Quality Assurance in Multimedia Learning Materials/Analysis
I ANALYSIS
Indicators
1.1 Needs are clearly stated and comprehensive.
1.
|
Poor | : Needs are not stated and stakeholders are not defined. |
2.
|
Average | : Needs are somewhat clearly stated, but stakeholders are not |
defined. | ||
3.
|
Good | : Needs are clearly stated and few stakeholders are defined. |
4.
|
Very good | : Needs are very clearly stated and most stakeholders are well |
defined. | ||
5.
|
Excellent | : Needs are very clearly stated and all stakeholders are very well |
defined. |
1.2 Needs are appropriately prioritised.
1.
|
Poor | : Needs are not prioritised / wrongly prioritised. | |
2.
|
Average | : | Needs are prioritised to some extent, but inputs used are not clear. |
3.
|
Good | : | Needs are prioritised to a large extent and indicate usage of some |
inputs. |
- Very good : All needs are prioritised and indicate usage of most inputs.
- Excellent : All needs are appropriately prioritised and indicate usage of all inputs
(primary and secondary).
1.3 Context is clearly and fully mapped.
1.
|
Poor | : | Context is not mapped. |
2.
|
Average | : Context is somewhat clear, but only partially mapped. (e.g. learning | |
environment mapped but socio-cultural aspects and /or technical | |||
facilities not considered). | |||
3.
|
Good | : Context is clear, though not fully mapped.(e.g. Learning | |
environment mapped and technical facilities determined, but socio- | |||
cultural aspects not considered). | |||
4.
|
Very good | : Context is very clear and well mapped. (e.g. Socio-cultural aspects | |
well mapped along with the learning environment and technical | |||
aspects). | |||
5.
|
Excellent | : Context is very clear, well mapped and is clearly reflected in the | |
profile document so as to guide the Design and Development | |||
stages. |
1.4 Learner profiles are adequately captured.
1.
|
Poor | : Learner profile is not captured. | |
2.
|
Average | : Learner profile is partially captured. (e.g. Academic level of the | |
learner determined, but learner attributes not considered). | |||
3.
|
Good | : Learner profile is captured to a large extent. (e.g. Academic level | |
and attributes considered, but learners with special needs not | |||
considered). | |||
4.
|
Very good | : Learner profile is well-captured and the need for inclusiveness is | |
emphasised. (Learners with special needs also considered). | |||
5.
|
Excellent | : Learner profile is very well-captured and reflects how it will impact | |
the Design and Development stages. | |||
1.5 Primary purpose of MLM is clearly stated. | |||
1.
|
Poor | : Purpose of MLM is not stated. | |
2.
|
Average | : Purpose of MLM is stated, but not clear. | |
3.
|
Good | : | Purpose of MLM is clear, but task is not defined in detail. |
- Very good : Purpose of MLM is clear and task is defined in detail.
- Excellent : Purpose of MLM is clearly stated with task well defined and includes
suggestions for treatment at Design and Development stage.
- Usage aspects of MLM are clearly specified. (e.g. standalone / series, supplementary, integrated and/or any other).
1.
|
Poor | : Usage aspects of MLM are not indicated. |
2.
|
Average | : Usage aspects of MLM are indicated, but not clear. |
3.
|
Good | : Usage aspects of MLM are clearly stated, but do not include |
additional suggestions/details. | ||
4.
|
Very good | : Usage aspects of MLM are clearly stated and include suggestions for |
treatment. | ||
5.
|
Excellent | : Usage aspects of MLM are clearly stated, include suggestions for |
treatment and reflect how they will impact the Design and | ||
Development stages. |
1.7 Content outline is indicative of the scope of the MLM.
1.
|
Poor | : Content outline is not given. |
2.
|
Average | : Content outline is given, but only partially indicates the scope of the |
MLM. (Few titles/sub-titles given). | ||
3.
|
Good | : Content outline is given and indicates the scope of the MLM to a |
large extent. (Most titles / sub-titles are given and clearly placed). | ||
4.
|
Very good | : Content outline is well given and clearly indicates the scope of the |
MLM. (All titles / sub-titles are clearly given and placed in logical / | ||
natural sequence / hierarchy). | ||
5.
|
Excellent | : Content outline is well given, clearly indicates the scope of the MLM |
and incorporates suggestions that impact the Design and | ||
Development stages. |
1.8 Raw content has been validated for appropriateness and accuracy.
1.
|
Poor | : Raw content has not been validated for appropriateness and |
accuracy. (e.g. features like logical sequencing, following content | ||
outline, factual correctness, inclusiveness, etc., not considered). | ||
2.
|
Average | : Raw content has been only partially validated for appropriateness |
and accuracy. (Only a few features considered and checked). |
3.
|
Good | : Raw content has been validated to a large extent for | |
appropriateness and accuracy. (e.g. Content outline is well followed | |||
and checked for appropriateness and completeness). | |||
4.
|
Very good | : Raw content has been almost fully validated for appropriateness | |
and accuracy. (e.g. content outline, factual correctness and | |||
completeness are considered and checked). | |||
5.
|
Excellent | : Raw content has been fully and thoroughly validated for | |
appropriateness and accuracy. (All features like content outline, | |||
logical sequencing, completeness, factual correctness, sensitivity | |||
and inclusiveness are considered and checked). |
1.9 Content is accurately classified for design treatment as per learning domain.
1.
|
Poor | : Content is not classified and learning domain is not identified. | ||
2.
|
Average | : Content is classified, but learning domain is not identified. | ||
3.
|
Good | : Content is classified and learning domain is identified, though not | ||
appropriately. | ||||
4.
|
Very good | : Content is classified accurately and learning domain identified | ||
appropriately. | ||||
5.
|
Excellent | : Content is accurately classified, learning domain is appropriately | ||
identified and suggestions for Design and Development treatment | ||||
are given. |
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. |