Evaluation of Instructional Media Annotated Bibliography

Herring, D. F., Notar, C. E., & Wilson, J. D. (2005). Multimedia software evaluation

form for teachers. Education, 126(1), 100-111.

The article presents the study of a simple tool for quickly assessing a piece of educational software. The tool assesses software based upon four broad categories: content (and it’s ability to support objectives of the lesson), student involvement, ease of use, and design and esthetics. Each category consists of several qualifiers that determine overall instructional quality of the software. The tool itself is a series of yes or no checklists, designed for ease of use.

This particular tool has merit in its ability to quickly assess a piece of software quite objectively and thoroughly, and could easily be adapted to evaluate more than just software. While the instrument would need to be adapted, its overall design could help influence the rubrics being developed in class.

Holden, J. T., & Westfall, P. J. (2007, December). An instructional media selection guide for distance learning. United States Distance Learning Association.                     

When trying to determine the best type of media to use for a particular instructional context, this article helps identify strengths and weaknesses of each of the following types of instructional media: Asynchronous Web-Based Instruction, Audio Conferencing, Audiographics (such as audio conferencing while a shared image space, such as a presentation or an electronic whiteboard are used),  Computer-Based Instruction, Correspondence in Print, Instructional Television, Recorded Audio, Recorded Video, Satellite e-Learning, Synchronous Web-Based Instruction, and Video Teleconferencing.

This article helps narrow down the type of instructional media that may be the most likely to support a particular method of instruction, although once a type of instructional media is identified, this article won’t help evaluate the quality of specific media.

Gibbs, W., Craves, P. R., & Bernas, R. S. (2001). Evaluation of guidelines for multimedia
            courseware. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 2-17.

The evaluation guidelines from this assessment tool cover 14 broad categories, assessed with 14 a simple yes or no questions. The broad categories include: information content; information reliability; instructional adequacy; feedback and interactivity; clear, concise, and unbiased language; evidence of effectiveness; instructional planning; support issues; and interface design.

Two particular areas of assessment that stuck out in this particular tool include evidence of effectiveness and support issues. This tool requires both pre-instructional planning, but also requires the user to critically reflect upon the success of the lesson after lesson delivery. Also, this tool encourages the user to consider any support issues that could arise while using the particular media.

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia

learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 44-59.

The LORI (Learning Object Review Instrument), as explained in the article, is an evaluative instrument designed to work with nearly any type of media. The instrument evaluates media across nine dimensions: content quality, learning goal alignment, feedback and adaptation, motivation, presentation design, interaction usability, accessibility, reusability, and standards compliance.

While different media have different qualities that cannot always be addressed with one standardized evaluation tool, I find this singular tool could be easy to use with nearly any type of media. This would likely be the tool I would use as an active classroom teacher.

Incoming Reflection

Image courtesy of www.thewritingloft.com

In my seven years teaching elementary school, I’ve come across many dramatically different media resources. Early in my career I often made the mistake of finding “cool” resources, whether online or installed on the student workstations on the school network, and tried to find ways to fit them into daily instruction. This backwards thinking, taking the resource and adjusting instruction to fit it in, often resulted in lessons where my main objective was not achieved. I’ve also fallen into the trap of using a resource that seems to be absolutely perfect, then when trying to use it with students, come to find out many technical difficulties or programming limitations in which I hadn’t considered.

I have grown from the many media resource failures, and now have a better understanding of how a resource may work in the classroom. I also have a more innate understanding of what to look for when considering media resources. From this course I hope to become more proficient and evaluating and implementing resources, finding an efficient way to locate, evaluate, and implement resources that powerfully supplement and extend learning in my classroom. I’d also like to be able to share my learnings with colleagues of mine who may be more leery of using media resources after a few bad experiences.