An evaluation of Dr.Seuss Reading Games

Submitted by Mohammed Osman Mohammed

For the module EEL 880

 March 2003

 Introduction

Dr.Seuss Reading Games, produced by Creative Wonder, It designed to:

       1.         Define the letters Alphabet.

       2.         Linking between sign and words.

       3.         Reading the letters.

       4.         Know the differentiation between capital letters and small one.

       5.         Define the pronunciations of letters.

       6.         Making words, which began with capital or small letters.

       7.         Applications of reading letters , words , sentences ,

       8.         Making sentences.

The program was tested on state number of students about (30) of learners from some schools in Khartoum (El_Manar for boys &girls, El_Nokhba for girls,and El_Salam for boys and girls) They enjoyed the program, They are acquired some skills to reading, writing sentences and vocabulary...

The questions asked by the evaluator were:

·          To what extent does this program actualize it is objectives?

·          Does the program clearly present the shapes and define the letters?

·          Is the pronunciation of the words clear enough?

·          Are the learners able to read words and sentences?

·          Is the learner able to write words and sentences?

·          Is the program look interesting?

·          Are lessons run easily?

·          Is contains of the program motivate the learners to achieve objectives?

·          Are activities effective?

 

By the procedures of evaluation the program of Dr.Seuss Reading Games, It was found that the program good at:

Cosmetic:

        §          Colors for children and the background and foreground.

        §          Animations of the drawings, which they were, link with the accidents.

        §          The sounds and speech of small animal, which they were, make the pronunciations of the letters, words and sentences.

        §          Text is clearly.

Technical:

        §          All the process of the program by the mouse.

        §           The sounds ,volumes ,and the tunes of the music ,

 

Curriculum:

        §          Define and Good for the children with their ages.

        §           Pronunciations of the words, letters sentences.

 

 

Pedagogical:

 

        §          Attractive to the child.

 

By the procedures of the evaluations of the program of Dr.Seuss Reading Games, It was found that the program was bad at:

 

Cosmetic:

        §          The extensive of the animations and shouting colors may lead to bad show and make disadvantage attention to the children.

        §          Loud sounds and much music make noise.

        §          Much and crowded icons make interabtion.

 

Technical:

 

        §          The program is not open by any programs (operating systems) except Window 95-98.

        §          There are no keys to exist, foreground, help, and background.

        §          Some times learners want to exist from the program by Keyboard.

        §          Colors must be (250) colors.

        §          No help icon.

 

Curriculum:

        §          Dont allow you to control time of lessons.

 

Pedagogical:

        §          No feedback for games or lessons.

 

Background                                                                                                      

I have chosen this specific program: Firstly I was not found program else. Secondly it is a good program for learning, knowing alphabet for the primary schools. It is design to improve the English Language, which include some games to reading and playing activity.

Our schools -in Sudan- has careless to a new language, therefore, we had some problems for learning and teaching, also we have not good media to teach or to learn,

so the teachers haven’t a good experience to teach English Language with best ways or media, That make not good result to the objectives of learning English Language.

 We all agree teaching or learning wants some media to facilitate the instructual process.

I have chosen those specific learners for their needing of this specific kind of program.

They want to know more about how to reading, writing, listing, and making sentences. For this they have not enough acquire their skills at this area of subject. They have their own needs and care for this subject of English Language, therefore they want to learn with a good media in which the program facilitated.

English teaching or learning needs some good media, programs, and hard works, practicing activities to increase skills and develop the active language. The program acquired this to the learners.   

  Literature survey                                                                                           

What makes good educational software?

Hannafin &Pecks (1988) introduce and describe the details, criteria of cosmetic, technical, curriculum, and pedagogical adequacies.

Cosmetic adequacy                                                                                          

(Formative Evaluation Check list on line) These components refer to what the lesson actually looks like. Areas of concern include font types, color palettes, and graphic style .In the past, cosmetic adequacy has been the primary focus of formative evaluations, taking precedence over instructual adequacy. Although important, cosmetic adequacy is not important, as ensuring that the content taught is correct and effective. In general, there are two areas assessed within the cosmetic adequacy component: appearance and clarity. 

(Hannafin &Peck (1988) cosmetic factors often dominate decision. Evaluator can be so struck with the color, sounds, and other physical feature of lesson that insufficient attention is given to other potentially important factors. The key to effective evaluation within system approaches is to understand the role and importance in relation to other factors and not to permit cosmetic features to dominate evaluation decision. The focus of cosmetic evaluation revolves around two areas: appearance and clarity.

