- Email: [email protected]
Educational software review
81
Educational Software Review E. R I E D L I N G * College of Education, Microcomputer Research Clinic, Arizona State University, Tempe, A Z 85287, U.S.A., and Ptidagogisches [nstitut der Stadt Wien, A-1070 Vienna, Austria
Educational software review sheets should be developed very carefully considering philosophical, pedagogical and scientific aspects, in order to provide a useful tool for reviewers and users. This paper deals with the underlying criteria for using educational software, and presents a model of an educational software review sheet.
Keywords: Software Review, Evaluation Criteria, Development of Review Sheets, Pedagogical Intentions of CAI, Justification of Educational Software
Eveline Riedling: 1968-1974, studies of mathematics, physics and chemistry at the University of Vienna, Austria; May 16, 1974, graduation as a Master of Science at the University of Vienna; from Sept. 1974, teacher of mathematics, physics, chemistry and computer science at a High School in Vienna; 1980-1981, studies of the didactics of mathematics in the USA (Scholarship of the Austrian-American Society); 1981-1982, contributions to a project on Training in Natural Sciences for Adults at a University Research Center for Correspondence Courses; from Sept. 1984, lectures on computer programming for teachers (BASIC, LOGO, Computers in Science Education); July 1985-Oct. 1985, Faculty Associate at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. :
* Permanent address: Meidlinger Hanptstrasse 7-9, A-1120 Vienna, Austria.
North-Holland Education & Computing 2 (1986) 81-85
Introduction
In some countries, for example in the United States, educational software is a very important factor on the software market. Educational programs are widely used in schools, and they are bought by parents who want to help their children to improve their skills in various subjects. A closer look at all this "educational software", however, exhibits a number of useless or maybe even misconceived programs w h i c h destroy or suppress skills rather than helping to improve knowledge or to overcome deficiencies. Therefore, one of the most important goals in working with software or in developing educational programs has to be finding criteria which help to decide where and how to use computers, and presenting these criteria to the users. The users, especially teachers and parents, should be able to base their decisions on some kind of software review, p r e p a r e d by experts. In addition, they should get some background information about the underlying criteria of the review process. This certainly cannot stop parents from buying software considered "necessary" for their children, but it can influence their decision as to which program is bought. This paper tries to make a contribution to the software review discussion and presents two con. slderatlons with regard to educational software: (1) Educational software - where and why to .
/
.
use.
(2) Development of evaluation criteria and review sheets. (1) Educational Software - Where and W h y to U s e
Major reasons to use educational software are: (a) Computers are already established as a tool within a scientific or technical area, e.g., in statistical analyses, computer simulations, and circuit design. (b) Computer simulations can be used advantageously to present processes which are too slow, too fast, or too dangerous in reality, e.g., bacteria growth in biology (exponential functions), radioactive decay, or chemical experiments like explosions.
82
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review
(c) Novel applications in education like tutoring systems, self-improving teaching systems, or totally new approaches like teaching mathematics with LOGO in a "Math-Land". (d) The computer as a tool, e.g. word processing.
(2) Development of Evaluation Sheets and Presentation of the Underlying Criteria The selection of software belonging to either one of the above four categories is considerably facilitated by a software review, and by a statement of the criteria underlying the evaluation process. Two steps are involved in the evaluation process: 1. Stating of the review criteria. 2. Development of review sheets. The following example of a courseware review sheet was developed at the College of Education, Microcomputer Research Clinic, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. It consists of six main parts and a short overview chapter in the beginning. If the courseware fails the first overview chapter it is not worth reviewing at all. The main chapters of the review sheet are entitled: A. Instructional target B. Educational p o w e r C. Instructional delivery D. Affective impact E. Program use F. Support elements The criteria underlying the software review can be stated and justified in various ways. One of them is to describe a particular criterion, and to negate it immediately. A criterion can be accepted if its negation makes much less sense than the criterion itself. As an example, the procedure of determining the proper review criteria is discussed here for chapter A, Instructional target. The following criteria were considered essential in this context: (1) Exact definition of required pre-knowledge. (2) Definition of objectives. (3) Level of the presentation suitable for intended users. (4) The program should be interesting, motivating, and able to catch the student's attention.
