The adoption of alternative pedagogical philosophies in the classroom has led to an increased use of technology to expand and enhance authentic, contextual learning environments. Correspondingly these new approaches have also led to a growing dissatisfaction with existing evaluation methodologies to evaluate knowledge. In this article the Process/Outcome Evaluation Model (POEM) is proposed to guide in the development of more holistic evaluations of both the learning process and the resultant outcomes of that process. POEM consists of four components that employ multiple evaluation techniques and strategies resulting in a composite assessment of the totality of a learning experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CareyL. M., Measuring and Evaluating School Learning, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, 1988.
2.
ChoiJ.HannafinM., Situated Cognition and Learning Environments: Roles, Structures, and Implications for Design, Educational Technology Research & Development, 43:2, pp. 53–69, 1995.
3.
JonassenD. H., Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking, Merrill, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1996.
4.
EngelB. S., Portfolio Assessment and the New Paradigm: New Instruments and New Places, The Educational Forum, 59:1, pp. 22–27, 1994.
5.
Darling-HammondL., Setting Standards for Students: The Case for Authentic Assessment, The Educational Forum, 59:1, pp. 14–21, 1994.
6.
WigginsG., A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment, Phi Delta Kappan, 70:9, pp. 703–713, 1989.
WorthenB. R.SpandelV., Putting the Standardized Test Debate in Perspective, Educational Leadership, 48:5, pp. 65–69, 1991.
9.
HaneyW.MadausG., Searching for Alternatives to Standardized Tests: Whys, Whats, and Whithers, Phi Delta Kappan, 70:9, pp. 683–687, 1989.
10.
BrandtR., On Teaching for Understanding: A Conversation with Howard Gardner, Educational Leadership, 50:7, pp. 4–7, 1993.
11.
ResnickL. B., Learning in School and Out, Educational Researcher, 16:9, pp. 13–20, 1987.
12.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP., Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher, 18:1, pp. 32–42, 1989.
13.
CroninJ. F., Four Misconceptions about Authentic Learning, Educational Leadership, 50:7, pp. 78–80, 1993.
14.
EnglishF. W.HillJ. C., Total Quality Education: Transforming Schools into Learning Places, Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, 1994.
15.
SlavinR. E., Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning, Educational Leadership, 48:5, pp. 71–82, 1991.
16.
SaveryJ. R.DuffyT. M., Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework, Educational Technology, 35:5, pp. 31–38, 1994.
17.
JonassenD. H.CampbellJ. P.DavidsonM. E., Learning with Media: Restructuring the Debate, Educational Technology Research & Development, 42:2, pp. 31–39, 1994.
18.
KinzieM. B.SullivanH. J., Continuing Motivation, Learner Control, and CAI, Educational Technology Research & Development, 37:2, pp. 5–14, 1989.
19.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, Anchored Instruction and Situated Cognition Revisited, Educational Technology, 33:3, pp. 52–70, 1993.
20.
BransfordJ. D.SherwoodR. D.HasselbringT. S.KinzerC. K.WilliamsS. M., Anchored Instruction: Why We Need It and How Technology Can Help, in Cognition, Education, and Multimedia, NixD.SpiroR. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 115–141, 1992.
21.
KrovetzM.CastersonD.McKowenC.WillisT., Beyond Show and Tell, Educational Leadership, 50:7, pp. 73–76, 1993.
22.
LaszloA.CastroK., Technology and Values: Interactive Learning Environments for Future Generations, Educational Technology, 35:2, pp. 7–13, 1995.
23.
MorrisonD.CollinsA., Epistemic Fluency and Constructivist Learning Environments, Educational Technology, 35:5, pp. 39–45, 1995.
24.
NewmannF. M.WehlageG. G., Five Standards of Authentic Instruction, Educational Leadership, 50:7, pp. 8–12, 1993.
25.
StepienW.GallagherS., Problem-Based Learning: As Authentic as It Gets, Educational Leadership, 50:7, pp. 25–28, 1993.
26.
WilsonB. G., Metaphors for Instruction: Why We Talk About Learning Environments, Educational Technology, 35:5, pp. 25–30, 1995.
27.
JonassenD. H., Designing Structured Hypertext and Structuring Access to Hypertext, Educational Technology, 28:11, pp. 13–16, 1988.
28.
LocatisC.LetourneauG.BanvardR., Hypermedia and Instruction, Educational Technology Research & Development, 37:4, pp. 65–77, 1989.
29.
MarchioniniG., Evaluating Hypermedia-Based Learning, in Designing Hypermedia for Learning, JonassenD. H.MandlH. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 355–373, 1990.
30.
HarrisM.CadyM., The Dynamic Process of Creating Hypertext Literature, Educational Technology, 28:11, pp. 33–40, 1988.
31.
LehrerR.EricksonJ.ConnellT., Learning by Designing Hypermedia Documents, Computers in the Schools, 10:1/2, pp. 227–254, 1994.
32.
Darling-HammondL., Performance-Based Assessment and Educational Equity, Harvard Educational Review, 64:1, pp. 5–30, 1994.
33.
KumarD. D., Hypermedia: A Tool for Alternative Assessment?Educational & Training Technology International, 31:1, pp. 59–66, 1994.
34.
KumarD. D.HelgesonS. L.WhiteA. L., Computer Technology-Cognitive Psychology Interface and Science Performance Assessment, Educational Technology Research & Development, 42:4, pp. 6–16, 1994.
35.
WebbN. M., Group Collaboration in Assessment: Multiple Objectives, Processes, and Outcomes, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17:2, pp. 239–261, 1995.
36.
KinzieM. B.BerdelR. L., Design and Use of Hypermedia Systems, Educational Technology Research and Development, 38:3, pp. 61–68, 1990.
37.
BerlinerD. C., Redesigning Classroom Activities for the Future, Educational Technology, 32:10, pp. 7–13, 1992.
38.
MisanchukE. R.SchwierR. A., Representing Interactive Multimedia and Hypermedia Audit Trails, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, pp. 355–372, 1992.
39.
FlynnI. M., Design, Development and Testing of an Interactive Multimedia Information System for Classmates of Young Cancer Patients: A Case Study, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1994.
40.
TennysonR. D.ChristensenD. L.ParkS. I., The Minnesota Adaptive Instructional System: An Intelligent CBI System, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11:1, pp. 2–13, 1984.
41.
FisherK. M., Semantic Networking: The New Kid on the Block, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27:10, pp. 1001–1018, 1990.
42.
HarmonS. W., On the Nature of Exploratory Behavior in Hypermedia Environments: Considerations of Learner Use Patterns of Hypermedia Environments for the Design of Hypermedia Instructional Systems, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, 1992.
43.
HarmonS. W.DinsmoreS. H., Novice Linking in Hypermedia-Based Instructional Systems, Computers in the Schools, 10:1/2, pp. 155–170, 1994.
DuellO. K., Metacognitive Skills in Cognitive Classroom Learning: Understanding, Thinking, and Problem Solving, PhyeG. D.AndreT. (eds.), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, pp. 205–242, 1986.
46.
EisnerE., Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: Their Form and Functions in Educational Evaluation, in Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation, MadausG. F.ScrivenM. S.StufflebeamD. L. (eds.), Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 335–348, 1983.
