Evaluating instrument (observation)
1 like299 views
This document is a lab observation instrument used to evaluate the Crocodile Physics software in a physics class. It contains criteria for motivation and interactivity, accuracy of content, navigation, simulation, and documentation. Observers use the instrument to rate various aspects of the software on a scale from 0 to 5 to assess how applicable, available, or observable each criteria is. The total scores are calculated for each section.
Evaluating instrument (observation)
- 1. Lab Observation Instrument Using Crocodile Physics Software in Physics Class 1. Topic: ………………………………….. 5. Observer: ………………………………... 2. Grade: …………………………………. 6. Date: …………………………………… 3. School: …………………………………. 7. Start time: ……………………………….. 4. Teacher: ……………………………….. 8. End time: ………………………………... 9.1. Settings: □ classroom □ lab □ media center □other: ……………………... 9.2. No. students____ 9.3. No. computers_____ 10. The degree of applicability of criteria on the software ( 1 = very applicable ), ( 2 = applicable ), ( 3 = unobservable ), ( 4 = not applicable ), ( 5 = not applicable at all) No. Criteria Degree Comment 11. Motivation and Interactivity: 11.1 Approach is appropriate for the intended student population. 0 1 2 3 4 5 11.2 Format is varied. 0 1 2 3 4 5 11.3 Overall tenor of interaction is helpful. 0 1 2 3 4 5 11.4 Student is an active participant in the learning process. 0 1 2 3 4 5 11.5 Graphics and audio are used to motivate. 0 1 2 3 4 5 11.6 Graphics help focus attention to appropriate content without 0 1 2 3 4 5 being distracting. Total /30 More comments: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
- 2. No. Criteria Degree Comment 12. Accuracy of content: 12.1 Content is accurate. 0 1 2 3 4 5 12.2 Content is current. 0 1 2 3 4 5 12.3 Content breadth is reasonable. 0 1 2 3 4 5 12.4 Content is free of any bias or stereotyping. 0 1 2 3 4 5 12.5 Content supports the school curriculum. 0 1 2 3 4 5 12.6 Content is relevant to the subject field. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total /30 More comments: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… No. Criteria Degree Comment 13. Navigation: 13.1 Learner can alter program sequence and pace. 0 1 2 3 4 5 13.2 Learner can review instructions and previous frames. 0 1 2 3 4 5 13.3 Learner can end activity any time and return to main menu. 0 1 2 3 4 5 13.4 Learner can enter program at different points. 0 1 2 3 4 5 13.5 The look is consistent throughout the software. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total /25 More comments: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
- 3. No. Criteria Degree Comment 14. Simulation: 14.1 Simulation model is valid and neither too complex nor too 0 1 2 3 4 5 simple for intended student population. 14.2 Variables used in the simulation are the most relevant. 0 1 2 3 4 5 14.3 Program simulates activities that can be too difficult to 0 1 2 3 4 5 demonstrate in reality. 14.4 The time needed to complete both a step and the entire 0 1 2 3 4 5 simulation is reasonable and effective. 14.5 Encourages decision making or calculation rather than guessing. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total /25 More comments: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… No. Criteria Degree Comment 15. Documentation: 15.1 Technical and operational explanations for implementation are 0 1 2 3 4 5 clear and complete. 15.2 If appropriate, "quick start-up" section is included. 0 1 2 3 4 5 15.3 Accurate and clear descriptions of content topics are provided. 0 1 2 3 4 5 15.4 Accurate & clear descriptions of instructional activities provided. 0 1 2 3 4 5 15.5 Necessary information can be found quickly and easily. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total /25 More comments: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………