(5) The program should contain problems for every topic dealt with. (6) No special computer or data-processing knowledge must be required for using the program. In order to prove that these criteria are, indeed, essential, we will consider the consequences if they were not met, i.e., if their negation were true: (1) Pre-knowledge unknown: In this case, each teacher or parent using the program would have to determine on his or her own account whether the p r o g r a m is suitable for the children. The time spent on this endeavor should rather be used for direct care of his of her students. (2) No objectives known: without objectives declared by the authors of a program, teachers or parents cannot know what exactly is to be taught. Although a table of contents or a starting menu may give some indications of the contents a n d the objectives of a program, this information may not be sufficiently accurate. Some programs, for example, present their subjects in an informative way only, without giving applications or problems. They will, therefore, not be sufficient if a thorough knowledge of their topics is desired. On the other hand, a program may have treated its subjects so exhaustively that additional human or computer-based teaching would simply bore the students. (3) An inappropriate level of presentation of the program's subjects will either discourage and deter the student (if it is too complicated), or it will frustrate and tire the student without improving his or her skills if the presentation is too simple. (4) Why use an uninteresting, unmotivating and tedious program? (5) The program does not contain problems: mathematics, if presented as pure theory, without examples and applications, disregards an important didactic aspect, particularly in non-university education where theoretical knowledge should be illustrated with practical applications. (6) Programming or computer science knowledge is required for using a program: the intention of computer-based tutorials (generally) is to present a subject other than computer science. The students should be allowed to concentrate
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review
C.INSTRUCTIONAL
DELIVERY: NO
l. 2. 3. 4.
5.
83
It is m o r e t h a n a t e x t b o o k . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students are actively involved in the p r o g r a m The activities are more than picking "yes/no" answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program encourages students working with the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PARTLY 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
17. 18.
P r o g r a m r e a c t s to w r o n g a n s w e r s w i t h c l u e s , hints, and further instruction . . . . . . . . . . . The responses encourage the s t u d e n t ' s confidence , Program gives the correct answers after a reasonable n u m b e r of t r i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t u d e n t e r r o r s of e n t r y a r e p r o c e s s e d so t h a t the program continues to r u n . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrections a r e e a s y to m a k e . . . . . . . . . . . . Input methods are clear, simple, and consistent . . It is e a s y to r e m e m b e r h o w to g i v e i n p u t . . . . . . P r o g r a m u s e s the s a m e i n p u t m e t h o d all the t i m e . . Directions stay on screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is e a s y to a s k for h e l p . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program diagnoses a n d a d j u s t s w h a t is t a u g h t (individual needs) . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... S t u d e n t s c a n s k i p a h e a d if t h e y are c o m p e t e n t in s o m e t h i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program branches in l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y . . . . . . Program branches in n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s . . . . . . .
0 0 0
0 0 0
19. 20.
Tests Tests
0 0
0 0
21.
Responses to b o t h n e g a t i v e and positive answers maximize students' motivation . . . . . . . T h e r e is a v a r i e t y of n e g a t i v e and positive answers . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . Students c a n m o v e a b o u t f r e e l y in t h i s p r o g r a m . . . P r o g r a m u s e s m e n u e s , m a p s , etc. to g u i d e students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t u d e n t c a n c o n t r o l f o r m of p r e s e n t a t i o n of material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t u d e n t c a n c o n t r o l l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y . . . . . . S t u d e n t c a n c h o o s e n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s . . . . . . . Students can stop and reenter later where they left off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student will see her/himself as in c o n t r o l of the m a c h i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions, examples are clear, useful, and frequent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P r o g r a m is f r e e o f s p e l l i n g and grammatical errors .
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
6. 7. 8. 9. i0. Ii. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
are fit
frequent and appropriate . . . . . . . . . to f l o w of l e a r n i n g . . . . . . . . . . .
YES
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Fig. 1. Sample page of a software review sheet.
on the actual topic, without being distracted by a totally different subject. After the determination and the verification of the criteria, the actual review sheet can be developed. Fig. 1 depicts chapter C (Instructional delivery) as an example of the review sheet developed by the author. From this example, the underlying pedagogical intentions are obvious: - Students should be able to work on their own with educational software.
- The activity and creativity of the students should be encouraged. - Students should be able to move about freely in the program and therefore be able to determine their own ways of learning (own speed and own progress). (At a certain age, they should share an amount of responsibility for their own education.) All chapters of the presented review sheet are based upon the above pedagogical ideas of edu-
84
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review
cation, i.e., responsibility, creativity and motivation. The next important fact in creating a review sheet is to figure out the appropriate questions for each aspect. In general, it is necessary to provide several questions concerning one particular feature or task of the program in order to obtain a full picture of the program's behaviour. On the other hand, too many questions may distress a reviewer and a reader. One way to determine the appropriate amount of questions is to check carefully whether the program analysis considers every underlying criterion and pedagogical aspect. In most cases, a suitable compromise will be found after a field test in which several reviewers have to work with the review sheet and give their opinion on it.
