Development of a Tool for Evaluating Multimedia for Surgical Education

A Comprehensive Evaluation Rubric for Assessing Instructional Apps

“…Due to a huge repository of software applications being available that includes CDROMs, the Internet, and mobile devices, educators and researchers have developed multiple frameworks for evaluating educational computer software to support teachers' selection of quality software, with Reeves and Harmon's (1993) Systematic Evaluation of Computer-Based Education being widely recognized and adapted (Cronjé, 2006;Ehlers & Pawlowski, 2006;Elissavet & Economides, 2003;Phillips, 2005;Schibeci et al, 2008). In their framework, Reeves and Harmon put forward 14 pedagogical evaluative dimensions and 10 user-interface evaluative dimensions, and these dimensions have served as a foundation for many rubrics developed in the last two decades (Coughlan & Morar, 2008;Elissavet & Economides, 2003;Kennedy et al, 1998;Schibeci, et al, 2008;Shiratuddin & Landoni, 2002).…”

“…Based on previously conducted and published works about methods used to evaluate technologies for educational purposes (Buckler, 2012;Coughlan & Morar, 2008;Pintrich, 2003;Premkumar, Hunter, Davison, & Jennett, 1998;Reeves, 1994;Reeves & Harmon, 1993;Squires & Preece, 1999;Walker, 2010), a comprehensive rubric with 24-evaluative dimensions was developed for assessing the quality of instructional apps (see Appendix A). Table 1 synthesizes the relevant literature that laid the solid foundation for the development of the new 24-dimension rubric.…”

“…Human Interactive design Duffy & Jonassen, 1992;Elawar & Corno, 1985;Hannafin, 1992;Huba & Freed, 2000;Kearsley, 1988;Ovando, 1994;Palloff & Pratt, 1999;Reeves & Harmon, 1993;Reeves & Hedberg, 2003;Reeves & Reeves, 1997 A4 Coughlan & Morar, 2008;Elissavet & Economides, 2003;Galitz, 1985Galitz, , 1992Kearsley, 1988;Kennedy et al, 1998;Lucas, 1991;Schibeci, et al, 2008;Sherr, 1979;Shiratuddin & Landoni, 2002 To assist teachers in using this comprehensive rubric, the 24 dimensions were categorized into three domains: (A) Instruction, (B) Design, and (C) Engagement. In the following sections, the evaluative dimensions contained in each domain are introduced and discussed in detail.…”

“…The "Ease of Use" dimension assesses if an app is intuitive and user-friendly, and this dimension has appeared repeatedly in multiple evaluation rubrics (Coughlan & Morar, 2008;Elissavet & Economides, 2003;Kennedy et al, 1998;Schibeci et al, 2008;Shiratuddin & Landoni, 2002). This dimension is important because learners who find an app easy to use are more likely to engage it.…”

“…Over the past few decades, many rubrics have been developed for evaluating educational computer-based programs (Coughlan & Morar, 2008;Elissavet & Economides, 2003;Kennedy, Petrovic & Keppell, 1998;Schibeci, Lake, Philips, Lowe, Cummings, & Miller, 2008;Shiratuddin & Landoni, 2002); yet, rubrics that focus specifically on educational tablet apps are extremely…”