Appearance Lesson that are unattractive or shoppy are likely to be rejected despite the potential of the basic design. This is perhaps an unfortunate attribute of human nature, but we have became accustomed to professional –looking, polished materials. Though perhaps less essential to the cognitive effects of CAI lesson, appearance is an important affective concern.

Here are some criteria of appearance:

                        ·          Appeal

                        ·          Typographical

                        ·          Accuracy

                        ·          Frame protocol

                        ·          Visual appeal

                        ·          Animation

                        ·          Use of available

                        ·          Screen space ((Hannafin &Peck (1988))

                        ·          Are screens cultured or too busy ?

                        ·          Is it easy to see how the information on the screen is organized ?

                        ·          Are graphics too simple or too detailed ?

                        ·          Is the animation interesting without distracting?

                        ·          Is the text free of typographical errors ?

                        ·          Are the colors and graphics attractive and not distracting ?

                        ·          Do colors and graphics aid in learning?

                        ·          Are screens consistent and easy to use? (Formative Evaluation Checklist on line).

Clarity In a cosmetic sense clarity refer to capacity to display readily interpreted images-text, graphics, sound and so on .The basic appeal and atility of frame protocol must also be considered when evaluation clarity. Effective CAI lessons are unambiguous in their display of relevant information , unless,of course vagueness and ambiguity are an essential part of the lesson task. 

Here are some criteria of clarity:

                        ·          Screen density

                        ·          Display clarity

                        ·          Amplification

                        ·          Interpretability of display elements-(( Hannafin &Peck)) (1988)

                        ·          Is the text clear and easy to read ?

                        ·          Is the text easy to understand ?

                        ·          Are course lessons attractive to look at ?

                        ·          Do graphic make lessons easier to learn ?

                        ·          Is sound and speech clear ;not too soft or loud ? (Formative Evaluation Checklist on line)

(Alessi &Trollip 2001) Consider some advantage of color. It is effective for attracting attention, through only when used in moderation. The attention –getting effect of color can and should be used, like that of graphic, to attract attention to important information. Color may increase the information capacity of a display and be used to emphasize differences. If lines on a graph are drawn with different color, also label them with text. The use of color should be consistent with common usage in society.

Use of color in computers:

                        ·          Use color for emphasis and for indicating differences.

                        ·          Ensure good contrast between foreground and background colors, especially for text.

                        ·          Use only a few colors for color coding.

                        ·          Allow learner control of color coding.

                        ·          Use color in accordance with social conventions.

                        ·          Be consistent in the use of color.

                        ·          Test program on noncolor displays to assess their effect on persons with color vision deficiency or with older equipment.

                        ·          Balance learner effect and learning effectiveness when using color.

Sound is necessary for some content areas (foreign language, music, beginning reading Sound is excellent for gaining attention, even when the learner is distracted and not even looking at the display.

Summary suggestions for the proper use of audio:

                        ·          Use speech for getting attention, for direction, and for dual coding.

                        ·          Provide speech for users who have difficulty reading text.

                        ·          Provide both text and speech as option.

                        ·          Use audio for appropriate content areas, such as language learning.

                        ·          Allow user control of audio (pause, continue, repeat, skip, and volume).

                        ·          Allow the usual program global controls even during audio segments.

                        ·          Don’t use token audio in just one or two places.

                        ·          Allow audio must be of high quality. 

 

Technical adequacy                                                                                          

(Formative Evaluation Checklist on line)

This component refers to the actual courseware itself. Topics that are addressed areas the software running as programmed? Are there any problems with the hardware or software? Does the lesson run like it was design to run? The formative evaluation of this component may take the form of system testing and evaluation within three main areas of design, procedures, and proficiency.

(Hannifin & Peck (1988)) Though control of the programming aspects of most commercially produced lessons is beyond the sphere of the evaluator, verification of the procedures essential .The evaluator must be concerned with basic program design, unlization procedures, and lesson efficiency.

Design: Many of the evaluation criteria for program design are below the surface, that is, not readily observable .How ever, lesson design can be easily constructed or reconstructed simply by documenting the sequence of activities followed under repeated trails. Of particular importance is the need to verify the foolproofness of the lesson. Verify the effects of providing unanticipated responses, of not following direction, and of otherwise acting in ways not prescribed in lesson direction. The failure of software designer to truly foolproof the lesson is alarming. Make certain that the basic lesson sequences remain intact under less-than-optimal student responses.

