Quality Assurance in Multimedia Learning Materials/Development

Indicators of DEVELOPMENT

III

DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Storyboard follows a Structure Map, Objectives and defined Instructional Strategies.

1.	Poor	: Storyboard is not based on a defined Structure, Objectives and
		Instructional Strategies.
2.	Average	: Storyboard is based on a defined Structure, but is not based on
		Objectives and does not follow defined instructional strategies.
3.	Good	: Storyboard is based on a defined Structure and Objectives, but does
		not follow the defined instructional strategies.
4.	Very good	: Storyboard is based on a defined Structure, Objectives and defined
		Instructional Strategies.
5.	Excellent	: Storyboard effectively follows a Structure Map, Objectives and
		defined Instructional Strategies and is exceptional.

3.2 Storyboard uses simple, correct and clear language.

1.	Poor	: Storyboard is poorly written; uses unclear and incorrect language.
2.	Average	: Storyboard reflects marginal attention to simple, correct and clear
		language.
3.	Good	: Storyboard uses simple, correct and clear language, but lacks
		effectiveness.
4.	Very good	: Storyboard uses simple, correct and clear language that is effective
		and engaging.
5.	Excellent	: Storyboard uses simple, correct and clear language effectively,
		reflects a fine command over the language and uses an innovative
		approach.

Instructions provided in the storyboard to the developers are unambiguous and detailed.

1.	Poor	:	Instructions for developers are not provided in the storyboard.
2.	Average	:	Instructions are provided for the developers in the storyboard, but
			they lack clarity.
3.	Good	:	Instructions provided in the storyboard for developers are clear and
			unambiguous.
4.	Very good	:	Instructions provided in the storyboard for developers are clear and
			detailed, but require some briefing to be given to the development
			team.
5.	Excellent	:	Instructions provided in the storyboard are unambiguous, self-
			explanatory and detailed (No briefing is necessary for the developer)

3.4 MLM is validated by subject experts.

1.	Poor	: MLM is not validated by experts.
2.	Average	: Few sections of the MLM (approx. 40%) are finally validated by
		experts
3.	Good	: Many sections of the MLM (approx. 60%) are finally validated by
		experts
4.	Very good	: Most sections of the MLM (approx. 80%) are validated by experts
5.	Excellent	: The entire MLM is finally validated by experts and sign-offs are
		received from them.

3.5 MLM is compliant with specified standards.

1.	Poor	: MLM is not compliant with specified standards.
2.	Average	: MLM shows marginal compliance with specified standards.
3.	Good	: MLM shows moderate compliance with specified standards.
4.	Very good	: MLM is compliant with specified standards and is used for product
		effectiveness.
5.	Excellent	: MLM reflects an innovative solution with reference to compliance
		with specified standards

3.6 Process Documents facilitate easy and quick development of MLM.

1.	Poor	:	Process documents are not available.
2.	Average	:	Process documents are available, but not adequate
3.	Good	:	Process documents are available for the entire development process
			and they record procedures and details.
4.	Very good	:	Process documents are available for the entire development process,
			record procedures and details and are used to facilitate the easy and
			quick development of MLM.
5.	Excellent	:	Process Documents are available for the entire development
			process, are well-formatted, permit easy retrieval and access and
			facilitate quick development of MLM.

MLM testing in a simulated environment satisfies overall performance requirements.

1.	Poor	:	MLM testing reports do not exist.
2.	Average	:	Testing reports exist, but are incomplete.
3.	Good	:	Testing reports indicate that testing has been done in a simulated
			environment.
4.	Very good	:	Testing reports indicate that testing has been done in a simulated
			environment and satisfy overall performance requirements.
5.	Excellent	:	Testing reports not only indicate that testing has been done in a
			simulated environment and satisfy overall performance requirements
			but also check on other indicators that may prove conducive to
			enhancing. the learning experience.

We invite your feedback, comments and suggestions by February 15, 2009. You may :

Input directly on the discussion page attached to this wikieducator page:
Send us an email to RSreedher@col.org or rvemraju@col.org or savisingh@and.du.ac.in
Send regular mail:

Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia
8/4, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi 110016

Please do include your name and affiliation if you would like to be acknowledged as a contributor in this process.

Work in progress, expect frequent changes. Help and feedback is welcome. See discussion page.