Conclusion The development of review sheets is a difficult and necessary task and has to be done carefully considering various aspects. Philosophical, pedagogical and scientific criteria have to be considered and, of course, justified. In addition, the review sheet must be designed to permit reviewers to complete it in a reasonable time. And, finally, the users should be able to figure out from the results of the reviewing process whether the program is appropriate for their needs.
Acknowledgement This review sheet was developed for the project " A Microcomputer-Based Mathematics Program to Strengthen the Mathematics Competence of Pre-Service Teachers", which is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF 83-6). This project is caried out at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Gary G. Bitter.
References [1] Bitter, Gary G., and Camuse, Ruth A. (1984) Using a Microcomputer in the Classroom, Reston Publishing Company Inc., Resont, Virginia. [2] Chase, Shirley A., Gordon, Ruth, and Makin, Richard C. (1984) Courseware Evaluation: Form & Guide for Vocational
and Technical Education, special publication No. 44, The National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. [3] National Association for Developmental Education (1984) Selecting Software for Developmental Education, USA.
Discussion Larsen: How does your project relate to the issue of home computers and do you have any hypothesis about what you can expect to find concerning this topic by the end of the project? Jensen: Yes, the home computer is not a subject that we are specific about in our work, but of course we have some boys and some girls who have home computers and some who do not. We might speculate that it enriches learning for those that have home computers and that this m a y be of more help for children in school. They might be able to exploit the home computer and develop faster. As I indicated before, gifts who have home computers choose for some time not to use comp u t e r s in school because they have one at home. Nielsen: How m a n y teachers are involved and what are their main teaching subjects? Jensen: In each group there are seven teachers. The group of teachers cover all subjects and when appropriate use the computer. Deeson: The PILE programme runs for three years and starts with 13-14 year old children. Will you follow the classes through or stay with 13-14 year old children? Jensen: Yes, computers remain in the class. P.S. Jensen: There are two schools in your project - in what kind of area are the schools, what is the pupils background etc? J.A. Jensen: There is what you might call societal aspects. One school is middle to upper middle class and the other is middle. One is located north of Copenhagen, in Lyngby the other is west of Copenhagen, in Rodivie. Both schools have expressed great interest in becoming part of the project. One of the schools has allowed the computer to be available to everyone in the school when the computer is not in use by the project. Boys and girls from other classes come into the room, and in fact do so m u c h so that we had to rearrange the place for the computer to make it more accessible for the children in the project. The other school had a more tight-fisted approach and the computers are locked in a room when not in use. Lovis: You mentioned that other children - not in Grade 7 used the computers but only for games. Were they content with this or did they wish to move on? Jensen: We had not observed any decline generally. Those outside the project are not introduced to the operative system, so they are constrained to their programs and the built-in basic. We had c o n c e m with all those playing games and had to demonstrate other ways of using the computer. Neuwirth: You mentioned that children are swapping their computer games. Does anybody talk with them about copyright? Jensen: No. Kristjansdottir: Is your software for the 7th grade - The Assistant Series and IBM - L O G O translated into Danish? Jensen: The assistant series has been translated into Danish
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review and the people have the opinion that it is quite good. Logo has not been translated. Kristjansdottir: Does it bother you to have the IBM-LOGO in a foreign language? Jensen: No, not in our age group, but I am not saying there shouldn't be a Danish Logo, but there is not one at this time. However, one can make a Danish version on top of the English one, since IBM logo has the possibility of redefining primitives.
Second Speaker Riedling Schuyten: Did you try it out on teachers, on commercial software developers?
85
Riedling: Yes, not with teachers yet, we tried it with commercial developers and with people at the University, I don't know how it would work with teachers. Lauterbach: For the assesment without numbers we set up m i n i m u m standards. Then we could state if a program fit the minimums, were below or above (below and above in two steps). Would this be usable for your intention? Riedling: Maybe, but we don't know yet. Deeson: You have tested your review sheets on some colleagues. Did they take the point of view of classroom teachers or just of "people"? Riedling: Just as people not as teachers. Deeson: Not even parents then? Riedling: No.