Procedures: Generally, increases in disk management are correlated with increase in problems with lesson use. Examine the sophistication required of the student in order to use the software. Also make certain that lesson documentation is prescriptive enough to allow the student (or teacher, in some cases) to start the lesson, to perform simple troubleshooting to provide assistance in methods for classroom use, and so on .If the software is part of a set of related lessons, examine elements of protocol consistency across lessons. Finally, verify the accuracy of the CMI features of the lesson-especially when unintended responses are provided. Much of the software presently available performs and tracks only simple reporting and is not sensitive to unplanned variation.

Efficiency: The efficiency of externally produced programs is largely undetectable to most evaluators. Some of the telltale signs that might used to gauge efficiency are excessive overall execution time; delays in screen displays or computer responses to input; unusual, frequent, or distracting disk access during lesson execution; and the requirement to information previously provided.             

   (Hannifin &Peck (1988)) Here are some criteria of design:

        ·          Execution commands.

        ·          Consistency with flowchart.

        ·          Lesson execution.

        ·          Programming loops.

        ·          Efficiency.

        ·          Security.

        ·          Response anticipation.

        ·          Display accuracy.

 

Here are some criteria of procedures:

        ·          Disc management.

        ·          Documentation.

        ·          Start-up procedures.

        ·          Modifiability.

        ·          Consistency within.

        ·          Consistency from.

        ·          Lesson-to-lesson.

        ·          CMI feature.

 

Here are some criteria of efficiency:

        ·          Speed of execution.

        ·          Use of variables.

        ·          Data storage & retrieval.

        ·          Tightness of program code.

 

Curriculum adequacy                                                                                      

(Formative Evaluation Checklist on line) This component addressed whether lessons are compatible with the style of instructors and students, easily incorporated into existing curriculum activities and structures, and compatible with lesson activities and procedures already in place. There are two areas of curriculum adequacy: design and procedures. If curriculum adequacy is a concern during the design and development phases.

((Hannifin &Peck (1988)) perhaps no aspect of software evaluation will have a more telling impact on the widespread installation of computer-based education as curriculum adequacy. More than other level, evaluation of curriculum adequacy features provides a guage of the likelihood of effective installation of lessons in their intended setting.

Design: The alignment of CAI lesson with intact or planned, curriculum has become an increasing for large-scale software designers. Of particular concern is the thematic consistency with the overriding curriculum; the shelf-life, or useful longevity, of the information presented; the availability of. And alignment with, related and supporting materials; and the capacity to accommodate student and teacher styles. While all may not be available in the short run, these features will almost certainly dominate long-term installation of CAI in school.

Procedures: User-supplied lesson parameter such as selection of examples. Number of practice items, difficulty levels, and so on have become major factors influencing curriculum adequacy. In addition, considerations as to the required running time, the potential expandability, the case of integration of the CAI procedures, and other concerns have suitaced. At the curriculum adequacy level, CAI software must now be judged using much the same criteria as other instructual resources. It will become maieasingls important for CAI designers to ensure the acceptability of CAI lesson within the schools and other organizations who will use them.

 ((Hannifin & Peck (1988)) Here are some criteria of Design:

        ·          Portability.

        ·          Accommodation of teacher style.

        ·          Accommodation of student style.

        ·          Lesson options.

        ·          Integration of subject matter.

        ·          Cultural & social theme.

        ·          Information durability.

        ·          Hardware restrictions.

        ·          Supporting materials.

        ·          Tie-in to curriculum.

 

Here are some criteria of procedures:

        ·          Flexibility.

        ·          Familiarity.

        ·          Effectiveness.

        ·          Consistency.

        ·          Compatibility.

        ·          Acceptability.

        ·          Expandability.

        ·          Running time.

 

(Formative Evaluation Checklist on line) Here are criteria of design:

        ·          Are lessons consistent with other related lessons?

        ·          To the extent feasible and advisable, have instructor and user preference been include in the design?

        ·          Can lessons be used as the basis for additional and related lesson development?

        ·          Do lessons contain information likely to become quickly obsolete?

        ·          Do lessons contain options that require specific hardware or software considerations?

 

Here are some criteria of procedures:

        ·          Are lesson procedures consistent with expectations of the users?

        ·          Do lessons offer flexibility in how they can be used?

