Schools are encouraged to research and test applications to select those that best meet identified learning needs. The Department of Education does not endorse or recommend any particular application.
The Application Evaluation Rubric provided below will assist schools to select applications appropriate to their context.
Evaluation rubric for tablet device applications
Framework for assessing the value of iPad applications for teaching and learning
Links to Australian Curriculum
|Skills reinforced are not clearly connected to the Australian Curriculum content descriptions.||Skills reinforced are a prerequisite or requirement of the Australian Curriculum content descriptions.||Skills reinforced are clearly linked to the Australian Curriculum content descriptions.||Skills reinforced are explicitly linked to the Australian Curriculum content descriptions.|
Remember: Application allows students to exhibit memory of previously learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts and answers to describe; name; find; list; tell.
Understand: Application allows students to demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas and to explain; compare; discuss, predict, translate, outline, and restate.
|Apply: Application allows students to solve problems by applying new knowledge to new situations or by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way to show; complete; use; examine; illustrate; classify; and solve.||
Analyse: Application allows students to examine and break information into parts; by identifying motives or causes; making inferences and finding evidence to support generalisations; comparing; examining; explaining; identifying; categorising; contrasting; and investigating.
Evaluate: Application allows students to present and defend opinions by making judgments about information, the validity of ideas or the quality of work based on a set of criteria to justify; assess; prioritise; recommend; rate; decide; and choose.
|Create: Application allows students to plan; invent; compose; design; construct; imagine.|
|Level of technology integration||Substitution: Technology acts as direct tool substitute, with no functional change.||Augmentation: Technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional improvement.||Modification: Technology allows for significant task redesign.||Redefinition: Technology allows for the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable.|
|Authenticity||Skills are practised through rote or in isolation.||Skills are practised in a contrived game/simulation format.||Some aspects of the application are presented in an authentic learning environment.||Targeted skills are practised in an authentic learning environment.|
|Interactivity||Application allows students to continually guess until the right answer appears.||No reinforcement of the concept but rather interaction is limited to student guessing the right answer rather than reinforcing the concept.||Interactivity is specific and results in improved student achievement. Application may include tutorials.||Interactivity is specific and results in improved student achievement. Produces data electronically for teacher and student.|
|Differentiation||Application settings cannot be adjusted to meet student needs.||Application offers limited flexibility by providing basic level options of easy, medium or hard.||Application offers more than one level of flexibility to adjust settings to meet student needs.||Application offers complete flexibility to adjust settings to meet student needs.|
|Student use||Students need constant teacher guidance to use the application.||Students require frequent teacher guidance to re-explain how to use the application.||Students require occasional teacher review to use the application.||Students work independently to launch and navigate within the application.|
|Student Motivation||Students avoid using the application.||Students show limited engagement with the application.||Students use the application with some enjoyment and engagement.||Students are highly motivated to engage with the application.|
- Revised with permission from Walker, H., (2010). Evaluation Rubric for IPod Apps, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.Puentedura, R. R., Ph.D., SAMR model,
- Anderson, L.W., and D. Krathwohl (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, New York.