
Page 77 and 78: cognition as well as self-regulated
Page 79 and 80: Mobile mind map tool for stimulatin
Page 81 and 82: the pictorial knowledge representat
Page 83 and 84: Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (19
Page 85 and 86: Al-A'ali, M. (2007). Implementation
Page 87 and 88: complex cognitive skills involve em
Page 89 and 90: Table 1. CAT and a linear mathemati
Page 91 and 92: It is agreed that the difficulty le
Page 93 and 94: Figure 7. Our newly added factors i
Page 95 and 96: question factors according to IRT;
Page 97 and 98: Instructure 1 Login User-ID Passwor
Page 99 and 100: Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adap
Page 101 and 102: distinguish between partial knowled
Page 103 and 104: esponse is identified, then the sco
Page 105 and 106: are stored in the answer record and
Page 107 and 108: 2 (7) MNSQ = ∑WniZ ni ∑ Wni =
Page 109 and 110: in the course. A randomized block d
Page 111 and 112: To test whether ET can effectively
Page 113: course, more comparison tests could
Page 117 and 118: educational standards in practice t
Page 119 and 120: laboratory activities, which are bu
Page 121 and 122: process is currently a largely top-
Page 123 and 124: Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-
Page 125 and 126: evolution with computing technology
Page 127 and 128: Resources 0.55 0.72 e17 In my schoo
Page 129 and 130: teachers’ instructional evolution
Page 131 and 132: Regression models indicating relati
Page 133 and 134: of beliefs about integrating comput
Page 135 and 136: Sinko, M., & Lehtinen, E. (1999). T
Page 137 and 138: concept of social support. Lastly,
Page 139 and 140: Procedure Content analysis procedur
Page 141 and 142: and mice are out of order. I have t
Page 143 and 144: feature of supportive online groups
Page 145 and 146: Anderson, J., & Lee, A. (1995). Lit
Page 147 and 148: Schwab, R. L., Jackson, S. E., & Sc
Page 149 and 150: Investigating the problem An extens
Page 151 and 152: meets the anywhere, anytime require
Page 153 and 154: minimise housekeeping tasks and fre
Page 155 and 156: 3. Join Group Discussion 4. Attend
Page 157 and 158: Figure 4. Learning Shell showing He
Page 159 and 160: engineering the Learning Shell so i
Page 161 and 162: Olfos, R., & Zulantay, H. (2007). R
Page 163 and 164: portion of CourseInfo requires that
Page 165 and 166:
Table 2. Assignment evaluation resp
Page 167 and 168:
E-3c. Likert scale on usability: Th
Page 169 and 170:
organized in four groups, namely: T
Page 171 and 172:
The correlations were not high enou
Page 173 and 174:
Data illustrate some reliability an
Page 175 and 176:
nature, some specific core objectiv
Page 177 and 178:
Frederiksen, J.R., & Collins, A. (1
Page 179 and 180:
Bottino, R. M., & Robotti, E. (2007
Page 181 and 182:
The Text Editor allows the editing
Page 183 and 184:
Mathematical content and structure
Page 185 and 186:
Consolidation exercises Solution co
Page 187 and 188:
As to course components, the activi
Page 189 and 190:
handle more formal representations
Page 191 and 192:
Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Labor
Page 193 and 194:
processed information was classifie
Page 195 and 196:
Method Participants The participant
Page 197 and 198:
Table 5. Learning outcomes of diffe
Page 199 and 200:
peers and benefited most from discu
Page 201 and 202:
Kayes, D.C. (2005). Internal validi
Page 203 and 204:
This paper considers the potential
Page 205 and 206:
The first assumption ensures that c
Page 207 and 208:
allowed to rise when external fundi
Page 209 and 210:
The second option, lowering the cos
Page 211 and 212:
Downes, S. (2003). Design and Reusa
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix A. Good-enough approaches
Page 215 and 216:
Rapid Prototyping and Design Based
Page 217 and 218:
Initial Design Because the field-ba
Page 219 and 220:
• reducing the number of required
Page 221 and 222:
that they felt this hindrance; I fe
Page 223 and 224:
goals” (Edelson, 2002, p. 114) wa
Page 225 and 226:
more and more from the periphery of
Page 227 and 228:
Edelson, M. (1988). The hermeneutic
Page 229 and 230:
Wang, H.-Y., & Chen, S. M. (2007).
Page 231 and 232:
If the universe of discourse U is a
Page 233 and 234:
we can see that S( X ) − S( Y ) S
Page 235 and 236:
Example 1: Let Ã and B ~ be two va
Page 237 and 238:
columns shown in Table 2, where 1
Page 239 and 240:
(3) Find the maximum value among th
Page 241 and 242:
By applying Eq. (7), we can get the
Page 243 and 244:
Q.2 carries 25 marks, Q.3 carries 2
Page 245 and 246:
the proposed methods can evaluate s
Page 247 and 248:
Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., Grigoriado
Page 249 and 250:
enabling learner (subject) to work
Page 251 and 252:
• Self-, Peer- and Collaborative-
Page 253 and 254:
(iii) Regulates the communication:
Page 255 and 256:
Figure 3. A screen shot of the SCAL
Page 257 and 258:
2 nd study: Thirty-five students pa
Page 259 and 260:
them characterized it as time and e
Page 261 and 262:
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting Socia
Page 263 and 264:
making reference to the others wher
Page 265 and 266:
Solution 2.2: Deliberately select h
Page 267 and 268:
just near a deadline, when it may b
Page 269 and 270:
assessed on an individual basis. Wi
Page 271 and 272:
- and even appreciated - by student
Page 273 and 274:
Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). En
Page 275 and 276:
Concept Mapping Concept mapping by
Page 277 and 278:
Research Questions In order to dete
Page 279 and 280:
with their teacher but rather than
Page 281 and 282:
Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveale
Page 283 and 284:
collaboratively during study time?
Page 285 and 286:
Jegede, O.J., Alaiyemola, F.F., & O
Page 287 and 288:
esources. The use of synchronous te
Page 289 and 290:
The use of digital communication mo
Page 291 and 292:
contributed more information and en
Page 293 and 294:
3. Use the second screen for the le
Page 295 and 296:
• Use drawing to develop writing
Page 297 and 298:
student and teacher on the synchron
Page 299 and 300:
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-
Page 301 and 302:
Cases The first set of ten case stu
Page 303 and 304:
Kılıçkaya, F. (2007). Website re
show all

October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?