Creating an instrument for evaluating critical thinking apps for college students

Chen, Teresa C.; Hsu, Hui-mei Justina; Stamm, Sheila Wright; Yeh, Ronnie

doi:10.1177/2042753019860615

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The case for using apps for education in CT and argumentation has also been often reported (Easterday et al, 2017;Ismail et al, 2018). Although some factors and processes to design CT apps have been analyzed (Chen et al, 2019), there has been no reporting about how to integrate gamification into an app for CT at the time of this writing.…”

Section: Background Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an active-learning app to improve critical thinking: item selection and gamification effects

Jodoi

Takenaka

Uchida

et al. 2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Background Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an active-learning app to improve critical thinking: item selection and gamification effects

Jodoi

Takenaka

Uchida

et al. 2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is most likely that the most popular apps in the app stores’ educational category are not necessarily the most useful ones (Notari et al , 2016). Instead, it is possible that children, parents, and teachers may not use apps with real educational value (Chen et al , 2019).…”

Section: Review Of Literature On App Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for evaluating educational apps for young children: a systematic review of the literature

Papadakis

2020

ITSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study, by critically analyzing material from multiple sources, aims to provide an overview of what is available on evaluation tools for educational apps for children. To realize this objective, a systematic literature review was conducted to search all English literature published after January 2010 in multiple electronic databases and internet sources. Various combinations of search strings were used due to database construction differences, while the results were cross-referenced to discard repeated references, obtaining those that met the criteria for inclusion. Design/methodology/approach The present study was conducted according to the methods provided by Khan et al. (2003) and Thomé et al. (2016). The whole procedure included four stages: planning the review, identifying relevant studies in the literature, critical analysis of the literature, summarizing and interpreting the findings (Figure 1). Furthermore, in this analysis, a well-known checklist, PRISMA, was also used as a recommendation (Moher et al., 2015). Findings These review results reveal that, although there are several evaluation tools, in their majority they are not considered adequate to help teachers and parents to evaluate the pedagogical affordances of educational apps correctly and easily. Indeed, most of these tools are considered outdated. With the emergence of new issues such as General Data Protection Regulation, the quality criteria and methods for assessing children's products need to be continuously updated and adapted (Stoyanov et al., 2015). Some of these tools might be considered as good beginnings, but their “limited dimensions make generalizable considerations about the worth of apps” (Cherner, Dix and Lee, 2014, p. 179). Thus, there is a strong need for effective evaluation tools to help parents and teachers when choosing educational apps (Callaghan and Reich, 2018). Research limitations/implications Even though this work is performed by following the systematic mapping guideline, threats to the validity of the results presented still exist. Although custom strings that contained a rich collection of data were used to search for papers, potentially relevant publications that would have been missed by the advanced search might exist. It is recommended that at least two different reviewers should independently review titles, abstracts and later full papers for exclusion (Thomé et al., 2016). In this study, only one reviewer – the author – selected the papers and did the review. In the case of a single researcher, Kitchenham (2004) recommends that the single reviewer should consider discussing included and excluded papers with an expert panel. The researcher, following this recommendation, discussed the inclusion and exclusion procedure with an expert panel of two professionals with research experience from the Department of (removed for blind review). To deal with publication bias, the researcher in conjunction with the expert panel used the search strategies identified by Kitchenham (2004) including: Grey literature, conference proceedings, communicating with experts working in the field for any unpublished literature. Practical implications The purpose of this study was not to advocate any evaluation tool. Instead, the study aims to make parents, educators and software developers aware of the various evaluation tools available and to focus on their strengths, weaknesses and credibility. This study also highlights the need for a standardized app evaluation (Green et al., 2014) via reliable tools, which will allow anyone interested to evaluate apps with relative ease (Lubniewski et al., 2018). Parents and educators need a reliable, fast and easy-to-use tool for the evaluation of educational apps that is more than a general guideline (Lee and Kim, 2015). A new generation of evaluation tools would also be used as a reference among the software developers, designers to create educational apps with real educational value. Social implications The results of this study point to the necessity of creating new evaluation tools based on research, either in the form of rubrics or checklists to help educators and parents to choose apps with real educational value. Originality/value However, to date, no systematic review has been published summarizing the available app evaluation tools. This study, by critically analyzing material from multiple sources, aims to provide an overview of what is available on evaluation tools for educational apps for children.

show abstract

“…The literature variously refers to the issue of self-proclaimedness, app quality, poor design methodologies, lack of actual assessment instruments, and so on [3,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Here, we are going to incorporate a list of possible obstacles that app developers, teachers, students, app users, and their caretakers might face so that we can consider them when designing new and future educational apps.…”

Section: Challenges Aheadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object-Oriented Design of Learning Apps

2022

Signal Processing and Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the age of Apps, there has been a widespread proliferation of Learning Apps (LA). Almost every educational institution has been affected since the pandemic. The research indicates that such apps are highly effective for the so-called 'touch-screen' generation in a variety of contexts. Data on LA's performance show that they are associated with compelling increases in student achievement. Recognizing the significance, it is suggested that teachers and other caretakers become involved in this new trend of mobile learning. Despite this, experts generally highlight issues concerning their effectiveness. As a result, we observe the emergence of several design paradigms, having no or little theoretical bases. Even though businesses grow, and new tools and technology are developed, there isn't a good app design strategy based on accepted didactics. Realizing this, we suggest a Pedagogic-Object-Oriented Approach based on critical & qualitative review methodology to the design and development of LAs, building on the idea of IEEE learning objects and the success of the object-oriented paradigm. Current app developers may find the proposed method helpful as they strive to create really instructive and user-friendly apps for digitods students.

show abstract

Creating an instrument for evaluating critical thinking apps for college students

Cited by 13 publications

References 47 publications

Developing an active-learning app to improve critical thinking: item selection and gamification effects

Developing an active-learning app to improve critical thinking: item selection and gamification effects

Tools for evaluating educational apps for young children: a systematic review of the literature

Object-Oriented Design of Learning Apps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About