Differences in the Educational Software Evaluation Process for Experts and Novice Students

Autor/inn/en	Tokmak, Hatice Sancar; Incikabi, Lutfi; Yelken, Tugba Yanpar
Titel	Differences in the Educational Software Evaluation Process for Experts and Novice Students
Quelle	In: Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (2012) 8, S.1283-1297 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1449-5554
Schlagwörter	Observation; Content Analysis; Focus Groups; Case Studies; Computer Software Evaluation; Elementary Education; Novices; Check Lists; Expertise; Interviews; Interrater Reliability; Preservice Teacher Education; Educational Technology; Computer Assisted Instruction; College Students; Comparative Analysis; Questionnaires; Elementary School Mathematics; Mathematics Materials; Evaluation Criteria + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Beobachtung; Inhaltsanalyse; Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study; Softwareanalyse; Elementarunterricht; Checkliste; Expert appraisal; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik; Interrater-Reliabilität; Lehramtsstudiengang; Lehrerausbildung; Unterrichtsmedien; Computer based training; Computerunterstützter Unterricht; Collegestudent; Fragebogen; Elementare Mathematik; Schulmathematik; Mathematische Tafel
Abstract	This comparative case study investigated the educational software evaluation processes of both experts and novices in conjunction with a software evaluation checklist. Twenty novice elementary education students, divided into groups of five, and three experts participated. Each novice group and the three experts evaluated educational software selected by the novice groups in accordance with the checklist. Data were collected through focus group interviews, classroom observations and document analysis. Evaluation processes were analysed through thematic comparisons. The results showed that the expert-novice agreement rate was as low as 48%, with novice students tending to grade the software higher. While the experts used a systematic approach, including understanding and assessing each criterion, supporting the process with literature and evaluating the software as a whole, novice students lacked such methods, indicating a need for additional training and development. (Contains 2 tables and 2 figures.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Ascilite Secretariat, P.O. Box 44, Figtree, NSW, Australia. Tel: +61-8-9367-1133; e-mail: info@ascilite.org.au; Web site: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10