Learning Log 11: My Evaluation Rubric
Based upon the reading of this module and the evaluation rubrics introduced in Modules 6 and 7, what are the top 6 evaluation dimensions that are important and appropriate in your subject discipline and grade level? Identify these evaluation dimensions and elaborate/justify them in details by citing sources introduced in this course.
Dimension 1: Rigor
When evaluating applications to be used in the classroom setting it is important to "assess the thinking skills learners engage when completing a learning task required by an app" (Cherner & Lee, 2015, pg. 26). The depth of the thinking required by an app determines it's demand as well as effectiveness. When creating games, designers create "challenge in games by way of an intended difficulty," meaning that the player is engaged because they are being appropriately challenged (Jørgensen, 2004, pg. 396). In my classroom I think it is important to engage students in higher order thinking that will push them. I use Bloom's Taxonomy to create a variety in the depth of thinking required by my classroom teaching so it is of the utmost importance to me that the games and applications I use do the same.
Dimension 2: Value of Errors
According to Lee and Cherner's evaluation rubric, the Value of Errors domain addresses "how an app allows learners to make mistakes and learn from their experience" (2015, pg. 27). In games, learners are able to make mistakes in a low stress environment where it is easy to start over or re-answer a question. This is an aspect of games that I strive to implement into my classroom even in traditional activities because I don't want my students to get defeated when they are not successful. Incorporating games into the classroom will hopefully instill the value of learning from mistakes and make student's more successful in the long run because they are constantly reflecting and adapting.
Dimension 3: Feedback to Teacher
Feedback to Teacher is an important domain to consider when choosing or evaluating games to be used in the classroom. It is very important in the field of education to reflect on student progress and use that data to inform instruction. In a traditional classroom, student progress is determined through formative and summative assessments, but when gamifying the classroom it is important to choose games that allow you to track student progress on the interface. "That information then allows teachers to craft future instruction to meet the specific needs of their learners" (Cherner & Lee, 2015, pg. 28).
Dimension 4: Cooperative Learning
Social Constructivism is an important theory in my classroom as I believe that learners create and alter their ideas based on talk with peers. I believe that collaboration gives students the chance to hear other viewpoints and consider ideas they never would have on their own. "When learners are given an opportunity to work together in pairs or small groups to accomplish shared goals, they tend to perform better and their social skills also improve" (Cherner & Lee, 2015, pg. 29). This idea of class collaboration extends from the classroom into the digital field as students now have the ability to work together, talk together, and play together on online platforms. The ability for collaboration should be an important consideration when choosing applications to use in the classroom.
Dimension 5: Accommodations of Individual Differences
The ability to level content based on students' needs is an important part of classroom teaching. in a class of 25 learners there are going to be students that are working on grade level, ones that are high achieving, ones that are struggling with basic concepts and many in between. So, when introducing games into the classroom it is important that students are able to work at an appropriate level and be scaffolded to higher achievements. According to Lee and Cherner's evaluation rubric, a game that Accommodates Individual Differences effectively "customizes its content for different learners based on their specific needs, which supports the needs of diverse learners" (2015, pg. 29).
Dimension 6:
This domain addresses the "engaging instructional experience for learners based on how they actively interact with the app" (Cherner & Lee, 2015, pg. 34). When creating a gamified classroom it is imperative that students are actively engaged in the application being used through interactivity. An app that simply requires a student to read or watch material is not going to hold attention as well as a choose-your-own-quest type of gameplay. According to Ferderoff, "games have an interface that needs to provide an efficient and effective means for the user to interact with the program" (2002, pg. 7). The Constructivist theory is a part of my educational philosophy and relates to interaction in the sense that students construct their understandings based on experiences. When they are actively interaction with content they have a much higher chance of forming deeper understandings and retaining knowledge.
References
Cornett, S. (2004). The Usability of Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games: Designing for New Users. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 6(1), pp 703‐710. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://ww2.coastal.edu/clee/Public/Coastal/EDIT670/_reading/M11_The-Usability-of-Massively-Multiplayer.pdf
Federoff, M. A. (2002). Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in video games. (MS Thesis). Department of Telecommunications. Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana. USA. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://ww2.coastal.edu/clee/Public/Coastal/EDIT670/_reading/M11_Heuristics-and-Usability.pdf
Jørgensen, A. H. (2004). Marrying HCI/usability and computer games: a preliminary look. In Proceedings of NordiCHI. pp. 393‐396. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://ww2.coastal.edu/clee/Public/Coastal/EDIT670/_reading/M11_Marrying-HCI.pdf
Laitinen, S. (2005, June 23). Better games through usability evaluation and testing. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2333/better_games_through_usability_.php
Lee, C.-Y., & Cherner, T. S. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation rubric for assessing instructional apps. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 21-53. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEV14ResearchP021-053Yuan0700.pdf
Federoff, M. A. (2002). Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in video games. (MS Thesis). Department of Telecommunications. Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana. USA. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://ww2.coastal.edu/clee/Public/Coastal/EDIT670/_reading/M11_Heuristics-and-Usability.pdf
Jørgensen, A. H. (2004). Marrying HCI/usability and computer games: a preliminary look. In Proceedings of NordiCHI. pp. 393‐396. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://ww2.coastal.edu/clee/Public/Coastal/EDIT670/_reading/M11_Marrying-HCI.pdf
Laitinen, S. (2005, June 23). Better games through usability evaluation and testing. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2333/better_games_through_usability_.php
Lee, C.-Y., & Cherner, T. S. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation rubric for assessing instructional apps. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 21-53. Retrieved November 4, 2019 from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEV14ResearchP021-053Yuan0700.pdf