Software Evaluation Form - University of North Texas



Name      

Tool Software Evaluation Form

Use the following checklist based on essential qualities to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable tool software. Rate each item according to how well the software meets the specified criterion.

Title       Publisher      

Content Area       Grade Level: Primary (K-2) Middle (6-8)

Intermediate (3-5) High (9-12)

Hardware Required: Macintosh PC Hybrid RAM       Hard Drive/CD      

Operating system (check all that apply, specify OS): Mac OS      

Windows      

Type of Tool:

Word Processing Graphics/Multimedia DTP/Materials Generator

Spreadsheet Reference Other:      

Database Data collection/Analysis

|4 |3 |2 |1 |NA |I. Instructional Design and Pedagogical Soundness |

| | | | | |The software supports the desired task |

| | | | | |Appropriate for the ability levels for the intended grade level(s) |

| | | | | |Provides an adequate range of difficulty suitable for learners with differing ranges of ability |

| | | | | |Prerequisite skills are stated, and students can be reasonably expected to have or be able to acquire the skills|

| | | | | |Software allows user configuration (change window size, screen layout, toolbars, etc) |

| | | | | |Program has adequate online help |

| | | | | |II. Interface |

| | | | | |Usefulness of Interface and Icons |

| | | | | |How useful are the various control items, pull-down menus, and icons? Does the software provide multiple access |

| | | | | |points to various features? Are the meanings of icons clear and intuitive? |

| | | | | |Ease of Navigation |

| | | | | |To what degree does the interface assist with navigation of the program? Is it easy to become disoriented? Does |

| | | | | |the interface provide a straightforward method of moving through locations and performing tasks? |

| | | | | |Visual Clarity and Usefulness |

| | | | | |Are visual components of the program clear and unambiguous? Do graphics provide additional cues to help users |

| | | | | |make sense of the textual information? Do the graphics support the use of the tool, without being distracting in|

| | | | | |appearance? |

|Does this software actively engage students in one or more of the Texas |To what extent does this software promote and require original thought and|

|TEKS technology goals, e.g., communicating (production /dissemination of |creating as opposed to “paint-by-numbers” and cookie cutter approaches to |

|learning), analysis and problem-solving?       |production?       |

|What are the most important features of this software, especially in |Is the software a good use of students’ limited technology time? Could |

|comparison with other similar products?       |students be engaged in something more profitable during this time? |

| |      |

|Other comments about strengths or weaknesses, planned use, or special circumstances |

|      |

Decision:

Is recommended for purchase and use

Is not recommended

-----------------------

Low

Sources:

Hoffman, J. & Lyons, D. (199⤷䔠慶畬瑡湩⁧湉瑳畲瑣潩慮潓瑦慷敲‮敌牡楮杮☠䰠慥楤杮圠瑩⁨敔档潮潬祧‬㔲㈬‬慰敧⁳㈵㔭⸶䈍汥楬杮慨畐汢捩匠档潯獬‮潓瑦慷敲䔠慶畬瑡潩潆浲‮敒牴敩敶⁤敆牢慵祲㐠‬〲㔰映潲瑨灴⼺眯睷戮慨⹭敷湤瑥攮畤搯灥牡浴湥獴氯扩敭瑤捥⽨楌牢牡䍹汯敬瑣潩䵮湡条浥湥⽴捡畱物㝥栮浴഍഍楈桧഍഍഍

7) Evaluating Instructional Software. Learning & Leading With Technology, 25,2, pages 52-56.

Bellingham Public Schools. Software Evaluation Form. Retrieved February 4, 2005 from

High

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download