Daniel K. Schneider: Text replacement - "$" to " {{edutechwiki}}"

2021-04-10T00:18:48Z

Text replacement - "$" to " {{edutechwiki}}"

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 10 April 2021
Line 115:		Line 115:

	[[Category:Evaluation methods and grids]]		[[Category:Evaluation methods and grids]]
			{{edutechwiki}}

Daniel K. Schneider: 1 revision imported

2021-04-09T22:17:47Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:17, 10 April 2021
(No difference)

Daniel K. Schneider at 13:29, 9 July 2009

2009-07-09T13:29:13Z

New page

{{Stub}}

See also [[instructional design method]]

There are several ways to evaluate software:

== Feature evaluation ==

E.g. Dalgarno (2004) proposes three broad categories:
* Categories of cognitive task
* Categories of input technique
* Categories of system response

;Cognitive task
# Attending to static information
# Controlling media
# Navigating the system
# Answering questions
# Attending to question feedback
# Exploring a world
# Measuring in a world
# Manipulating a world
# Constructing in a world
# Attending to world changes
# Articulating
# Processing data
# Attending to processed data
# Formatting output

;Input technique
# Typing
# Valuators
# Key pressing
# Pull down menus
# Menu lists
# Buttons
# Icons
# Hot spots
# Hypertext
# Scroll bars
# Media controls
# Selecting
# Dragging
# Drawing

;System response
# Displaying
# Presenting media
# Presenting cues
# Branching
# Assessing answers
# Generating feedback
# Updating world
# Generating world
# Processing data
# Searching
# Saving and loading

== Conceptual evaluation ==

Geissinger (1997) starts with the question "''Can this product actually teach what it is supposed to?''" and uses Barker & King's (1993:309) four categories:

<table border="1">
<tr><td valign="top" width="33%">
Category</td>

<td valign="top" width="67%">
Discussion</td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="33%">
Quality of end-user interface design</td>
<td valign="top" width="67%">
Investigation shows that the designers of the most highly-rated products follow well-established rules & guidelines. This aspect of design affects usersí perception of the product, what they can do with it and how completely it engages them.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="33%">
Engagement</td>
<td valign="top" width="67%">

Appropriate use of audio & moving video segments can contribute greatly to usersí motivation to work with the medium.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="33%">
Interactivity</td>
<td valign="top" width="67%">
Usersí involvement in participatory tasks helped make the product meaningful and provoke thought.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="33%">
Tailorability</td>
<td valign="top" width="67%">
Products which allow users to configure them and change them to meet particular individual needs contribute well to the quality of the educational experience.</td>
</tr>
</table>

Belfer, Nesbit, & Leacock, T. proposed a [[Learning Object Review Instrument]] (LORI)

== References ==

* Barker (1995). Evaluating a model of learning design. In H. Maurer (Ed.) Proceedings, World Conference in Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia. Graz, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

* Barker, P. & King, T. (1993). Evaluating interactive multimedia courseware -- a methodology. Computers in Education 21 (4), 307-319.

* Baumgartner, P. & Payr, S. (1996). Learning as action: A social science approach to the evaluation of interactive media. In Carlson, P. & Makedom, F. (Eds.) Proceedings, World Conference in Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia. Boston: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

* Belfer, K., Nesbit, J., & Leacock, T. (2002) Learning object review instrument (LORI). Version 1.4

* Peter R Albion, Heuristic evaluation of educational multimedia: from theory to practice [http://www.usq.edu.au/users/albion/papers/ascilite99.html HTML]

* Dalgarno, B. (2004). A classification scheme for learner-computer interaction. In R.Atkonson, C.McBeath, D. Jones-Dwyer and R.Phillips (eds) Beyond the comfort zone, 21st annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia. Available: [http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/dalgarno.pdf PDF]. (This paper describes environments, but is useful for deciding on which criteria you will select a tool)

* Geissinger H (1997) "Educational Software: Criteria for Evaluation". ASCILE '97 [http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Geissinger/Geissinger.html HTML].

* Reiser, R.A. & Kegelmann, H.W. (1994). Evaluating instructional software: A review and critique of current methods. Educational Technology, Research & Development 42(3), 63-69.

[[Category:Design_methodologies]]

[[Category:Evaluation methods and grids]]

Educational software evaluation - Revision history

Daniel K. Schneider: Text replacement - "$" to " {{edutechwiki}}"

Daniel K. Schneider: 1 revision imported

Daniel K. Schneider at 13:29, 9 July 2009