This article focuses on the challenges of collecting and using photographic evidence to evaluate
technology infusion programs in higher education. Offering promise in bridging physical and
psychological realities, photo-interviewing has been used in anthropology and sociology but
rarely in educational evaluation or research. Using an evaluation of a 6-day introductory hyper-
media workshop as an example, the authors discuss a five-phase strategy for applying photo-
interviewing. Four polemics emerging from this process are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, H.S.1978. Do photographs tell the truth? Afterimage5:9-13.
2.
Brown, R.D., M.J. Sanstead, D. Schlake, and K. Story.1982. Can a camera help? Evaluation of a professional meeting through photography. CEDR Quarterly15 (3): 7-10.
3.
Byers, P.1964. Still photography in the systematic recording of an analysis of behavioral data. Human Organization23:78-84.
4.
Collier, J., and M. Collier.1986. Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
5.
Dawson, J.A., and D.N. Caulley.1981. The group interview as an evaluation technique in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis3 (4): 61-66.
6.
deCharms, R.1972. Personal causation training in the schools. Journal of Applied Psychology2:95-113.
7.
English, F.1988. The utility of the camera in qualitative inquiry. Educational Researcher17 (4): 8-15.
8.
Erickson, F., and G. Mohatt.1982. Cultural organization of participant culture in two classrooms of Indian students. In Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action, edited by G. Spindler.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
9.
Fang, W.L.1985. The use of photography as a qualitative evaluation technique . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society, Toronto, Canada, October.
10.
Garfinkel, H.1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
11.
Hall, E.1974. Handbook for proxemic research. Washington, DC: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication .
12.
Kunkel, R., and S. Tucker.1977. A perception-based model of program evaluation: A values oriented theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April.
13.
MacDonald, B.1981. Interviewing in case study evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April.
14.
Merton, R.K., M. Fiske, and P. Kendall.1956. The focused interview. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
15.
Ory, J.C., and L.A. Braskamp.1981. Faculty perceptions of the quality and usefulness of three types of evaluation information. Research in Higher Education15(3): 271-82.
16.
Ory, J.C., L.A. Braskamp, and D.M. Pieper.1980. Congruency of student evaluative information collected by three methods. Journal of Educational Psychology72(2): 181-85.
17.
Polanyi, M.1975. Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Redfield, R.1955. The little community: Viewpoints for the study of a human whole. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Sontag, S.1977. On photography. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
20.
Stake, R.1982. A peer response: A review of program evaluation in education: When? How? To what ends? In Evaluation studies review annual , edited by E. R. House, S. Mathison, J. A. Pearsol , and H. Preskill.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Staples, J.1990. The AV screen: The CD and AV. Industrial Photography39(11): 4-6.
22.
Templine, P.A.1978. Still photography: Can it provide program portrayal? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, March.
23.
Tukey, J.W.1977. Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
Wachtman, E.1978. The camera as an evaluation and research instrument: Snapshots of a science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, March.
