Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
reusability criteria (Kurilovas, 2007; Kurilovas
& Dagiene, 2009), which should have the same
weight as the other criteria.
Therefore a comprehensive set of criteria is
proposed for LOs technological evaluation that
is based on a flexible e-learning system approach
as well as on the analysis of LO quality evalu-
ation criteria, presented in the previous section.
It combines LORI (Vargo et al., 2003), Paulsson
and Naeve (2006), MELT (2008), Q4R (2008) and
other research results, published in (Kurilovas,
2007; Kurilovas & Dagiene, 2009).
The comprehensive set of criteria includes
LOs technological evaluation criteria suitable
for different LOs life cycle stages (before, dur-
ing, and after LO inclusion in the LOR), as well
as LO reusability criteria. It combines both 'in-
ternal quality' criteria suitable for all LOs (such
as 'Interoperability', 'Architecture', 'Working
stability') and 'quality in use' criteria suitable for
particular projects or learners groups. Therefore,
this set of criteria is suitable for the expert evalua-
tion of LOs 'quality in use' as well as the 'internal
quality' (see the Introductory Section). Teachers
and learners are reputed as the main user groups
Table 4. Technological quality evaluation criteria of LOs (Kurilovas & Dagiene, 2009)
Narrow definition compliance
Metadata accuracy
Compliance with the main import/export standards (IMS CC (2009),
SCORM (2009))
Reusability level: interoper-
ability
LO aggregation (granularity) level
Is the LO modular?
Does the LO have a stron g visual element?
Is the LO indivisible
(atomic)?
Reusability level: decontex-
tualization
Is the LO flexible (can be modified)?
LO suitability for localization
LO internationalization level
Reusability level: cultural
and learning diversity prin-
ciples
Criteria before LO inclusion
in LOR
Is the LO designed for all?
Compliance with accessibility standards (W3C, 2009)
Reusability level: acces-
sibility
Is the LO architecture layered in order to separate data, presentation and
application logics?
LO architecture
Working stability
Aesthetics
Navigation
User-friendly interface
Information structure
Personalization
Design and usability
Using LO harvesting
Obligatory membership
Membership of contribution
control strategies
Criteria during LO inclusion
in LOR
Automatic verification of capability with known protocols
Automatic metadata generation or simplified metadata tagging
Technical interoperability
Retrieval quality
User should be able to retrieve LO in different ways
Criteria after LO inclusion
in LOR
Display information strategies
Feedback techniques
Information quality
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search