 

Pedagogical adequacy                                                                                     

(Formative Evaluation Checklist on line) The instructional adequacy component evaluates the extent to which ICW lessons provide the necessary kind of support for learning and meeting the instucrutional objectives. There are four areas of instructional adequacy that may be addressed: design, procedures, clarity, and efficiency.

((Hannifin &Peck (1988)) The emphasis given to adequacy is the proportion of effort assigned to basic lesson effectiveness questions. Perhaps this has become our bias due to the inordinate emphasis on cosmetic features of CAI in the recent past. Instructional adequacy can be considered under four major foci: design, lesson procedures, efficiency, and clarity.

Design: The elements of well-designed CAI are addressed throughout this text, but a few points are important to underscore. Apart from the obvious need for factual accuracy, evaluators should attempt to determine any evidence of lesson effectiveness. This may be provided by the producer or vendor, but it may be also be necessary to conduct small-group tryout of the lessons. Lessons must be judged not only effective, but acceptable to both students and teachers. The information presented in this text should enable prospective designers not only to produce effective CAI, but also to transfer notions of well-designed lessons to the evaluation of other software. When combined with the structured guidance of the Courseware Evaluation Form, valid and reliable assessments of the quality of CAI lessons are attainable.

Procedures: Lesson activities must be easy to follow. Students should not be forced to invest mental effort attempting to understand lesson directions and options.

Efficiency: Much of what we believe to constitute well-designed CAI revolves around notions of quality versus quantity of activity and effort. Lessons should avoid unnecessary and distracting information. Well-designed lessons have the capability to adapt to varied learning rates by increasing or decreasing such as the number of example, practice items, and so on. Lean lessons reduce overall unnecessary information while allowing individuals to proceed in a customized, adaptive manner. The capacity to generate and use data derived during lesson is also an important feature in setting where the computer is used extensively. There is simply no reason for teachers to duplicate tests and record keeping unless basic record-keeping features have been overlooked.

Clarity: The information presented-text, graphics, animation, and sound must be readily interpreted. Lessons should provide strategies to case the manner in which concepts are comprehended. At the very least, the presentation stimuli should not, by themselves, complicate the task unnecessarily.

((Hannifin & Peck (1988)) Here are some criteria of Design:

        ·          Factual accuracy.

        ·          Relationship to objectives.

        ·          Acceptability.

        ·          User response.

        ·          Orientation.

        ·          Consistent with objectives.

        ·          Example provided.

        ·          Sequence of lesson.

        ·          Practice provided.

        ·          Feedback provided.

        ·          Lesson logic.

        ·          Distribution of emphasis.

        ·          Relevance.

        ·          Meaningfulness.

        ·          Step size.

        ·          Guidance.

 

Here are some criteria of procedures:

        ·          Directions.

        ·          Interaction during lesson.

        ·          Personalization.

        ·          Pacing.

        ·          Control options.

        ·          Motivational aspects.

 

Here are some criteria of Efficiency:

        ·          Leanness.

        ·          Record-keeping.

        ·          Adaptivity.

        ·          Amount of practice.

        ·          Individualization of lesson.

 

Here are some criteria of Clarity:

        ·          Readability.

        ·          Ease of comprehension.

        ·          Text clarity.

        ·          Graphics fidelity.

        ·          Sound fidelity.

        ·          Ease of location of information.

 

(Formative Evaluation Checklist on line) Here are some criteria of Design:

        ·          Is the course content accurate?

        ·          Is the course content logical and well organized?

        ·          Are the course objectives clearly defined?

        ·          Does the course content help to achieve the objectives?

        ·          Are examples meaningful and helpful?

        ·          Are questions presented clearly?

        ·          Is the feedback for incorrect answer supportive and corrective?

        ·          Does answering the questions help achieve the objectives?

        ·          Are important points emphasized?

        ·          Was the amount of information presented in each lesson comfortable?

        ·          Is the sequence of information within each lesson logical?

        ·          Are the lessons the right length?

        ·           Are lessons free of gender, race, religion, or ethnicity bias?

        ·          Do media elements fairly represented composition of career field in terms of gender and race?

 

Here are some criteria of procedures:

        ·          Are directions clear and easy to follow?

        ·          Do the number of interaction in each lesson make learning easier?

        ·          Are installation instructions easy to follow?

        ·          Are instructions on how to run the program easy to follow?

        ·          When a student is asked to respond, does the method used to respond make it easy to select the correct answer?

