EDTECH 554 (FA10)Susan Ferdon Session Six: Software Evaluation RubricCollaborators: Susan Ferdon and Steve PoastTaskThe principal at your building is aware you are in Boise States Ed Tech Mastersprogram. She was just given the opportunity to apply for a grant that will fund sitelicenses for three new software applications for the building. She would like you todevelop a rubric that will provide clear and comprehensive criteria for judgment of thisnew software. The funding for this grant is negotiable. Your job is to provide her thatrubric. Unfortunately the deadline for the grant is approaching. So, you and a partnerwill design an original rubric that she can use to justify her selections for this grant. Shemust have the final copy in three weeks.Your rubric must include the following:1. You must highlight clear and comprehensive criteria to score the software.2. You will sample two different software applications and evaluate them to the rubricyou designed. (The principal has requested this so she can demonstrate to the boardthis rubric is clearly thought out)3. You must include a reference list for the software reviewed and research used.IntroductionUsers of this tool, created in Word, enter product information and respond to statementsdescribing software characteristics. The use of checkboxes and expanding form fieldsare intended to make the tool flexible and easy to use. When used as a stand-alonetool, the Word document is locked, which allows the user to check boxes and enter textwithout danger of accidentally altering the form. When locked, form fields are shadedwhich provides emphasis needed for new users to become aware of the various placeswhere text may be added. While text field content is somewhat difficult to read in thismode, shading is not present when printed or saved as a PDF.Pages that follow include images of the blank template, as would be seen by one usingthe Word document, and the evaluation of two pieces of software using this tool.Resources that were reviewed prior to the design and development of this softwareevaluation instrument may be found in the reference section at the end of the document.
Requires use of higher level thinkingAncillary materials are available (i.e. worksheets, activitypages)COMMENTS: Applicable Disagree Disagree Strongly StronglySubject Matter Content Agree Agree NotAligns with district curriculumObjectives are clearContent is educationalThere is a sufficient amount of contentInformation is current and accuratePositive reviews from credible sourcesSubject matter is age/grade appropriateCOMMENTS: Applicable Disagree Disagree Strongly StronglyProgress Monitoring Agree Agree NotAssessment is aligned with learning objectivesPre-Assessment is includedPost-Assessment is includedMonitors and records student progress and time on taskTeacher reports are comprehensiveStudent/Parent reports are comprehensiveCOMMENTS:
Applicable Disagree Disagree Strongly StronglyEase of Use Agree Agree NotStudent log-in process is simpleScreen directions are clear and easy to followNavigation is age/grade appropriateMenus can be accessed from any point in the programHelp options are available throughoutAccessibility features are present (speech, text, keyboardcommands)Students can use the program independentlyCOMMENTS: Applicable Disagree Disagree Strongly StronglyPresentation Agree Agree NotVisuals are attractive and relate to contentAudio is clearGraphics, audio, video, and/or animations enhanceinstructionGraphics, audio, video, and/or animations are ageappropriateText is legible and print size is appropriateSpelling, punctuation and grammar are correctBug free; program loads and runs without errorOptions can be adjusted and turned on/off (soundeffects, volume, etc.)Program is engaging/enjoyableCOMMENTS:
Applicable Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly Support Agree Agree Not User’s Manual is comprehensive and clearly written Teacher’s Guide includes suggestions for classroom use, lesson plans, and related activities Technical support is available online COMMENTS:Associated Costs and ServicesInitial purchase price of software:Purchase price of hardware necessary to operate program (list type, make/model,number needed, and price per unit):Add-on costs (additional features):Estimated cost for future upgrades:Training costs (initial or continuous):COMMENTS:RecommendationBriefly describe why you would/would not recommend this software:Evaluator: Date:
References:Children’s software evaluation instrument. (1998). Children’s Technology Review. Retrieved from http://api.ning.com/files/YGI6OCOwuUhumL- 63bL4OabN7uJszEEoI- AsbLDhu1dW9e7FJLCB12FrZAZ*6*F0kfvD8MZsXcb7IdFdE*6oEvAQs*k4FgFy/c tr_software_evaluation.pdfCraig, C.F. (n.d.). Teachers software evaluation rubric. Retrieved from http://www.celestecraig.us/teacher%20evaluation.htmComputer software evaluation form. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://waynesville.k12.mo.us/fileadmin/wps/home/District/Media/software_eval_fo rm.pdfCriteria for evaluating computer courseware. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/courseware.aspElementary School Success [Computer software]. Renton, WA: TOPICS Entertainment, Inc.EMC300: Software evaluation form. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/emc300/software/evalform.htmlSchrock, K. (2007). Software evaluation form. Retrieved from http://kathyschrock.net/1computer/page4.htmSoftware Evaluation Center: Software vendor evaluation form. (n.d.), Retrieved from http://www.software-evaluation.co.uk/software_vendor_evaluation.htmTypingMaster Pro Typing Tutor (7.01) [Computer software]. Helsinki, Finland: TypingMaster Finland, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.typingmaster.com/education/