Educational Software Review E. R I E D L I N G * College of Education, Microcomputer Research Clinic, Arizona State University, Tempe, A Z 85287, U.S.A., and Ptidagogisches [nstitut der Stadt Wien, A-1070 Vienna, Austria
Educational software review sheets should be developed very carefully considering philosophical, pedagogical and scientific aspects, in order to provide a useful tool for reviewers and users. This paper deals with the underlying criteria for using educational software, and presents a model of an educational software review sheet.
Keywords: Software Review, Evaluation Criteria, Development of Review Sheets, Pedagogical Intentions of CAI, Justification of Educational Software
Eveline Riedling: 1968-1974, studies of mathematics, physics and chemistry at the University of Vienna, Austria; May 16, 1974, graduation as a Master of Science at the University of Vienna; from Sept. 1974, teacher of mathematics, physics, chemistry and computer science at a High School in Vienna; 1980-1981, studies of the didactics of mathematics in the USA (Scholarship of the Austrian-American Society); 1981-1982, contributions to a project on Training in Natural Sciences for Adults at a University Research Center for Correspondence Courses; from Sept. 1984, lectures on computer programming for teachers (BASIC, LOGO, Computers in Science Education); July 1985-Oct. 1985, Faculty Associate at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. :
* Permanent address: Meidlinger Hanptstrasse 7-9, A-1120 Vienna, Austria.
North-Holland Education & Computing 2 (1986) 81-85
Introduction
In some countries, for example in the United States, educational software is a very important factor on the software market. Educational programs are widely used in schools, and they are bought by parents who want to help their children to improve their skills in various subjects. A closer look at all this "educational software", however, exhibits a number of useless or maybe even misconceived programs w h i c h destroy or suppress skills rather than helping to improve knowledge or to overcome deficiencies. Therefore, one of the most important goals in working with software or in developing educational programs has to be finding criteria which help to decide where and how to use computers, and presenting these criteria to the users. The users, especially teachers and parents, should be able to base their decisions on some kind of software review, p r e p a r e d by experts. In addition, they should get some background information about the underlying criteria of the review process. This certainly cannot stop parents from buying software considered "necessary" for their children, but it can influence their decision as to which program is bought. This paper tries to make a contribution to the software review discussion and presents two con. slderatlons with regard to educational software: (1) Educational software - where and why to .
/
.
use.
(2) Development of evaluation criteria and review sheets. (1) Educational Software - Where and W h y to U s e
Major reasons to use educational software are: (a) Computers are already established as a tool within a scientific or technical area, e.g., in statistical analyses, computer simulations, and circuit design. (b) Computer simulations can be used advantageously to present processes which are too slow, too fast, or too dangerous in reality, e.g., bacteria growth in biology (exponential functions), radioactive decay, or chemical experiments like explosions.
82
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review
(c) Novel applications in education like tutoring systems, self-improving teaching systems, or totally new approaches like teaching mathematics with LOGO in a "Math-Land". (d) The computer as a tool, e.g. word processing.
(2) Development of Evaluation Sheets and Presentation of the Underlying Criteria The selection of software belonging to either one of the above four categories is considerably facilitated by a software review, and by a statement of the criteria underlying the evaluation process. Two steps are involved in the evaluation process: 1. Stating of the review criteria. 2. Development of review sheets. The following example of a courseware review sheet was developed at the College of Education, Microcomputer Research Clinic, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. It consists of six main parts and a short overview chapter in the beginning. If the courseware fails the first overview chapter it is not worth reviewing at all. The main chapters of the review sheet are entitled: A. Instructional target B. Educational p o w e r C. Instructional delivery D. Affective impact E. Program use F. Support elements The criteria underlying the software review can be stated and justified in various ways. One of them is to describe a particular criterion, and to negate it immediately. A criterion can be accepted if its negation makes much less sense than the criterion itself. As an example, the procedure of determining the proper review criteria is discussed here for chapter A, Instructional target. The following criteria were considered essential in this context: (1) Exact definition of required pre-knowledge. (2) Definition of objectives. (3) Level of the presentation suitable for intended users. (4) The program should be interesting, motivating, and able to catch the student's attention.
