Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
EXISTING WELL-KNOWN
TECHNOLOGICAL EVALUATION
MODELS AND METHODS FOR
LEARNING SOFTWARE
and was rated on a four point scale from “weak”
to “moderate” to “strong” to “perfect”. The LORI
process involved both individual and group rating
of LOs (Vargo et al., 2003).
2.1.2. Paulsson and Naeve's Quality
Criteria of Learning Objects
First of all, let us review and briefly analyze
the literature on existing well known evaluation
models/tools (i.e. sets of evaluation criteria) and
evaluation methods of LOs, LORs and VLEs.
Although the main attention is paid to the sets
of evaluation criteria, several evaluation methods
concerning the application of ratings (values) and
weights of the evaluation criteria are also provided.
Six areas for establishing LO technological qual-
ity criteria are proposed by Paulsson and Naeve
(2006):
1. A narrow definition.
2. A mapping taxonomy.
3. More extensive standards.
4. Best practice for use of existing standards.
5. Architecture models.
6. The separation of pedagogy from the sup-
porting technology of LOs.
2.1. Existing Technical Evaluation
Tools for Learning Objects
2.1.1. The LORI Quality
Criteria and Values
According to Paulsson and Naeve (2006), most
LO implementations do not nearly meet this vi-
sion. For those reasons it is essential to establish
common criteria of quality for LOs. Technical
quality criteria are specific characteristics and
properties that LOs must (or, in some cases,
ought to) adhere to, including the best practice,
guidelines and standard specifications, in order
to be regarded as LOs.
Paulsson and Naeve (2006) have focused on
the technological quality criteria for LOs. Other
quality criteria, such as the pedagogical quality,
usability or functional quality were beyond the
scope of their study. Such aspects of quality are
addressed by Van Assche and Vuorikari (2006),
where the authors suggest a quality framework
for the whole life cycle of LOs.
The evaluation conducted by Paulsson and
Naeve (2006) focuses on:
The need to evaluate LOs requires the development
of criteria for judging them. Vargo, Nesbit, Belfer
and Archambault (2003) developed the Learning
Object Review Instrument or LORI to evaluate
LOs. The LORI approach uses the following ten
criteria when examining LOs:
1. Presentation: Aesthetics.
2. Presentation: Design for learning.
3. Accuracy of the content.
4. Support for learning goals.
5. Motivation.
6. Interaction: Usability.
7. Interaction: Feedback and adaptation.
8. Reusability (technical criterion).
9. Metadata and interoperability compliance
(technical criterion).
10. Accessibility (technical criterion).
The criteria were drawn from the review of per-
tinent literature on instructional design, computer
science, multimedia development and educational
psychology. Each measure was weighted equally
•
Architecture - in terms of separation of
data, logics, presentation, and implementa-
tion of interaction interfaces.
•
Pedagogical contextualization.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search