Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting software tools for IS/IT curricula

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evaluation and selection of software tools for use in an IS or IT curriculum is difficult not only because actual industry software tools are often used but also because there is no formal approach to guide the process. How does one choose between SQL Server and MySQL, or Dreamweaver and Expression Studio? IS and IT educators must periodically go through the process of assessing the most suitable tools for their courses. Given how common such decisions are and how frequently they must be made, it is surprising to find that there is a lack of literature that deals with comparative studies of software tools for higher education. This paper proposes a set of criteria for the selection of software tools for IS and IT programs, explains how multi-criteria decision analysis can be used to weight those criteria, and details an approach for the application of those weighted criteria. The proposed approach is structured and replicable, and allows for a more thorough evaluation of the available options and a more easily supportable selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABET, Inc. (2008). Criteria for accrediting computing programs: Effective for evaluations during the 2009-2010 accreditation cycle. ABET Board of Directors. http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/C001%2009-10%20CAC%20Criteria%2012-01-08.pdf.

  • Ahmed, M. I. (2003). A practical process for reviewing and selecting educational software. Technical Paper #8 Indiana University. PLATO Learning, Inc. A Practical Process for Reviewing and Selecting Educational Software.

  • Anderson, E. E. (1990). Choice models for the evaluation and selection of software packages. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(4), 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baki, B., & Çakar, C. (2005). Determining the ERP package-selecting criteria. Business Process Management Journal, 11(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandor, M. (2006). Quantitative methods for software selection and evaluation. Technical Note (CMU/SEI-2006-TN-026 ), Carnegie-Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/06tn026.pdf.

  • Bednarik, R., Gerdt, P., Miraftabi, R., & Tukiainen, M. (2004). Development of the TUP model – Evaluating educational software. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 699–701.

  • Beise, C. (2006). Revisiting database resource choice: A framework for DBMS course tool selection. Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexico August 4–6, 2139–2144 http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2006/266.

  • Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Ceric, V., & Hlupic, V. (2007). Criteria for the evaluation of business process simulation tools. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 2, 73–88. http://ijikm.org/Volume2/IJIKMv2p073-088Bosilj396.pdf

  • Carney, D. J., & Wallnau, K. C. (1998). A basis for evaluation of commercial software. Information and Software Technology, 40(14), 851–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., & Williams, G. (1994). Evaluating and selecting simulation software using the analytic hierarchy process. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 5(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. C., & Vigder, M. (2000). COTS software evaluation techniques. Proceedings of the NATO Information Systems Technology Panel Symposium on Commercial Off-the-Shelf Products in Defence Applications, Brussels, Belgium, April 3–5.

  • Denton, J. W., & Peace, A. G. (2004). Selection and use of MySQL in a database management course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(4), 401–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donham, P. (2004). Ten rules for evaluating open source software. Point of view paper, Collaborative consulting. URL http://www.collaborative.ws/uploads/file/10%20Rules%20for%20Open%20Source%20Software.pdf.

  • Filho, A., Cavalcante, C. A. V., & da Costa, A. P. (2005). Multicriteria decision making on selection of decision analysis software. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics. 5 (3), 11–16. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Multicriteria+decision+making+on+selection+of+decision+analysis...-a0149213906

  • Franch, X., & Carvallo, J. P. (2003). Using quality models in software package selection. IEEE Software, 20(1), 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, C. A., & Carter, B. D. (1994). A classification and summary of software evaluation and selection methodologies. Computer Science Technical Report No.940823, Dept of Computer Science, Mississippi State University. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseer.ist.psu.edu%2F25945.html&ei=JnCDS57rBY6YsgPbv_jjDw&usg=AFQjCNG2xZ_nUa5N08HLjwUNyMZOr1ERtg

  • Gerdt, P., Miraftabi, R., & Tukiainen, M. (2002). Evaluating educational software environments. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, 675–676.

  • Güngör ŞEN, C., & Baraçli, H. (2006). A brief literature review of enterprise software evaluation and selection methodologies: a comparison in the context of decision-making methods. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, 29–31 May, pp. 874–883.

  • Hauge, O., Osterlie, T., Sorensen, C. F., & Gerea, M. (2009). An empirical study on selection of open source software – Preliminary results. Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research and Development, ICSE Workshop, Vancouver, Canada, May 18, 42-47.

