Rubric+for+Evaluating+Educational+Apps

**Rubric for Evaluating Educational Apps**

Size:
====Educational Cost (Is [|Volume Purchase Program] applicable? ): ___====

How it supports curriculum:_

 * ====App Uses:==== || ====Assistive====

Technology__
|| ====Collaboration__==== || ====Creation__==== || ====Current====

Events__
|| ====Drill/Practice__==== || ====eReader__==== || ====Problem====

Solve__
|| ====Productivity__==== || ====Reference__==== ||


 * **Category**
 * Evaluated** || **4** || **3** || **2** || **1** ||
 * **Appearance/**
 * Graphics** || Sharp images; appealing graphics || Good images; appealing graphics || Average images; limited appeal || Poor definition; not appealing ||
 * **Sound** || Excellent sound quality; enhances learning experience || Good sound quality; enhances learning experience || Fair quality sound; somewhat distracting || Poor quality sound; distracting ||
 * **Performance &Reliability** || Loads and performs quickly; reliable || Loads and performs quite fast; minor technical issues || Performs slowly, crashes sporadically; some technical issues || Slow, crashes frequently; other technical issues ||
 * **User Friendly** || Easy to learn and use; directions are uncomplicated || Easy to learn and use; directions are fairly easy to follow || Somewhat difficult to learn and use; complex directions || Difficult to use; complex or no directions ||
 * **Content Accuracy** ([|Common Core Standards]) || Accurate, free of errors, appropriate for use; meets Common Core Standards || Accurate, mostly appropriate; meets Common Core Standards || Some errors and inappropriateness || Little accuracy and appropriateness ||
 * **Differentiation in Learning** || Multiple levels of difficulty; highly customized learning experiences || At least three levels of difficulty; customized to some extent || One level of difficulty; minimal customization in user experience || One level of use; no customization ||
 * **[|Learning Styles]**(aural, visual, verbal, physical, logical, social, and solitary) || Supports most learning styles || Supports some learning styles || Supports a couple learning styles || Supports one learning style ||
 * **[|Bloom’s Taxonomy]** (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create) || Promotes most of Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive processes || Promotes some Bloom’s taxonomy cognitive processes || Promotes a couple Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive processes || Promotes one Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive process ||
 * [|21st Century Skills] (Learning & Innovation Skills (e.g. collaboration, problem solving, and innovation) & Information, Media, and Technology Skills) || Promotes many 21st Century Skills || Promotes some 21st Century Skills || Promotes a couple 21st Century Skills || Promotes one 21st Century Skill ||
 * **Engagement/ Motivation** || Highly engaging; students are motivated to learn || Engaging; students are motivated to learn || Somewhat engaging; students are usually motivated to learn || Limited engagement; students motivation limited ||
 * **Feedback / Reporting** || Feedback reinforces and supports learning; tracks and analyzes progress; maintains records for students and/or teachers || Feedback reinforces learning; tracks progress; some analysis to improve learning; keeps records for students and/or teachers || Limited feedback; tracks some progress but keeps no records || Minimal feedback ||
 * **Ads** || No Ads || Ads, but not too distracting || Ads are somewhat distracting || Ads are distracting ||
 * **[|Reviews]/**
 * Ratings** || Majority of reviews are positive; ratings are 4 or more || Three fourths of the reviews are positive; ratings are at least 3 || Half of the reviews are positive; ratings are at least 2 || Most of the reviews are negative; ratings are less than 2 ||
 * **Updates** || Updates compatible with devices’ OS ||  ||   || Updates NOT compatible with devices’ OS ||
 * **Cost** || Low cost: free to $.99 || Average cost: $1.99 || Above average cost: $2.99 - $4.99 || Expensive: $5.99 and up ||
 * **Total: ­­** || / 56 || / 39 || / 26 || / 14 ||

Administration Signature:

Date:

. Here is Schrock's
 * This app is educationally valuable; I approve its purchase.
 * This app has some benefits, but I have the following reservations:
 * This app should not be adopted.

Retrieved from []

**Relections** ====**II.C. Selecting, implementing and adapting technology to teaching methodologies, curriculum resources and administrative functions in collaboration with other educators and integrating a variety of software, applications, and learning tools.**==== ====The activity was to design a rubric to guide Administration in the choice of apps for iPods and iPads in terms of cost, quality, usefulness of grade levels, accuracy, etc. This activity fulfills the requirements of PDE by providing a tool for administrators to evaluate educational apps that supports and enriches curriculum.====

====To prepare for this activity, I examined various rubrics used to evaluate apps (Schrock, 2011, 2012b; Vincent, 2012a, 2012b; Walker, 2010). I looked at iTunes customer reviews, updates, compatibility requirements, ratings, and costs. I viewed some educational app’s features such as levels of use and customization of experiences. I utilized apps metrics to arrive at the different costs of apps as well as $1.99 being the average cost of apps (148Apps.Biz, 2012). I included learning styles (Learning Styles Online, 2012), Bloom’s Taxonomy (Langwitches Blog, 2011; Schrock, 2012a), Schrock’s app categories (2012c), and 21st Century Skills (P21, 2011).====

====The activity was a challenge to make useful because I personally have not utilized many apps. I applied my experiences in software use and evaluation to evaluate apps.====

====Here are a few first-rate app resources; all have Creative Commons licenses. [|Schrock’s Guide website] (2012c) has numerous apps resources including apps categorized according to their content. Langwitches’ Blog (2011) sorts apps according to their taxonomy. Vincent’s web page in [|Learning in Hand] has many more app rubrics, even for special needs. [|I Educational Apps Review] ( IEAR) gives reviews of an extensive list of educational apps.====

An additional app evaluator is Common Sense Media, an Internet safety website. They [|offer ratings for apps] and even indicate which ones are educational.

** References ** ====148Apps.Biz. (2012). //App store metrics.// Retrieved from []====

====Langwitches Blog. (2011). //Bloom’s taxonomy and iPad apps.// Retrieved from []==== ====Learning Styles Online. (2012). //Overview of learning styles.// Retrieved from []====

====P21. (2011). //Framework for 21st century learning.// Retrieved from []====

====Schrock, K. (2011). //Criticalevaluation of an iPad / iPod app. // Retrieved from []====

====Schrock, K. (2012a). //Blooming apps.// Retrieved from []====

====Schrock K. (2012b). //Evaluation rubric for iPod/iPad apps.// Retrieved from []====

====Schrock, K. (2012c). //iPads in the classroom.// Retrieved from []====

====Vincent, T. (2012a). //Educational app evaluation rubric.// Retrieved from []====

====Vincent, T. (2012b). //Ways to evaluate apps.// Retrieved from []====

====Walker, H. (2010). //Evaluation rubric for iPod apps.// Retrieved from []====