This document is a lab observation instrument used to evaluate the Crocodile Physics software in a physics class. It contains criteria for motivation and interactivity, accuracy of content, navigation, simulation, and documentation. Observers use the instrument to rate various aspects of the software on a scale from 0 to 5 to assess how applicable, available, or observable each criteria is. The total scores are calculated for each section.

1. Lab Observation Instrument
Using Crocodile Physics Software in Physics Class
1. Topic: ………………………………….. 5. Observer: ………………………………...
2. Grade: …………………………………. 6. Date: ……………………………………
3. School: …………………………………. 7. Start time: ………………………………..
4. Teacher: ……………………………….. 8. End time: ………………………………...
9.1. Settings: □ classroom □ lab □ media center □other: ……………………...
9.2. No. students____ 9.3. No. computers_____
10. The degree of applicability of criteria on the software ( 1 = very applicable ), ( 2 =
applicable ), ( 3 = unobservable ), ( 4 = not applicable ), ( 5 = not applicable at all)
No. Criteria Degree Comment
11. Motivation and Interactivity:
11.1 Approach is appropriate for the intended student population. 0 1 2 3 4 5
11.2 Format is varied. 0 1 2 3 4 5
11.3 Overall tenor of interaction is helpful. 0 1 2 3 4 5
11.4 Student is an active participant in the learning process. 0 1 2 3 4 5
11.5 Graphics and audio are used to motivate. 0 1 2 3 4 5
11.6 Graphics help focus attention to appropriate content without
0 1 2 3 4 5
being distracting.
Total /30
More comments:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. No. Criteria Degree Comment
12. Accuracy of content:
12.1 Content is accurate. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12.2 Content is current. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12.3 Content breadth is reasonable. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12.4 Content is free of any bias or stereotyping. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12.5 Content supports the school curriculum. 0 1 2 3 4 5
12.6 Content is relevant to the subject field. 0 1 2 3 4 5
Total /30
More comments:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
No. Criteria Degree Comment
13. Navigation:
13.1 Learner can alter program sequence and pace. 0 1 2 3 4 5
13.2 Learner can review instructions and previous frames. 0 1 2 3 4 5
13.3 Learner can end activity any time and return to main menu. 0 1 2 3 4 5
13.4 Learner can enter program at different points. 0 1 2 3 4 5
13.5 The look is consistent throughout the software. 0 1 2 3 4 5
Total /25
More comments:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. No. Criteria Degree Comment
14. Simulation:
14.1 Simulation model is valid and neither too complex nor too
0 1 2 3 4 5
simple for intended student population.
14.2 Variables used in the simulation are the most relevant. 0 1 2 3 4 5
14.3 Program simulates activities that can be too difficult to
0 1 2 3 4 5
demonstrate in reality.
14.4 The time needed to complete both a step and the entire
0 1 2 3 4 5
simulation is reasonable and effective.
14.5 Encourages decision making or calculation rather than guessing. 0 1 2 3 4 5
Total /25
More comments:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
No. Criteria Degree Comment
15. Documentation:
15.1 Technical and operational explanations for implementation are
0 1 2 3 4 5
clear and complete.
15.2 If appropriate, "quick start-up" section is included. 0 1 2 3 4 5
15.3 Accurate and clear descriptions of content topics are provided. 0 1 2 3 4 5
15.4 Accurate & clear descriptions of instructional activities provided. 0 1 2 3 4 5
15.5 Necessary information can be found quickly and easily. 0 1 2 3 4 5
Total /25
More comments:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………