Assignment:
Find sites on the Web that reviewed one of the software programs you assessed; try to find more than one review of the software, but no more than three. You only need to do this for one of your two software programs. If you cannot find a formal review, you may use a testimonial or possibly contact a proponent or vendor of the program.
Compare the reviews you found with your own assessment of the program. In particular, look at these areas in your comparison:
1. Was the scope of your assessment similar to the online review? Does the online review cover criteria that you also considered important?
2. Does the reviewer agree with your findings? In what ways are your conclusions different?
3. In a more general way, comment on whether you think software reviews are useful for educators, and if most reviews were unbiased?
Submission:
Introduction
As Audacity is a popular piece of free software (“freeware”), reviews abound. However, these reviews were seldom from the perspective of or helpful for teachers trying to assess this software for the classroom. One review (Aydin, N., 2008) seemed to misunderstand or have mis-identified the software, attributing to it dictation or speech-to-text capabilities, which Audacity does not have. A large number of teachers writing about Audacity are describing how to use the software in education, encouraging other teachers to use it, or both. Only one in-depth review could be obtained for the purposes of this assignment.
Review Specifics
Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) at the University of Connecticut. UDI had the most comprehensive review of Audacity, including an end-user survey of both instructors and students. The questions for the instructors were as follows (where “e-tool” refers to “Audacity”); N=5:
- The e-tool was easy to incorporate into my course (likert)
- I used the e-tool to address the following: (check all that apply)
- stating and explaining course requirements
- reducing the physical demands on the learner allowing maximum attention to learning
- facilitating communication with and between students
- allowing students to demonstrate understanding or mastery of content
- other
- Do you think the e-tool exemplified the construct of UDI within your course? (UDI is defined as an approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and use of inclusive instruction) (likert)
- Please comment on the benefits of using the e-tool in your course (open-ended)
- Please comment on any drawbacks of using the e-tool in your course (open-ended)
- I will use the e-tool in another course (yes/no)
- In the future, I will use the e-tool to address the following (check all that apply):
- stating and explaining course requirements
- reducing the physical demands on the learner allowing maximum attention to learning
- facilitating communication with and between students
- allowing students to demonstrate understanding or mastery of content
- other
Similarly, the survey of student users was as follows (N=17, 2 with learning disabilities):
- The tool was easy to use. (likert)
- The tool assisted me with the following (select all that apply):
- understanding course requirements
- reducing the physical demands on the learner allowing maximum attention to learning
- facilitating communication with other students in the class
- allow me to demonstrate my understanding or mastery of the content
This review does not address most of the pre-pilot evaluation included in our assessment, but rather focuses on the results of the pilot run of the software in classes for the purpose of assessing its applicability. It is difficult to determine whether the scope of the assessment was as in-depth as ours, but based on the details of the survey, I would hazard to guess that prior to use the in the classroom, some person or group of persons assessed the technical and practical issues we attempted to cover in our assessment. As such, the primary evaluation (sections 2-5 in our assessment) are absent from this review.
Overall, this review agrees with our assessment, with some interesting open-ended responses in the “drawbacks” question. One instructor, who self-identified as lacking proficiency with software found file conversion (from .wav to .mpeg) to be difficult. This may be an important concern for implementation in the classroom. Another commented on a bug, while a third commented on file size presenting problems for attaching to email; a problem that could be solved through PD, accessing online tutorials or other user education. Given that 85.7% of faculty users found the software easy to use, these comments may have come from outlier responses. Likewise, as 100% of survey respondents indicated they would use the software again, this did not appear to have a lasting negative effect on the instructors’ perceptions of the appropriateness of the software. There are no clear differences between online review and our review of this software.
Emory University: Center for Interactive Teaching. This review is much less in-depth than the UDI UConn assessment, but was selected for its attention to education and implementation. The assessment is directed at faculty considering new software for implementation in the classroom and other education settings. It is hard to determine from the summary review how much research was put into this assessment. The primary areas of concern are as follows:
- How is Audacity applied in learning environments?
- What challenges are involved in using Audacity?
- What are some of the benefits to using Audacity?
- What is the required skill level (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) for using Audacity?
- As a faculty member, why would I use and spend time to learn Audacity?
- How have others used Audacity at Emory?
This summary assessment is focused on faculty at Emory University and gives a brief overview of how and why faculty might consider using Audacity for their classes. It would be nice if this overview included a link to a more in-depth list of information or considerations for faculty that may have a deeper technical knowledge. Overall, the assessment agrees with ours with no points of disagreement. Of interest, however, is the list of challenges. Here, the Emory reviewer comments that there is limited support when issues arise. While it is true that the user might not be able to call someone to walk them through the process, the online community, based on our review is active and responsive to users who require assistance. A key for new users would be understanding where to source technical assistance.
Conclusion
Considering the nature and content of the reviews examined for this assignment, it appears that software reviews can be helpful for the end-user teacher who is seeking new solutions to existing pedagogical problems or new ways of using software for teaching. The reviews online tend to be short and direct in either recommending for or against a specific title. In particular, many online assessments direct teachers in specific ways they can use the software to meet their educational goals. Access to more in-depth reviews and information for the interested instructor would be an improvement over the current information, which is rather shallow.
As many of the reviews appeared to be from end-users themselves, without stock or interest in the success or profitability of the software, I believe it is safe to consider these reviews unbiased.
References
Audacity (n.d.). Emory’s Center for Interactive Teaching, Office of Information Technology. Emory University. Retrieved from: http://ecit.emory.edu/teaching_tools/audacity.html
Audacity. (n.d.). Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) at the University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.udi.uconn.edu/index.php?q=content/audacity
Aydin, N., (2008, November 25). Technology Assessment: Audacity. Retrieved from http://voices.yahoo.com/technology-assessment-audacity-2193624.html?cat=15
