As our digital learning resources are now undergoing the Test Phase, we now turn our attention to the criteria in which these resources are evaluated and assessed. With the wide range of resources that are available from course modules, videos, presentations, guides, etc., I was thinking it would be very difficult to come up with an evaluation instrument that could cover various resources and tools. Some resources are more interactive than others. Some tools are meant to be more for reference than for new learning. The most important aspect from what I found working through my own resource in addition to exposing myself to others, is determining what the learning goals are. Without knowing the goal of the creator, one cannot determine whether the learning resource achieves success in what it was originally intended to be for.
One of the tools that I have looked at is the Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI), which has learning goal alignment as one of items for evaluation (Leacock & Nesbit, 2007). The other eight are content quality, feedback and adaptation, motivation, presentation design, interaction usability, accessibility, reusability, and standards compliance. Most of these criterion can be applied to almost any digital learning resource which makes the LORI tool attractive in my eyes. There needs to be certain flexibility after determining the learning goals in how each item is reflected in the resource. Keeping in mind this flexibility, most people can at least agree a resource should have good content, motivate students and be accessible among other factors.
Hadjerrouit (2010) notes that in evaluating web-based learning resources one must consider the technology, pedagogy, and content. LORI hits these three elements through the nine items outlined above (e.g., accessibility for technology, motivation for pedagogy, content quality for content, etc.). I believe an evaluator would have a much easier time working with nine elements versus three broader categories. Of course, adaptability could be limited when working with more rigid items, but that goes back to my earlier statement on determining the learning goals early on and seeing how these items fit into those intentions.
Due to the nature of LORI being in-depth enough for proper analysis by covering core components, but yet not overbearing in the effort and time needed to complete (Leacock & Nesbit, 2007), in my opinion it is a good option for evaluating digital learning resources which I shall explore using in the future.
Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 53-79.
Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2) 44-59.