Review Criteria
Selecting Computer-Based High School Science Curricula: A Guide for Teachers raises 13 questions for educators (as individuals or teams) to consider when reviewing computer-based products for possible use as curricula. The tool organizes the questions into four categories: Student Learning, Teaching and Professional Development, Equity, and Feasibility. Each category includes a set of elements (i.e., criteria) to look for in a computer-based core curricula. The goal is to ensure that the computer-based materials support the kind of effective science teaching and learning recommended in the national standards. To clarify the purpose of each question, a discussion of the criteria follows.
Teaching and Professional Development
Student Learning
A valuable and meaningful way of thinking about technology-based instructional materials is in terms of what they can do for students’ learning. These materials should promote inquiry-based teaching by extending the capacity of students to undertake demanding investigations, to explore and interact with simulations, to confront problem-solving situations with the aid of specific technology, to communicate, and to access information resources. The following questions explore that issue.
1. Alignment with Standards
How are the standards (e.g., National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards and the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks for Science Literacy) or the state/district frameworks referenced in the content and pedagogical approaches of the materials?
This criterion looks at the direction and approach the materials take toward topics referred to in the current high school science curriculum standards. For instance, the presence of additional technological devices included in the materials may add to the potential of students reaching deeper levels of science content comprehension (particularly with major science concepts previously difficult to master) and proficiency with science inquiry.
2. Pedagogy
Do the technological components of the materials promote diverse ways for students to think and learn by increasing the variety of learning opportunities? If so, how?
Do these components provide opportunities to enhance the learning intended by the core curriculum or do they divert students from focusing on the learning goals? Give examples of activities/learning tasks of the technology component that appear to enhance and extend the lesson in ways that would not be possible without it and/or examples of activities that appear to hinder learning.
This criterion directs attention to whether a computer-based curriculum supports the idea that students learn in a variety of ways. It seeks evidence that the technological attributes of the materials facilitate students’ learning by presenting diverse learning opportunities.
Conducting scientific inquiry requires that students have equitable and frequent opportunities to use a wide range of equipment, materials, supplies, and other resources for experimental and direct investigations of phenomena. A central message of the National Science Education Standards is that students learn through inquiry. They need various opportunities for open exploration, and they require the intellectual tools to assist them as they make sense of their own questions. Technology components in a curriculum should help high school students develop habits of scientific inquiry, creative exploration, and intellectual rigor in critical appraisal of their findings. In addition, according to the standards, students need to learn to use appropriate tools and techniques to gather, analyze, and interpret data. Materials that include technical tools for the collection, summary, and display of information have the potential to help students acquire those skills.
3. Ease of Use
How clearly do the materials introduce students to the learning process and support them throughout it (e.g., recording, reflecting, interpreting, storing, and editing information/data)?
How explicit are the materials in guiding the students through the steps of the learning tasks?
This criterion examines the design features of the curriculum in terms of leading and assisting students through the performance of technology-based activities included in the materials. Students not only need to learn quickly how to operate equipment and perform technical procedures, but they also need to master those activities sufficiently to appreciate the power of the tools and their appropriate use. Schools do not have the luxury to take time away from learning the course content and dedicate it to learning about the use of tools. The time devoted to learning the tool is always in competition with limited instructional time for the science concepts. Therefore, the absence of clear directions to instruct students about the technologies and the lack of support for the adequate use of the different features will make the technology more of an impediment than a benefit.
4. Collaboration
In which ways do the technology-based features of the learning tasks motivate and challenge students to generate new ideas, create extensions of the activities, and share and collaborate with other students doing similar activities or with experts in the field of study?
Technology-based education materials have often been cited as strong
motivators. Lessons created with technological means can be imaginative,
relevant, and stimulating. This section directs attention to assessing
a computer-based curriculum’s ability to stimulate continual and
collaborative learning. For example, technology can be examined for its
capacity to challenge high school students to generate new ideas, promote
and lead them through the creation of extensions to existing activities,
and prompt them to share with other groups by building collaborations
with other schools linked through telecommunications and with peers in
their own classrooms. Students working collaboratively can explore more
complex questions and develop more significant and sophisticated understanding
of science problems than can students working alone.
Schools are experiencing the development of network-based (and, in some
cases, worldwide) communities made up of collaborating students, teachers,
and scientists with their own conferences, meetings, working groups,
professional societies, publications, and peer review groups. Participation
in these communities gives students an invaluable working understanding
of how science is organized, as well as real opportunities to learn science
concepts.
5. Assessment Strategies
Discuss the assessment approach of the program. How does the program help assess the impact it has had on different kinds of learners?
How does the program analyze students’ learning to help students build knowledge?
This criterion examines the strategies that the technology-based materials include to indicate students’ progress. Assessments in programs that promote active learning ask students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills through authentic tasks, projects, or investigations. Performance-based assessments are meaningful, challenging experiences that require students to plan and develop presentations and to demonstrate what they have learned. The format of some technology-based materials provides opportunities for students to take part in assessment that is as active as the learning itself.
In reviewing materials, one might consider whether the instruments serve summative or formative assessment purposes. If summative, the instruments will mark the progress of students toward the goals and objectives set by the curriculum. If formative, the information is useful to the student as well as the teacher, as both should make decisions about how to proceed on the basis of findings from the assessment. Also, the examination of flexibility in materials would indicate whether they provide alternative or optional assessment tools, whereby learners can select the methods by which they would best show what they know. Indeed, a high school student should be expected to take some responsibility in this process.
