Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Therefore, in the authors' opinion, a more
comprehensive tool/set of criteria for VLE tech-
nological evaluation is needed. It should include
the general technological evaluation criteria,
based on modular approach and interoperability,
as well as the adaptation capability criteria (Ku-
rilovas & Dagiene, 2009). The VLE adaptation
capability criteria should have the same weight
as the other criteria. According to the principle ,
the comprehensive VLEs quality evaluation tool
should include both the general software 'internal
quality' evaluation criteria and the 'quality in
use' evaluation criteria suitable for a particular
project or user.
The authors' comprehensive set of criteria
(tool) for VLEs technological evaluation is pre-
sented in Table 6.
This approach is suitable for expert evaluation
of both the VLEs 'internal quality' criteria (see
criteria 1-4) and the 'quality in use' criteria (see
criteria 5-8). This tool provides a clear instrumen-
tality identifying what dimensions experts are
necessary to analyse and what kind of VLEs qual-
ity criteria should be used in order to select the best
VLE software to accommodate their needs.
The main ideas for the constitution of this
tool are to clearly divide VLEs quality evaluation
criteria in conformity with the principle as well
Table 6. VLEs technological quality evaluation criteria (Kurilovas & Dagiene, 2009)
Scalability
Modularity (of the architecture)
Possibility of multiple installations on a single plat-
form
Reasonable performance optimizations
Look and feel is configurable
Security
Modular authentication
Robustness and stability
Installation, dependencies and portability
1. Overall architecture and implementation
Internal quality
(General) evaluation
criteria
Integration is straightforward
VLE standard support
2. Interoperability
Localizable user interface
Localization to relevant languages
Unicode text editing and storage
Time zones and date localization
Alternative language support
3. Internationalization and localization
Text only navigation support
Scalable fonts and graphics
4. Accessibility
Language
Design
6. Personalization aspects (facilities for each individual user to customize the platform)
5. Adaptability (facilities to customize to suit the
educational institution's needs)
Quality in use (Ad-
aptation) evaluation
criteria
Good programming style
Availability of a documented API
7. Extensibility
Personal annotations of LOs
Automatically adapted content
8. Adaptivity (all kinds of automatic adaptation to
individual user's needs)
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search