        ·          Do students enjoy the course and want to continue learning via computer?

 

Here are some criteria of Clarity:

        ·          Is the text clear and easy to read?

        ·          Is the text easy to understand?

        ·          Are course lessons attractive to look at?

        ·          Do graphics make lessons easier to learn?

        ·          Is sound and speech clear; not too soft or loud?

 

Here are some criteria of Efficiency:

        ·          Is there any unnecessary information included in the lessons?

        ·          Are there sufficient numbers of example and practice items included in the lessons?

        ·          Do the lessons help students learn the material?

What are the aspects to consider for good teaching of English ?              

English teaching is type of teaching language, but it familiar than other languages like French or German.Because English in Sudan had a good roots in cultural background and history of Sudan. Also the first step of Education – in Sudan – by English at schools or universities.

Now we want to consider the English Language as life language, for this we try to build a good deal with English to the children. Good teaching of English want good teachers, media, audio, video, television and inter net... We must prepare the teachers to the best with students. So we must find a good media. We know pronunciation, vocabulary in the program of Dr. Suess Reading Games is good way to teach English.

Evaluation methodology                                                                                 

Dynamic evaluation includes the interaction between the target group and the program. (Trochim1996) suggests an evaluation that occurs throughout the entire “life cycle” of the program.

Summative evaluation is the type of evaluation is performed after a program has completed in order to measure if it was successful and effective. Summative evaluations offer insight into whether or not the program reached the target audience and if the participants found the program helpful. Summative evaluations gauge the impact that programs made on the participants. The data produced by a summative evaluation can be used to aid in the development of future programs. (Introduction to Evaluation)

All the social studies or research are dynamic, because of factors of social studies are systematic. For this (The evaluation is the systematic acquision and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object) (Introduction to Evaluation).

The objects which could refer to a program, policy, person, activity, and so on .The teacher definition emphasizes acquiring and assessing information rather than assessing worth or merit, because all evaluation work involves collecting and setting through data, making judements about the validity of the information and interface we drive from it, wheather or not an assessment of worth or merit result. (Introduction to Evaluation). 

All this fits into the greater context of research of evaluation of Dr. Suess Reading Games.

Ihave chosen two levels of kirkpatrick are reaction and learning:  (Kirkpatrick, D.L1977) Reaction: How well did the conferees like the program? Reaction may best be defined as how well the trainees liked a particular training program. Evaluation in terms of reaction is the same as measuring the feeling of the conferees. The first step in the evaluation process is to measure the reaction to training program. It is important to determine how people feel about the programs they attend. Also, conferees who enjoy a training program are more likely to obtain maximum benefit from it. To evaluate effectively, training directors should begin by doing a good job of measuring the reaction and feelings of people who participate.

Learning: It reatively easy to measure the learning that takes place in training program that are teaching skills. The following programs fall under this category: job instruction training,work simplification, interviewing skills, reading improvement, effective speaking, and effective writing. Classroom activities such as demonstrations, individual performance of the skill being taught, and discussion following a role-playing situation can be used as evaluation techniques. The training director can organize these in such a way that he or she will obtain a fairly objective evaluation of the learning that is taking place.                   

 

 

 

Prespective                                                                                                      

In our work, we have adapted method according to an analysis of it in terms of theory of inquiry. This inquiry as a cyclic process in which the creative envisonments at a tool is followed by its testing through application in a concentrate situation of use.

In this research I am following a qualitative and quantitative approach to following a blend of both. Qualitative approach measuring the state objectives of the program and have a good result which make good findings, this from testing by learning the program to students.

Quantitative approach measuring the socio-economic status, psychological side of the students and have reaction in which students or teachers would we in the future.

 

Target population                                                                                   

Our target population contains all the schools in Khartoum city, we have many schools, but primary or secondary schools have two sides: one is maintenance schools, which include lighthouse schools, other is the private schools. Both have primary and secondary schools. This is the study population.

I have chosen the private schools, and from this I have chosen the El-Manar secondary private school for boys, El-Manar secondary private school for girls, El-Nokhba secondary private school for girls, and El-Salaam bible private primary school. This is the sampling frame.

From the sampling frame I have chosen the research sample which is become random sample; or the groups of students who select to be in my study of evaluation of the program.

The random sample is back up with (30) students from those three schools.

