Education Software Review

1145 Words3 Pages

Step 1: Online Article

In their article, Predicting Quality in Educational Software, Squires and Preece cite Nielsen’s (1994) version of ten usability heuristics. At the end of their article, they also note an initial set of “learning with software heuristics.” I pinpointed additional key questions based on eight of these guidelines that I feel should be considered when evaluating software for classrooms.

1. Does the software have “visibility of system status”? Will my students know what is occurring while they are using the system?

2. Is there a “match between the system and real world”? Are my students going to understand the language used by the system?

3. “User control and freedom”- Will my students be able to undo actions independently and without having to retrace unneeded or unwanted steps? Is the system easy to navigate and/or kid-friendly?

4. “Consistency and standards”- Will my students have to wonder whether one term means different things or will the system’s terms be used and defined consistently?

5. “Recognition rather than retell”- Is the system visually set up in such a manner as to allow my students to find their way? Are directions visible and clear as well?

6. “Flexibility and efficiency of use”- Will the system cater to both my beginning and advanced learners easily? Will it self-adjust levels based on my students’ responses?

7. “Aesthetic and minimalist design?- Does the system contain a copious amount of elements that aren’t necessary for learning to take place? Do they interfere with the elements that are actually relevant for student learning?

8. “Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors”- Will my students be able to solve their errors independently without my a...

... middle of paper ...

...district/state standards.

ISTE Evaluation Tool

This form was probably the most thorough of all the forms. It included plenty of room on which to detail strengths, weaknesses, the learning strategy in the design, and final recommendations. It also included detailed directions on how to use the form, along with a list of the definitions of the acronyms. It was similar to Kathy Schrock’s form and the above Computer Software Evaluation Form because there were sections to note the software’s promotion of real-world connections, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and creativity. This again reminded me of Squire and Preece’s adherence to socio-constructivist methods and those that promoted cognitive skills. Lastly, I would say that it was also partly tied to SRI guidelines because it addressed student grouping and assessment guidelines.

Open Document