(5) The program should contain problems for every topic dealt with. (6) No special computer or data-processing knowledge must be required for using the program. In order to prove that these criteria are, indeed, essential, we will consider the consequences if they were not met, i.e., if their negation were true: (1) Pre-knowledge unknown: In this case, each teacher or parent using the program would have to determine on his or her own account whether the p r o g r a m is suitable for the children. The time spent on this endeavor should rather be used for direct care of his of her students. (2) No objectives known: without objectives declared by the authors of a program, teachers or parents cannot know what exactly is to be taught. Although a table of contents or a starting menu may give some indications of the contents a n d the objectives of a program, this information may not be sufficiently accurate. Some programs, for example, present their subjects in an informative way only, without giving applications or problems. They will, therefore, not be sufficient if a thorough knowledge of their topics is desired. On the other hand, a program may have treated its subjects so exhaustively that additional human or computer-based teaching would simply bore the students. (3) An inappropriate level of presentation of the program's subjects will either discourage and deter the student (if it is too complicated), or it will frustrate and tire the student without improving his or her skills if the presentation is too simple. (4) Why use an uninteresting, unmotivating and tedious program? (5) The program does not contain problems: mathematics, if presented as pure theory, without examples and applications, disregards an important didactic aspect, particularly in non-university education where theoretical knowledge should be illustrated with practical applications. (6) Programming or computer science knowledge is required for using a program: the intention of computer-based tutorials (generally) is to present a subject other than computer science. The students should be allowed to concentrate
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review
C.INSTRUCTIONAL
DELIVERY: NO
l. 2. 3. 4.
5.
83
It is m o r e t h a n a t e x t b o o k . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students are actively involved in the p r o g r a m The activities are more than picking "yes/no" answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program encourages students working with the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PARTLY 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
17. 18.
P r o g r a m r e a c t s to w r o n g a n s w e r s w i t h c l u e s , hints, and further instruction . . . . . . . . . . . The responses encourage the s t u d e n t ' s confidence , Program gives the correct answers after a reasonable n u m b e r of t r i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t u d e n t e r r o r s of e n t r y a r e p r o c e s s e d so t h a t the program continues to r u n . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrections a r e e a s y to m a k e . . . . . . . . . . . . Input methods are clear, simple, and consistent . . It is e a s y to r e m e m b e r h o w to g i v e i n p u t . . . . . . P r o g r a m u s e s the s a m e i n p u t m e t h o d all the t i m e . . Directions stay on screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is e a s y to a s k for h e l p . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program diagnoses a n d a d j u s t s w h a t is t a u g h t (individual needs) . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... S t u d e n t s c a n s k i p a h e a d if t h e y are c o m p e t e n t in s o m e t h i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program branches in l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y . . . . . . Program branches in n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s . . . . . . .
0 0 0
0 0 0
19. 20.
Tests Tests
0 0
0 0
21.
Responses to b o t h n e g a t i v e and positive answers maximize students' motivation . . . . . . . T h e r e is a v a r i e t y of n e g a t i v e and positive answers . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . Students c a n m o v e a b o u t f r e e l y in t h i s p r o g r a m . . . P r o g r a m u s e s m e n u e s , m a p s , etc. to g u i d e students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t u d e n t c a n c o n t r o l f o r m of p r e s e n t a t i o n of material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t u d e n t c a n c o n t r o l l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y . . . . . . S t u d e n t c a n c h o o s e n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s . . . . . . . Students can stop and reenter later where they left off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student will see her/himself as in c o n t r o l of the m a c h i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions, examples are clear, useful, and frequent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P r o g r a m is f r e e o f s p e l l i n g and grammatical errors .
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
6. 7. 8. 9. i0. Ii. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
are fit
frequent and appropriate . . . . . . . . . to f l o w of l e a r n i n g . . . . . . . . . . .
YES
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Fig. 1. Sample page of a software review sheet.
on the actual topic, without being distracted by a totally different subject. After the determination and the verification of the criteria, the actual review sheet can be developed. Fig. 1 depicts chapter C (Instructional delivery) as an example of the review sheet developed by the author. From this example, the underlying pedagogical intentions are obvious: - Students should be able to work on their own with educational software.
- The activity and creativity of the students should be encouraged. - Students should be able to move about freely in the program and therefore be able to determine their own ways of learning (own speed and own progress). (At a certain age, they should share an amount of responsibility for their own education.) All chapters of the presented review sheet are based upon the above pedagogical ideas of edu-
84
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review
cation, i.e., responsibility, creativity and motivation. The next important fact in creating a review sheet is to figure out the appropriate questions for each aspect. In general, it is necessary to provide several questions concerning one particular feature or task of the program in order to obtain a full picture of the program's behaviour. On the other hand, too many questions may distress a reviewer and a reader. One way to determine the appropriate amount of questions is to check carefully whether the program analysis considers every underlying criterion and pedagogical aspect. In most cases, a suitable compromise will be found after a field test in which several reviewers have to work with the review sheet and give their opinion on it.
