Training for pre-service and in-service teachers that is delivered through distance education methods solves various problems of traditional professional development. These problems include issues such as providing a consistent message, training large numbers of personnel, and overcoming scheduling and funding problems. As with other forms of instruction, professional development training materials should be subjected to a level of evaluation that increases the likelihood of successful implementation. However, it is unclear how this need for evaluation of professional development software is being met. Commercial software companies have been found to eschew evaluation of their products and classroom teachers can be expected to conduct only limited software evaluations of the software. This article contends that educational researchers are well positioned to conduct comprehensive evaluations of the professional development software they create. This purpose of this review of the literature is to (a) consolidate the database of literature with regard to professional development software, (b) examine the degree to which the software described in the literature has been comprehensively evaluated, and (c) provide suggestions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsS. L. (1998). Best practice: Preservice teachers' perceptions of videodisc versus videotape of classroom practices in a methods course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 51–59.
2.
BlissT.MazurJ. (1996). Common thread case project: Developing associations of experienced and novice educators through technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 185–190.
3.
BrothenT.WambachC. (1999). An evaluation of lectures in a computer-based, psi introductory psychology course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(2), 147–155.
4.
CartwrightC. A.CartwrightG.P.RobineG.G. (1972). CAI course in the early identification of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 38(6), 453–459.
5.
CresswellR.HobsonP. (1996). Fallacies and assumptions in the use of student evaluation of distance education teaching materials. Distance Education, 17(1), 132–144.
6.
DeshlerD.SchumakerJ.FisherJ. (1996). The effects of an interactive multimedia program on teachers' understanding and implementation of an instructional innovation (Report No. H023B50025). Lawrence, KS: Dole Center for Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 644).
7.
DickW.CareyL. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. (4th ed.). NY: Harper-Collins.
8.
FangK. (1995). An assessment of computer-assisted instruction dissertations: 1988–1993. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(1), 75–81.
9.
FinkC. M. (1990). Special education inservice for correctional educators. Journal of Correctional Education, 41(4), 186–190.
10.
FitzgeraldG. E. (1994). Hypermedia in teacher education: Development of course support materials. Computers in the Schools, 10(1–2), 47–68.
11.
FitzgeraldG. E.HardinL.HollingseadC. (1997). Engaging preservice teachers in hypermedia authoring: Process and outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(2), 191–207.
12.
FitzgeraldG. E.WilsonB.SemrauL.P. (1997). An interactive multimedia program to enhance teacher problem-solving skills based on cognitive flexibility theory: Design and outcomes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), 47–76.
13.
GoldmanE.BarronL. (1990) Using hypermedia to improve the preparation of elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 21–31.
14.
HigginsK.BooneR.WilliamsD. (2000). Evaluating educational software for special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(2), 109–124.
15.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).
16.
IversK. S.BarronA.E. (1998). Using paired learning conditions with computer-based instruction to teach preservice teachers about telecommunications. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2/3), 183–191.
17.
JohnsonH. (1994). Development and evaluation of an unobtrusive computer system for collecting direct observation data in the classroom. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky.
18.
KennyR. F.BernadW.AndrewsB.W.VignolaM.SchilzM.A.CovertJ. (1999). Towards guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia instruction: Fostering the reflective decision-making of preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 13–31.
19.
KumarD.AltschuldJ. (1999). Contextual variables in a technology-based teacher education project. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 75–81.
20.
LudlowB. L.FoshayJ.D.DuffM.C. (1998). Developing Interactive multimedia modules to train rural special education personnel. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Charleston, SC.
21.
McCoyL. P. (1994). Decisions in inferential statistics with hypercard: Design and field test. Computers in the Schools, 10(1–2), 69–77.
22.
MeersD. (1997). The development of a system of consultative support. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky.
23.
MuscottH. S.GiffordT. (1994). Virtual reality and social skills training for students with behavioral disorders: Applications, challenges and promising practices. Education and Treatment of Children, 17(4), 417–434.
24.
NgaiJ. Y. K.ChanK.S. (1998). A study on the use of interactive multimedia courseware in the learning of rat dissection. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 26(3), 235–242.
25.
OverbaughR. C. (1994). An example of software development and authoring with hypercard: Creating an interactive video simulation for teaching basic principles of classroom management to preschool teachers. Computers in the Schools, 10(3–4), 313–338.
26.
SailorW.FreemanR.BrittenJ.McCartA.SmithC.ScottT. M. (1999–2000). Using information technology to prepare personnel to implement functional behavioral assessment and positive behavioral support. Exceptionality, 8 (3), 217–229.
27.
SassoG. M.ConroyM. A.Peck-StichterJ.FoxJ. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296.
28.
ScottT. M.NelsonC. M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249–252.
29.
SkudrnaV. J. (1997). Role of computer assisted instruction (CAI) in an introductory computer concepts course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25(4), 327–345.
30.
StrangH. R.MurphyD.M.KauffmanJ.M.BadtK.S.LoperA.B. (1986). Training classroom management skills via a microcomputer-based simulation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9(2), 55–62.
31.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA. (2000). Functional behavioral assessment and IDEA ′97:Legal and practice considerations. Preventing School Failure, 44 (4), 158–62.
32.
ZaneT.FrazerC.G. (1992). The extent to which software developers validate their claims. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 410–419.