Teaching and Professional Development
To improve the quality of implementation of computer-based curricula, it is important that teachers develop a high comfort level with the use of the technology involved with these materials. The product might match a teacher’s instructional technology skills or it may create a need for professional development to equip a teacher with the skills to use it with students. As with any expectation made of a school or a teacher, the user should be aware of the support that will be required.
1. Training
Given the format of the program, its components, and its approach, what kinds of additional knowledge are required?
What types of training would a teacher need for its appropriate/effective implementation?
This criterion examines whether the materials themselves provide the needed background knowledge and coaching for teachers to understand the design of the technological components to operate the program. When the necessary support is not part of the materials, it is important to make provisions for additional training for the teachers in the mechanical use of the program.
2. Support
How does the program assist the teacher with the knowledge background and skills needed to use the materials effectively (e.g., technology-related content background, pedagogical support needed for instruction in using the technological devices, means for modifying and/or creating their own activities, support for receiving and providing feedback)?
What type of additional support is required, if any?
Once the implementation of the program is underway, support may be required beyond the initial orientation or training. Given the diverse opportunities and challenges that teaching new computer-based curricula may contain, teachers are often co-learners and co-investigators along with students. Teachers and students both participate in technology-facilitated scientific investigations, learning along the way how the technology leads to knowledge and skills. For the teacher, it may be important that support come in the form of discussions with colleagues. As teachers learn the new curriculum over time, it is important that they receive adequate assistance with the specialized knowledge and skills they require to implement the material effectively and to provide appropriate support, in turn, to their students.
3. Levels of Expertise
How does the program engage teachers who are at different levels of comfort in the use of technology?
A key point to consider when assessing the types of support that are present (either in the materials or in the training that teachers receive) is that training and support should be geared toward the skills and experience of the users.
Equity
It is clear that technological infrastructure and instructional technology programs are more accessible to some schools and districts than others. Educators reviewing computer-based curricula for possible adoption will be all too aware of their budget limitations. However, in addition to the issue of equitable funding, there is the issue of equitable design. Each program under consideration, regardless of cost, needs to be reviewed for its usefulness to all students. Part of the challenge of providing adequate access to technology is making sure that students get equal access to the opportunities the curricula have to offer. The modern classroom is likely to include students with diverse cultural backgrounds, physical strengths, and challenges; different levels of basic language and mathematics literacy; and compelling interests.
1. Pedagogical Effectiveness
Does the instructional design of the program suggest alternative teaching methods that would enable the teacher to adapt or modify the materials to meet specific students’ needs? If so, how?
This criterion considers how the materials help the teacher deliver “science for all.” It examines the degree to which the design and pedagogical approach of a given computer-based curriculum is adaptable to the different conditions that may exist from classroom to classroom. It asks whether the materials provide the teacher with flexibility and alternatives in addressing diversity among the students. The criterion looks at whether the activities, learning experiences, and resources are represented in various formats. By the time students reach high school, they will have developed well-defined interests and academic strengths. Even within science, age-appropriate differentiation of interests and abilities will affect how students respond to a computer-based curriculum. Because technology has the potential to provide flexibility and alternative learning strategies, any computer-based curriculum should be examined for the degree it makes use of that flexibility.
2. Inclusion
What makes the format of the technology features accessible
by learners
– with different learning styles?
– with different abilities?
– from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds?
– from all socioeconomic levels?
This criterion examines whether the format of the computer-based materials is able to engage a wide spectrum of students. Teachers are expected to manage classrooms of a variety of students, and a curriculum product might well be expected to cater to the same. Students will pursue different questions, work at different speeds, and use different materials. They will bring to their tasks different ways of thinking, different home and community experiences, different personal technological resources, and different academic histories.
3. Responsiveness
How do the technological components of the program make the content more comprehensive and relevant to all students’ interests and questions?
This criterion examines the degree to which the content of a given computer-based curriculum will be found compelling by a wide range of high school students. Equitable engagement is authentic, challenging, and multidisciplinary. Tasks are authentic when they are important to learners and when learners have the opportunity to connect their knowledge and experiences to real life. Technology has a special potential to bring this quality to a curriculum, so any review of such products should evaluate their power to make content relevant. Moreover, the engagement it brings about should encompass the full range of students.
Feasibility
In making a final decision about computer-based curricula, schools and teachers must consider issues related to cost, as well as to the characteristics and the technology requirements of the materials. Computer-based curriculum products may be suitable from a content and pedagogical perspective, but infrastructure requirements and costs may require a cost-benefit analysis.
1. Characteristics and Requirements
What are the characteristics and
requirements of the technology features, in terms of
–
the infrastructure that needs to be in place (e.g., hardware and software
compatibility with existing platforms and operating systems, power requirements,
networking capacity, a special classroom setting)?
–
the materials students will be required to have (e.g., consumable supplies,
work spaces, print materials)? Are the hands-on or print materials self-explanatory
and ready to be used? Are materials well-coordinated with the resources?
This criterion examines the technical requirements of computer-based curriculum materials, as well as the traditional materials that students will use as part of the curriculum. Issues common to most technology-based materials include connectivity, operability, and access (e.g., connections to the Internet, equipment convenient for individual use, teachers’ access to student computers on the network, and equipment capable of exchanging data easily among diverse formats and technologies).
2. Cost
What cost does the school incur by acquiring and implementing
this curriculum, in
terms of
–
the curriculum materials themselves?
–
the technological readiness of the school/classroom?
–
the different levels of training necessary, if any (when training is
not offered by the vendor)?
–
the upgrading processes and additional training necessary, if any?
It is important to collect information that relates to the approximate costs of what the school chooses in terms of materials. The four items listed above are only examples of the types of elements that schools need to consider. The key is to watch for all elements that may translate into costs.
