TD 702

Critical evaluation of information technology support resources used in learning.

Value: 30%

Working individually or in groups of 2 prepare a critical evaluation of information technology support resources used in learning.
The report can be published as a Web page or a MS Word document please ensure that a working link to the evaluation is provided on your TD 702 Web Page.

It is advisable to ask a friend to check that the link from your Web Page functions correctly.

You may choose to identify a resource yourself or you may choose a resource from the following list:

Use of the Internet in classrooms as a reference tool
Using online datasets for real world database applications
Use of real world data for data base applications
The use of Digital cameras in the classroom
The creation of animation and digital movies
Use of CD-ROM based encyclopedias and atlases in classrooms
Travel buddies & using e-mail to build connections between classrooms
Using robotic technology in the classroom
Use of simulation software e.g. Crocodile Clips Technology.
Use of presentation software such as PowerPoint and Scala
Use of programming languages such as Logo, Pascal and Visual Basic

When evaluating resources consider the following:

clearly identify the technology resource;
how can the resources be used to support teaching;
how can it be used by students to support their learning;
is the resource innovative;
is the resource engaging;
does the resource promote cooperative / group learning;
the quality of help files;
the quality of online support;
availibility of examples if approprate;
using screen capture(s) to illustrate your review.

Identify a particular information technology support resources report critically on its impact on teaching and learning.

The report should be 1500 words in length and should be prepared as a MS Word document or Web page.

Critical evaluation assessment rubric:

Criteria					Points
Word Count	4 Points (+/- 10%) The evaluation is between 1350 - 1650 words in length.	2 Points (+/-15%) The evaluation is above 1,725 words in length, or below 1275 words.	1 Point (+/-20%) The evaluation is above 1,800 words or below 1200 words in length.	0 Points (+/-50%) The evaluation is above 2,250 words or below 750 words in length.
Abstract	4 Points In one or two paragraphs, the abstract clearly states the technology support resource being evaluated. The abstract clearly describes the outcome of the evaluation.	2 Points In one or two paragraphs, the abstract states the technology support resource being evaluated. The abstract describes the outcome of the evaluation.	1 Point The abstract fails to state the technology support resource being evaluated. The abstract vaguely describes the outcome of the evaluation.	0 Points Abstract not provided.
Content	4 Points The report presents a clear and concise and critical evaluation of the chosen information technology support resource.	2 Points The report evaluates a chosen information technology support resource.		0 Points The report lacks clarity and fails to critically evaluate the chosen information technology support resource.
The report/article is neat and follows conventions for grammar, spelling and formatting	4 Points The required sections, all are present and in correct order. Layout conventions are used and followed consistently. The document is visually pleasing (easy to read and follow). All sentences are grammatically correct. All spelling is correct.	2 Points Most of the formatting requirements for the document (see above) are met fairly consistently. The layout used is easy to read and follow. Grammar and spelling used is basically correct. There are only a few misspelled words or awkward sentences.	1 Point Some formatting requirements for the document (see above) are followed some of the time. The layout used is clumsy. There may be a significant number of misspelled words or poorly constructed sentences. However, the gist of the report can still be determined despite these technical writing difficulties.	0 Points Few or no formatting requirements are met. Document is messy and hard to follow. Grammar and spelling may have been completely ignored. Poor grammar and spelling significantly reduce the readability of the report.
Publication to the Web	4 Points A working link to the task is clearly visible on the students TD702 web page	2 Points There is a working link to the task on the students TD702 web page but it is difficult to locate read.	1 Point There is a link to the task visible on the students TD702 web page but it does not function correctly.	0 Points There is no link to the task visible on the students TD702 web page.
Citations & Links	4 Points Where appropriate links have been made to reference materials. All reference materials are correctly cited using APA style.	2 Points All reference materials are cited but not according to APA style.	1 Point Some reference materials are cited but not according to APA style.	0 Points No citations provided.
Use of screen capture(s)	4 Points The report uses 3 screen capturers of the resource being evaluated. Note: each screen capture will be counted as 100 words towards the word count.	4 Points The report uses 2 screen capturers of the resource being evaluated. Note: each screen capture will be counted as 100 words towards the word count.	1 Point The report uses 1 screen capturer of the resource being evaluated. Note: each screen capture will be counted as 100 words towards the word count.	0 Points The report contains no screen capturers of the resource being evaluated.
Alt Tags See The Art of ALT	4 points If graphics are used alternate text is provided for all graphics using Alt tags.	2 points If graphics are used alternate text is provided for some graphics using Alt tags.		0 points Graphics are used but alternate text descriptions were not provided using Alt tags.
Credibility	4 points The author of the unit plan is identified and the author's e-mail address is included.	2 points The author of the lesson plan is identified but the author's e-mail address is not included.		0 points The author of the lesson plan is not identified and no e-mail address was included.

Links:

Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation
A guide for library instruction
by Jim Kapoun
http://www.ala.org/acrl/undwebev.html
Sunday, September 09, 2001

Checklist for an Informational Web Page
Compiled by: J. Alexander & M. A. Tate: July 1996
Date Mounted on Server: 5 August 1996
Last Revised: 25 July, 2001
http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/webevaluation/inform.htm

Beck, Susan. "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Institute for Technology Assisted Learning.
http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html. (9 Sept 2001)
http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html

SELECTION CRITERIA
Established by the first ALSC Children and Technology Committee, 1997
How to Tell if You Are Looking at a Great Web Site
http://www.ala.org/parentspage/greatsites/criteria.html

Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
W3C Note 20 September 2000
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-TECHS-20000920/

Accessible Webpage Design: Resources
http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/pub_resources.htm
Created by Axel Schmetzke, Library, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Last updated 06/11/01.

Simple HTML Examples
Creator: Diane Hillmann
Date Issued: 2001-04-12
http://au.dublincore.org/documents/2001/04/12/usageguide/simple-html.shtml

Last modified: October12, 2003

URL: http://www.rupert.id.au/TD702/evaluation_rubric.html