LRNT 527 – Unit 3 Activity 1 – Test Phase
In our team discussions we chose to utilize LNRT 527 Assignment 2 evaluation rubric to evaluate our own digital resource as well as for our assigned digital resource peer review. In our readings Leacock,& Nesbit. (2007) introduced their research on frameworks available to evaluate digital learning resources. An ever increasing growth of the available reusable digital resources leads to a wide variety of digital resource review criteria. One of which, “The Learning Object Review Instruments or LORI” supports a broad foundation in support of evaluating a learning objects strengths and weaknesses. The LNRT 527 assignment 2 evaluation mirrored much of LORI’s list yet simplified the 9 steps into 4 main areas.
- Design- Which clearly identifies and aligns with instructional design and learning theories or principles through engagement and determination of learning goals. (Leacock,2007)
- Technology Interaction- How well does the programs digital technology provide an intuitive access to material that is engaging and clearly provides instruction through seamless and effective program operation (Kay, & Knaack. (2008).
- Engagement and interactivity of the digital learning resource- does the digital resource include an ease of cognitive load through design and interactivity between Students, Instructors, and Content.
- Presentation of content – Is Formatting, Presentation style, and Organizational layout flow presented in an intuitive error free format. Is the information cited and reference correctly?
In the Test phase of my digital resource built for the legion, I encountered overcoming the learning curve when reviewing and utilizing new software or programs can be vary time consuming. Throw in technical issues when switching from free trial software to purchased versions. Compounded by losing all preliminary layouts and compiled data during the upgrade, tight timelines during peak holiday (summer) periods causing delays in reviews and feedback. All of which emphasizes the need for a review process that highlights and points to the shortcomings and issues prior to launching the assigned course on a large scale. Demographics of the launch was purposely kept to a small group within the organization, consisting of 4 Veterans and two civilian of various ages. Discussions and review of submitted info high-lighted by the digital resource evaluation rubric areas of required additions through improved clarity, spelling/grammatical issues, program glitches and design inprovements.
References
Ally, M. (2007) ‘Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning’, Theory and Practice of Online Learning, (1977), pp. 15–45.
Anderson, T. (2008). Chapter 2: Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45-74). Edmonton: AU Press.
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.
Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2008). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(1), 5-28.
Kozma, R. B. (2001). Counterpoint theory of ‘learning with media’. In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 137–178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.
Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2) 44-59.
Royal Roads University. (2018). LRNT 527 Assignment 2 Description. Retrieved from https://malat-coursesite.royalroads.ca/lrnt527/assessment/assignment-2/
Wollery, E. (2017). Design thinking handbook. Retrieved from https://www.designbetter.co/design-thinking