First: There was (5) girls from El_Mannar private school for girls, they are good at computer, because they have computers in their homes, to connect the internet, playing games, and show the videos. From the teacher of English I got some information about their level in learning English and how English go in the school,from this their scholastic achievement in  English is exelant ;inspite of no facilitating or media in the school.

Second: From El_Mannar private school for boys have chosen (5) students, some of them have passion with computer. In English they love composition more than love grammar. Their teacher has no new media to teach, but students are not bad in English.

Third: From El_Nokhba the headmaster chosen for me the first class, which contain (15) girls, they know nothing about in manual use, but good at theory one, their English is not bad. Their scholastic achievement good with comparative with another school, they have good teacher in English, but have not any media for learning.

Final: El_Salam private primary school for boys and girls, they have no information about computer, because they have no learning computer in their curriculum in all primary schools in Sudan. But some of them play at the play stations or at coffee shops. They have their first steps with English, there for they at primary schools.

                              

 

Research matrix                                                                                                

                                                                                                                           Observation                                                                                                       

is effective instrument to gain the objective data, that because you bsrued the physical behavior of learner in natural their setting.

I used it because it provide with good information and correct one.

 

Interview                                                                                                           

Interview is an oral information from the users back up in within frame and contedualize by the evaluator and analysis statically.

 

Expert review                                                                                                    

Expert review is written information collecting by the evaluator from the teachers after seen the program.

I select expert theachers in the subject area to give me their option and the containt of the program. I trust in their answers.

 

Questionnaire                                                                                                    

Questionnaire is group of questions gave to students to answer, and analysis by the evaluator to inorder to know the users options idea about the program

 

Research method                                                                                              

In my research method I found some problems to choose the program on (CD), there are no enough programs for learning or teaching in Sudan, therefore no new technology for this, and no_in universities or schools _library of software, because new technology in Sudan have a short age, like all the third world countries.

Although of this Ihave chosen the program of Dr. Suess Reading Games by the first step, and show it and write short pre_report about it, to find how can I teach the subject, what the objectives of it, and what is good and bad. After that I make the questions of the questionnaire, expert review, interview. After that I choose the schools, the classes, the students for the random sample. In time before which Ihave chosen it, Ihave teach the random sample by (CD)program of Dr. Suess Reading Games.But before this I introduce my self to the students and teachers as a researcher and evaluator of the program and a teacher of multi media of learning at the Omdurman Islamic University, but thy know me as a teacher of fine and applied art, for this I spoke about the objectives of our master program, so we will become an electronic learning designers, for this we need the students and teachers helps.

I talk about the program, which we try to evaluate it.

It is a software program to help us to facilitate our learning English, so we find media of teaching vocabulary, grammar, making sentences, by playing games or reading. For this I said to the learners be careful with the program and information to have good learning for your role to playing or reading, and you will get new skills in vocabulary, grammar,readind and writing sentences. Before this (pre-program)I am and the teacher of English have making refresh of the learner’s information to make a good reference about their levels. And teach them how to open the program, how to playing,how to reading, and how to end the program. During the students are playing with the program I have my observations to what are they doing? So we try to help them if any some thing wrong or difficult, in this the teacher of English help me more and more, they try to get for their students good period with the program.

The learners during the program were making quiet discussion to say what was bad?  what was good?and what was difficult? about the program, in some times how we can run another activity? and how we can show our scores of games? All time they asked me to work in groups, they always discussed about the program in group or in both, although they was not quiet all time, they laugh and being happy with new media of learning

After finished the periods we have questions with the teachers of English to get the feedback from the students, and what they interest for? What attractive them? what making them happy? and what was interrupt them? to try to evaluate the program. For this they have their own questionnaire in their own time with me, which explain the questions of evaluation program and have discuss of it.

After this I gave them my own questionnaire to fill in the spaces. Half of it was conduct with self-interview to see their socio-economic, age, gender, school, cultural back ground, and scholastic achievement, that to get some information about the random sample of my evaluation of the Dr. Suess Reading Games.                              

 

Validity and reliability                                                                                      

(Technical paper from DDS research)

Validity: Ameasure is valid when the differences in observed scores reflect true differences on the characteristic one is attempting to measure and noting else.

Reliability: Ameasure is reliable to the extent that independent but comparable measures of the same construct of a given object agree. Reliability depends on how much of the variation in scores is attributable to random or chance errors.

