Over 200 teachers were involved in evaluation of educational microcomputer software in a statewide project involving nine Indiana school corporations from 1983–85. Analysis of the completed evaluation forms through the use of the sign test and the Spearman rank order correlation helped to identify differences and similarities between groups of teachers based on factors of either experience with software prior to the evaluation, or the amount of time invested in the evaluation process. Conclusions indicate that formal evaluation processes in the public schools should include considerations of various factors which may influence the evaluator's final recommendation including prior experience with the instructional format, prior experience with a program similar to the one being evaluated, and allowances for time to fully examine the program being evaluated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CallisonD. and HaycockG., Teacher and Student Field Testing of Microcomputer Software, Indiana University, School of Library and Information Science, Bloomington, IN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, Volume One ED 260 682, Volume Two ED 260 683), 1984–85.
2.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Evaluator's Guide for Microcomputer-Based Instructional Packages, International Council for Computer Education, Eugene, OR, 1982.
3.
HeinichR.MolendaM., and RussellJ. D., Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 46, 322, 1982.
4.
JonesN. B. and VaughanL., Evaluation of Educational Software: A Guide to Guides, The Northeast Regional Exchange, National Institute of Education, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., Portland, OR, 1983.
5.
TeagueF. A., A Form for All Reasons, Audiovisual Instruction, 23: 8, pp. 40–41, 1978.
6.
McLaughlinJ. A. and TrlicaJ. S., Teacher Evaluation of Instructional Materials, Educational Technology, 16: 3, pp. 51–54, 1976.
7.
Daly-LewisJ., Selection and Evaluation of Nonprint Media Materials as Perceived by Building Level Library Media Specialists: A Survey of Practice in New York, dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College, New York, NY, 1982 (Dissertation Abstracts International, 44: 05, p. 1304-A, DA 8322256).
8.
LathamG., Measuring Teacher Responses to Instructional Materials, Educational Technology, 14: 12, pp. 11–15, 1974.
9.
WoodburyM., Selecting Materials for Instruction, Libraries Unlimited, Littleton, CO, pp. 92–117, 197–224, 1979.
10.
KandaswamyS.StolovitchH. D., and ThiagarajanS., Learner Verification and Revision: An Experimental Comparison of Two Methods, AV Communication Review, 24: 2, pp. 316–328, 1976.
11.
ThiagarajanS., Learner Verification and Revision: What, Who, When, and How, Audiovisual Instruction, 21: 1, pp. 18–19, 1976.
12.
CohenV. B., What is Instructionally Effective Microcomputer Software?, Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 59: 2, pp. 13–27, 1983.
13.
HaycockG. and CallisonD., The Need for Centralized Control of Selection, Evaluation, and Acquisition of Microcomputer Software, American Secondary Education, 13: 2, pp. 10–14, 1984.
14.
TalmageH., Part IV: Choosing Computer Software that Fits, Curriculum Review, 24: 6, pp. 30–33, 1984–85.
15.
LathropA. and GoodsonB., Courseware in the Classroom, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, pp. 53–112, 1983.
16.
TroutnerJ., The Media Specialist, the Microcomputer, and the Curriculum, Libraries Unlimited, Littleton, CO, pp. 18–23, 1983.
17.
SkinnerB. F., Why We Need Teaching Machines, Harvard Educational Review, 31: 4, p. 388, 1961.
18.
IngersollG. M.SmithC. B., and ElliottP., Attitudes of Teachers and Reported Availability of Microcomputers in American Schools, International Journal of Instructional Media, 11: 1, pp. 27–36, 1983–84.
19.
WarnerS., My, How You've Grown, Electronic Education, 6: 4, p. 14, 1987.
20.
Gonce-WinderC., Evaluating Software: Factors Influencing Secondary Teachers' Evaluations of Instructional Software, dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1985 (Dissertation Abstracts International, 47: 04, p. 1170-A, DA 8614301).
21.
PreeceJ. and JonesA., Training Teachers to Select Educational Computer Software: Results of a Formative Evaluation of an Open University Pack, British Journal of Educational Technology, 16: 1, pp. 9–20, 1985.
22.
CraverK. W., Book Reviewers: An Empirical Portrait, School Library Media Quarterly, 12: 5, pp. 383–409, 1984.
23.
BaumD. D., The Attitude of Teachers of the Mentally Retarded Toward Teacher Evaluation of Instructional Materials, Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 7: 1, pp. 46–50, 1972.
24.
SiegelS., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1956.
25.
HeinichR., Instructional Technology and the Structure of Education, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33: 1, p. 10, 1985.
26.
BeckerH., Second National Survey of Instructional Uses of Computers, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1986.
27.
McGintyT., Software Trends and Trendsetters, Electronic Learning, 6: 4, pp. 18–23, 56, 1987.
28.
McCorduckP. and RussellA., From Drill Sergeant to Intellectual Assistant: Computers in Schools, Principal, 66: 2, pp. 16–21, 1986.
29.
SingerM. G. and PassB. H., Beyond Advertising: How to Choose Materials for Review and Purchase, Academic Therapy, 17: 3, pp. 323–327, 1982.
30.
TruettC., Field Testing Educational Software: Are Publishers Making the Effort?, Educational Technology, 24: 5, pp. 7–12, 1984.
31.
GubaE. G. and LincolnY. S., Effective Evaluation, Jossey-Bass Publications, San Francisco, CA, 1982.