Conclusion The development of review sheets is a difficult and necessary task and has to be done carefully considering various aspects. Philosophical, pedagogical and scientific criteria have to be considered and, of course, justified. In addition, the review sheet must be designed to permit reviewers to complete it in a reasonable time. And, finally, the users should be able to figure out from the results of the reviewing process whether the program is appropriate for their needs.
Acknowledgement This review sheet was developed for the project " A Microcomputer-Based Mathematics Program to Strengthen the Mathematics Competence of Pre-Service Teachers", which is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF 83-6). This project is caried out at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Gary G. Bitter.
References [1] Bitter, Gary G., and Camuse, Ruth A. (1984) Using a Microcomputer in the Classroom, Reston Publishing Company Inc., Resont, Virginia. [2] Chase, Shirley A., Gordon, Ruth, and Makin, Richard C. (1984) Courseware Evaluation: Form & Guide for Vocational
and Technical Education, special publication No. 44, The National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. [3] National Association for Developmental Education (1984) Selecting Software for Developmental Education, USA.
Discussion Larsen: How does your project relate to the issue of home computers and do you have any hypothesis about what you can expect to find concerning this topic by the end of the project? Jensen: Yes, the home computer is not a subject that we are specific about in our work, but of course we have some boys and some girls who have home computers and some who do not. We might speculate that it enriches learning for those that have home computers and that this m a y be of more help for children in school. They might be able to exploit the home computer and develop faster. As I indicated before, gifts who have home computers choose for some time not to use comp u t e r s in school because they have one at home. Nielsen: How m a n y teachers are involved and what are their main teaching subjects? Jensen: In each group there are seven teachers. The group of teachers cover all subjects and when appropriate use the computer. Deeson: The PILE programme runs for three years and starts with 13-14 year old children. Will you follow the classes through or stay with 13-14 year old children? Jensen: Yes, computers remain in the class. P.S. Jensen: There are two schools in your project - in what kind of area are the schools, what is the pupils background etc? J.A. Jensen: There is what you might call societal aspects. One school is middle to upper middle class and the other is middle. One is located north of Copenhagen, in Lyngby the other is west of Copenhagen, in Rodivie. Both schools have expressed great interest in becoming part of the project. One of the schools has allowed the computer to be available to everyone in the school when the computer is not in use by the project. Boys and girls from other classes come into the room, and in fact do so m u c h so that we had to rearrange the place for the computer to make it more accessible for the children in the project. The other school had a more tight-fisted approach and the computers are locked in a room when not in use. Lovis: You mentioned that other children - not in Grade 7 used the computers but only for games. Were they content with this or did they wish to move on? Jensen: We had not observed any decline generally. Those outside the project are not introduced to the operative system, so they are constrained to their programs and the built-in basic. We had c o n c e m with all those playing games and had to demonstrate other ways of using the computer. Neuwirth: You mentioned that children are swapping their computer games. Does anybody talk with them about copyright? Jensen: No. Kristjansdottir: Is your software for the 7th grade - The Assistant Series and IBM - L O G O translated into Danish? Jensen: The assistant series has been translated into Danish
E. Riedling / Educational Software Review and the people have the opinion that it is quite good. Logo has not been translated. Kristjansdottir: Does it bother you to have the IBM-LOGO in a foreign language? Jensen: No, not in our age group, but I am not saying there shouldn't be a Danish Logo, but there is not one at this time. However, one can make a Danish version on top of the English one, since IBM logo has the possibility of redefining primitives.
Second Speaker Riedling Schuyten: Did you try it out on teachers, on commercial software developers?
85
Riedling: Yes, not with teachers yet, we tried it with commercial developers and with people at the University, I don't know how it would work with teachers. Lauterbach: For the assesment without numbers we set up m i n i m u m standards. Then we could state if a program fit the minimums, were below or above (below and above in two steps). Would this be usable for your intention? Riedling: Maybe, but we don't know yet. Deeson: You have tested your review sheets on some colleagues. Did they take the point of view of classroom teachers or just of "people"? Riedling: Just as people not as teachers. Deeson: Not even parents then? Riedling: No.