  • Hosie, P., Schibeci, R., & Backhaus, A. (2005). A framework and checklists for evaluating online learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. T., & Giuse, N. B. (1995). Educational software evaluation process. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2(5), 295–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadhav, A. S., & Sonar, S. J. (2009). Evaluating and selecting software packages: a review. Information and Software Technology, 51(3), 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan, G., & Vinay, V. P. (2008). Multi-criteria decision making for the selection of CAD/CAM system. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 2(3), 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, D., Tousignant, W., & Wiebe, N. (2000). A paradigm for selecting an institutional software. Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference 2000, (ISECON), Philadelphia, November 9–12. http://proc.isecon.org/2000/207/ISECON.2000.Kao.pdf.

  • Kontio, J. (1996). A Case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection. Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 201–209.

  • Kontio, J., Chen, S. F., & Limperos, K. (1995). A COTS selection method and experiences of its use. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Software Engineering Workshop, Maryland.

  • Lai, V. S., Trueblood, R. P., & Wong, B. K. (1999). Software selection: a case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system. Information & Management, 36(4), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancor, L. (2008). Collaboration tools in a one-semester software engineering course: What worked? What didn’t? Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 23(5), 160–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lê, Q., & Lê, T. (2007). Evaluation of educational software: Theory into practice. In J. Sigafoos & V. Green (Eds.), Technology and teaching (pp. 115–124). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., Lai, A., Ullrich, R., Kuca, M., McCllelland, K., Shaffer-Gant, J., et al. (2006). COTS software selection process. Proceedings of the Sixth International IEEE Conference on Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS)-Based Software Systems, 114–122.

  • Mannila, L., & de Raadt, M. (2006). An objective comparison of languages for teaching introductory programming. Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research, 32–37.

  • McDougall, A., & Squires, D. (1995). A critical examination of the checklist approach in software selection. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H. (1992). Selection of software: the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 22(1), 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, E. W. T., & Chan, E. W. C. (2005). Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 29(4), 889–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikoukaran, J., Hlupic, V., & Paul, R. J. (1998). Criteria for simulation software evaluation. Proceedings of the I998 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington, DC, 399–406.

  • Obeidat, M. A. (2006). Evaluation of new software technology: an empirical study. International Management Review, 2(3), 76–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. R., Chao, J. T., Ottaway, T. A., & Chang, J. (2006). A formal language selection process for introductory programming courses. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 133–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. R., Ottaway, T. A., & Chao, J. T. (2006). Criteria for the selection of a programming language for introductory courses. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 2(1/2), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plaza, I., Marcuello, J. J., Igual, R., & Arcega, F. (2009). Proposal of a quality model for educational software. EAEEIE Annual Conference, 1–6.

  • Polančič, G., Horvat, R. V., & Rozman, T. (2004). Comparative assessment of open source software using easy accessible data. 26th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, June 7–10, 2004, Cavtat, Croatia.

  • Rowley, J. E. (1992). Evaluation of software. Translating and the Computer, 14, 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (1994). Choosing and using educational software: a teachers’ guide. Philadelphia: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (1996). Software evaluation: a situated approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(3), 146–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, D., & Preece, J. J. (1996). Usability and learning: evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers in Education, 27(1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, D., & Preece, J. J. (1999). Predicting quality in educational software: evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy between them. Interacting with Computers, 11 (5), 467–483. http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/communities/Heur2.html.

  • Susser, B. (2001). A defense of checklists for courseware evaluation. ReCALL, 13(2), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teltumbde, A. (2000). A framework for evaluating ERP projects. International Journal of Production Research, 38(17), 4507–4520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tergan, S. O. (1998). Checklists for the evaluation of educational software: critical review and prospects. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torchiano, M., Jaccheri, L., Sørensens, C.-F., & Wang, A. I. (2002). COTS products characterization. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Ischia, Italy, July 15–19, 335–338.

  • van Staaden, P. & Lubbe, S. (2006). A case study on the selection and evaluation of software for an internet organisation. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, (4) 1, 57–66, available online at http://www.ejbrm.com/vol4/v4-i1/Van_Staaden_Lubbe.pdf.

  • Voogt, J. (1990). Courseware Evaluation by Teachers: An Implementation Perspective. Computers in Education, 14 (4), 299–307. http://doc.utwente.nl/68005/1/Voogt90courseware.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8020, Pocatello, ID, 83209-8020, USA

    Kevin R. Parker

Authors
  1. Kevin R. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin R. Parker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parker, K.R. Selecting software tools for IS/IT curricula. Educ Inf Technol 15, 255–275 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9126-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9126-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation