Software Evaluation Assignment
Software Evaluation Assignment
EDUC 5101:91
(Assessment of Software and Information Technology Applications for Education)
Cape Breton University
Prof. David Lloyd
July, 2015
Introduction
As technology plays an increasingly central role in 21st century education, selection
of software for schools is critical to the success of technology enhanced learning. It
is inconceivable to expect the selection process to be effective without the help of
some kind of evaluation tool, but choosing from the plethora of evaluation models
can be as confusing as choosing the software itself. Broadly, software can be
assessed through experimental study, by expert opinion, or by user surveys.
(Stirling, 1997), and in the case of education, decisions around purchasing software
are almost always made by teachers and administrators in schools. This
recognition might seem to narrow the process (to expert opinion), but in reality the
number of evaluation tools and the scope and variation among them only complicate
the issue further.
Our intention in creating the following software evaluation tool is to offer a
model that is best suited to the particular needs of science and mathematics
teachers interested in testing software applications for middle and secondary
classrooms. The model does contain enough content and functionality criteria to be
somewhat generic, but our purpose is not to create a one size fits all evaluation
tool. The curricular connections in this tool are specific to the British Columbia
Education Plan and the competencies contained there (BC Education Plan, 2015),
and we hope that teachers faced with the dual challenge of new curriculum and
abundant software will find this software evaluation model useful.
Our software evaluation tool is intended for use by classroom teachers, particularly in the
areas of science and mathematics. Most teachers have little extra time for reviewing titles but
are responsible for answering to curricular requirements, have concern that their students are
engaged in meaningful ways, and are intimately familiar with their own classes and classroom
routines. With this in mind our model is as brief as possible while still highlighting the essential
considerations for software in classrooms, especially the large numbers of inexpensive or free
applications available.
10
11
12
13
14
15
References
11 Types of Education Software Available to Schools - BRIM Anti-Bullying Software. (2014, April
30). Retrieved July 18, 2015, from https://antibullyingsoftware.com/blog/technology-ineducation/11-types-of-education-software-available-to-schools
BC Education Plan: Focus on Learning. (2015). Retrieved July 18, 2015, from
http://www.bcedplan.ca/assets/pdf/bcs_education_plan_2015.pdf
Finding the Right Tool for the Task -- 4 Categories of Educational Technology. (2001, February 5).
Retrieved July 18, 2015, from http://www.sun-associates.com/resources/categories.html
Geissinger, H. (1997, December 7). Educational Software: Criteria for Evaluation. Retrieved July
25, 2015, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Geissinger/Geissinger.html
Hardin, L., Patrick, T. B. (1998). Content review of medical educational software assessments.
Medical Teacher, 20, 207-212.
Jadhav, A., & Sonar, R. (2008). Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review. Information
and Software Technology, (51), 555-563. Retrieved July 25, 2015, from
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~wainer/outros/systrev/29.pdf
16
Stirling, D. (1997). Evaluating Instructional Software. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from
http://www.stirlinglaw.com/deborah/software.htm
Tokmak, H., Incikabi, L., & Yelken, T. (2012). Differences in the educational software evaluation
process for experts and novice students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8),
1283-1297. Retrieved July 26, 2015, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/sancartokmak.pdf
WD&S. (2000). How to evaluate educational software. Curriculum Review, 39, 15. Zane, T., &
Frazer, C. G. (1992). The extent to which software developers validate their claims. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 24, 410-420.
Webb, N. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments on mathematics and
science education. Research Monograph, 6.
17
18