| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 幼兒教育研究所 === 91 === The purpose of this research is to develop a checklist for evaluating the multimedia disks for children so that it can be provided to kindergarten teachers and parents as an index while choosing multimedia disks for children. But since there are many different kinds of multimedia disks for children, the research range is limited to teaching and learning of mathematics.
Checklist is the tool being used most often when people evaluate software. Users can find out the merits and faults of a software via checking all the items in the chart so that they can know if it fits their needs or not. Therefore, checklist is an important and efficient tool.
For achieving the goals of this research successfully, researcher adopted a two-stage approach to develop the checklist. The first stage is to review the references. From the past researches, researcher synthesized the level of children’s mathematics knowledge and ability as the guideline for evaluating teaching content (in multimedia disks). Then researcher aimed directly at the characteristics of multimedia disks, claiming the factors that affect the evaluation of user interface. The second stage is professor evaluation. From the perspectives of the professors, researcher can check if all the items in the checklist are suitable.
The first draft of the checklist included three levels. The first level included teaching content, teaching quality, frame design, and feedback. The former two are considering the items of teaching content; the rest two are considering the items about user interface. The second level is about evaluation indexes. These indexes are developed from the four elements in the first level. The third level is 50 concrete questions of evaluation. They are 19 questions of teaching content, 7 of teaching quality, 15 of frame design, and 9 of feedback.
The professors suggested that it will be more closed to researcher’s expectation if researcher changes the structure of the questions to 3 questions of teaching object, 25 of teaching content, 7 of teaching method, and 15 of frame design. Researcher accepted the suggestion. At the end, researcher illustrated the suggestions about the process of designing the evaluation chart, the explanation of evaluating software, and the concrete suggestions for further studies.
|
|---|
