As educators when we assess software or any other tool in the classroom, we must ask ourselves if the program helps us to achieve our objectives. To discover the answer to that question, we must approach our research similarly to curriculum development by using a backwards design process. First, we must determine what our end goals are, and this requires us to evaluate our philosophy of education. Are we following a constructivist approach where the end goal is for learners to construct their own answer using a higher order, critical thinking processes, or are we striving merely for the rote memorization of facts in order to survive the next round of standardized testing? Is our job as educators to teach students how to learn, to help them remember the content, or a combination of both? Are we required to meet the needs of multiple intelligences and learning styles or are students required to assimilate the information no matter what format it is presented in? Should assessment be a traditional paper and pencil exam or portfolio based? Should it be a fact-based test or an authentic, performance-based assessment?

Once we know where we are headed, we need to determine how we are going to get there and how to assess that we have arrived. Software that we utilize in the classroom will fall into one of these two categories; it will either be part of how the student learns the content or how the teacher assesses the student. Sometimes program features will be designed to accommodate both needs. We now must determine if the software fits into our own philosophy of education and meets our end goals.

Let’s look at Study Island, an online software program used to prepare students for standardized testing, as an example. The purpose of Study Island, according to their Ohio website, is to cover the topics of “all of the Academic Content Standards that are tested on the state-mandated Ohio Achievement Test and Ohio Graduation Test in grades 3 through 12.” Right from the start we must ask ourselves pertinent questions such as, “What are the short and long term consequences of standardized testing, and do the concepts from NCLB fit into my philosophy of education?” Is standardized testing a valuable tool or an unfair measure of students’ abilities? We must also consider how we believe we should prepare for a standardized test. Do we teach to the test or attempt to add depth and breadth to the topic and take a chance on overloading or confusing the learner?

So what does Study Island actually do? Does it teach students the content or test their existing knowledge for a given subject area? According to their website, “The academic material is organized in topics which contain a lesson and assessment questions with explanations.” Is the lesson in a multimedia format or plain text? Does it differentiate and meet the needs of all students by providing for all learning styles (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, etc.), multiple intelligences, and varied cognitive levels? The Study Island website promotes, “In addition to allowing students to learn at their own pace, Study Island lets students choose their style of learning. Students can choose between a standard test format and several interactive games for their study sessions,” but are the games really meeting varied learning styles? Does Study Island promote higher order thinking or rote memory of random facts in the style of Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit? Does Study Island actually help those who do not know the content to learn it, or does Study Island merely track who knows the information and who does not?

While Study Island does have positive features – (1) it is based on the state content standards and indicators, (2) it allows teachers to track student progress, and (3) may help students reduce text anxiety because they know what type of questions to expect, is it really worth the cost (about $8000 per year for a small elementary school with less than 125 students per grade level)?

Now it is time for you to decide. Do you think Study Island really lives up to its promises?