Validity and reliability, if the measure is valid, it is reliable. Reliability is necessary, but not a sufficient condition for validity. Reliability only provides negative evidence of the validity of a measure. Because it is so much more easily computed, reliability is often reported as evidence of validity. It is important to distinguish between the two concepts and to keep in mind that a measure may be reliable without being valid.

 

 

Findings

In this section the findings will be discussed in sequence in which they answer the research questions. The most important results will be presented first, followed by other results that support or contradict the findings.

 

Is the program look interesting?

The instruments that yielded the best information to answer this question was the questionnaire, expert review, and observation.

The finding are backed up by the following instruments, that yielded the following information.

The finding were contradicted by the following information.

It would seen then that by questionnaire (12) of the random sample seen the program look very interesting of it is color, animation, text layout, procedures, clarity, and design. (11) Of them seen that it was very interesting. (5) Of them seen that it somewhat interesting. (2) Of them seen that it was not interesting.

Are lessons run easily?                                                                                     

The instrument that yielded the best information to answer this question was the expert review and observation.

The finding are backed up by the following instruments, that yielded the following information.

The finding were contradicted by the following information.

It would seen then that by the expert review (2) of the random sample seen technical of the program run very easily. (7) Of them seen it was easily to run. But in opposite of them there was (13) of the random sample seen it somewhat easily. (8) Of them seen it was not easily.

Is contains of the program motivate the learner to achieve objectives?

The instrument that yielded the best information to answer this question was the questionnaire and expert review.

The finding are backed up by the following instruments, that yielded the following information.

The finding were contracted by the following information.

It would seen then that by expert review (13) of the random sample seen the curriculum adequacy was very motivate. (10) Of them seen it was motivate In opposite there was (5) seen it was somewhat motivate, (2) of them seen it was not motivate. 

Are activities effective?                                                                                   

The instrument that yielded the best information to answer this question was the questionnaire, expert review, observation, and interview.

The finding are backed up by the following instruments, that yielded the following information.

The finding were contradicted by the following information.

It would seen then that by the questionnaire (12) of the random sample seen the pedagogical adequacy was very effective, (10) of them seen that it was effective. But in opposite of this there was (5) of them seen it was somewhat effective, (3) of them seen that it was not effective. 

Conclusions                                                                                                     

When the above findings are considered the following conclusions can be made.

Cosmetic adequacy was interesting                                                              

Cosmetic adequacy of the program of Dr. Suess Reading Games was interesting with good design, color, animation, for this it was good for facilitate learning.

Technical adequacy was not run easily                                                         

Technical adequacy of the program of Dr. Suess Reading Games was not run easily, because it had some technical problems. By the way it can not facilitate learning.

Curriculum adequacy was motivate                                                               

Curriculum adequacy of the program of Dr. Suess Reading Gams was motivate the learners to achieve objectives. For this it was good contains of the curriculum with the Sudanese one.

Pedagogical adequacy was effective                                                             

Pedagogical adequacy of the program of Dr. Suess Reading Games was very effective with activities. For this it was effective to learn activities of reading game by the pedagogical of the Sudan.

Recommendations                                                                                           

Based the table below show the recommendations that arise from the conclusions above. From the table we can see that the most important conclusions relate to the questionnaire and expert review.

From the above table it can be seen that the most important recommendation relate to observation and expert review.

 

References                                                                                                        

 Alessi, S.M & Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for learning method &development. Alyn &Bocon.

Hannafin, M.J., & Peck, K. The design, development and evaluation of educational software. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1977) More evaluation training programs, acllection of articles from training and development journal.

...  Formative evaluation checklist. Available on line: file://A:/Formative Evaluation Chechlist.htm

http://hagar.up. Ac.za/catts/ole/eel/concept-map/csmet.html

Hannifin & Peck-Evaluation & Revision. Avaliable on line: http://ed.isu.edu/isdmodels/Hannifin/ E.../Hannafin_Evaluate_Prob.htm

... Validity and Reliability. Avaliable on line: file://A://University of Khartoum.htm

... Introduction to Evaluation. Avaliable on line: file://A:/Introduction to Evaluation.htm

Sampling Terminology.Avaliable on line: http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/sampterm.htm

 ... Appendix A – Teacher Evaluation Guide. Avaliable on line: file://C:/DocumentsandSetting/sust/MyDocument/evauationprogram.htm

Trochim.W.M.K. (1996) Knowledge Base: An on line ResearchTextbook: Evaluation Websites.Cornell University.

http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/ole/eel/concept-map/types.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.