Comprehensive evaluation criteria for English learning websites using expert validity surveys

Computers and Education

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 403-422

  Yang, Ya Ting C ^a   Chan, Chia Ying ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Distributed learning environments; Human computer interface; Interactive learning environments; Teaching learning strategies

Indexed keywords

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; WEBSITES;

DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERFACE; INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; LEARNING WEBSITES;

E-LEARNING;

EID: 43549124334     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.011     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abbott G., McKeating D., Greenwood J., and Wingard P. The teaching of English as an international language. A practical guide (1981), Collins, London
2. American Association of Law Libraries. (2005). General website evaluation criteria. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.aallnet.org/committee/aelic/criteria.html.
3. Barrett, P. (2001). Assessing the reliability of rating data. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.pbarrett.net/rater.pdf.
4. Bradin C. CALL issues: Instructional aspects of software evaluation. In: Egbert J., and Hanson-Smith E. (Eds). CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues (1999), TESOL, Alexandria, VI 159-175
5. Chapelle C.A. Multimedia CALL Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology 2 (1998) 22-34
6. Clayton, R. W. (2006). Instructional media & design. Criteria for evaluating the quality of online courses. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.imd.macewan.ca/imd/content.php?contentid=36.
7. Comer, P., & Geissler, C. (1998). A methodology for software evaluation. In SITE 98: Society for information technology & teacher education.
8. Crandall, J. (2003). They do speak English: World Englishes in US schools. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.cal.org/resources/archive/news/2003summer/englishes.html.
9. Davies G. New technologies and language learning: A suitable subject for research?. In: Chambers A., and Davies G. (Eds). ICT and language learning: A European perspective (2001), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse 13-27
10. Davis L. Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research 5 (1992) 194-197
11. Dörnyei Z. Moving language learning motivation to a larger platform for theory and practice. In: Oxford R.L. (Ed). Language learning motivation: Pathways to the New Century (1996), University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu 71-80
12. Furner J.M., and Daigle D. The educational software/website effectiveness survey. International Journal of Instructional Media 31 1 (2004) 61-77
13. Garson, W. G. (2001). Reliability. PA765: Quantitative research in public administration. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/reliab.htm#intraclass.
14. Grant J.S., and Davis L.L. Focus on quantitative methods selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health 20 (1997) 269-274
15. Harris, R. (1997). Evaluating Internet research sources. Media awareness network. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm.
16. Hemard D., and Cushion S. From access to acceptability: Exploiting the web to design a new CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13 (2000) 103-118
17. Holliday L. Theory and research: Input, interaction, and CALL. In: Egbert J., and Hanson-Smith E. (Eds). CALL environments: Research practice and critical issues (1999), TESOL, Alexandria, VI 181-188
18. Hubbard P. An integrated framework for CALL courseware evaluation. CALICO Journal 6 (1988) 51-71
19. Internet World Stats. (2007). Top ten language used in the web. Internet world users by language. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm.
20. Lasagabaster D., and Sierra J.M. Students' evaluation of CALL software programs. Educational Media International 3-4 (2003) 293-304
21. Laura G. Evaluating net evaluators. Searcher 7 2 (1999) 57-66
22. Lee, S. H., Choi, W., & Byun, H. (1996). Criteria for evaluating and selecting multimedia software for instruction. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the association for education communications and technology (pp. 413-422). Indianapolis, IN: AECT (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 812).
23. Liu M., Moore Z., Graham L., and Lee S. A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34 3 (2003) 250-273
24. Lonfils C., and Vanpary J. How to design user-friendly CALL interfaces. Computer Assisted Language Learning 14 (2001) 405-417
25. Najjar L.J. Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors 40 2 (1998) 311-323
26. Nielsen Norman Group. (2006). First principles of interaction design. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html.
27. Peterson M. Creating hypermedia learning environments: Guidelines for designers. Computer Assisted Language Learning 11 (2000) 115-124
28. Peterson M. Direction for development in hypermedia design. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13 (2000) 253-269
29. Plass J.L. Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Language Learning and Technology 2 (1998) 35-45
30. Reeves, T. C. (2001). A model of the effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/WebPaper.pdf.
31. Robb T.N., and Susser B. The life and death of software: Examining the selection process. CALICO Journal 18 1 (2000) 41-52
32. Rubio D.M., Berg-Weger M., Tebb S.S., Lee E.S., and Ruch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research 27 2 (2003) 94-104
33. Smith A.G. Testing the surf: Criteria for evaluating Internet information resources. Public-Access Computer Systems Review 8 3 (1997) 1-14
34. Sonoma State University. (2005). Evaluating web resources. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://library.sonoma.edu/research/subject/eval.html.
35. Susan, E. B. (2006). Evaluation criteria. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html.
36. Susser B. A defense of checklists for courseware evaluation. ReCALL 13 (2001) 261-276
37. Susser B., and Robb T.N. Evaluation of ESL/EFL instructional web sites. In: Fotos S., and Browne C.M. (Eds). New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (2004), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 279-295
38. Tergan S. Checklists for the evaluation of educational software: Critical review and prospects. Innovations in Education and Training International 35 1 (1998) 9-20
39. University of Maine System. (2004). Checklist for evaluating web resources. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://library.usm.maine.edu/research/researchguides/webevaluating. html#.
40. Vogel T. Learning out of control: Some thoughts on the World Wide Web in learning and teaching foreign languages. In: Chambers A., and Davies G.D. (Eds). Information and communications technology: A European perspective (2001), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse
41. Warschauer M., Shetzer H., and Meloni C. Internet for English teaching (2000), TESOL Publications, Alexandria, VA
42. Wilkinson G.L., Bennett L.T., and Oliver K.M. Evaluation criteria and indicators of quality for Internet resources. Educational Technology 37 3 (1997) 52-59
43. Williams M., and Burden R. Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach (1997), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
44. Wuensch, K. L. (2003). Inter-rater agreement. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/docs30/InterRater.doc.