Quality Assurance in Multimedia Learning Materials/Design

Indicators of DESIGN

II	DESIGN
2.1 Objectives are clearly defined, achievable, relevant and measurable.
	1.	Poor	: Objectives are not defined at all.
	2.	Average	: Objectives are stated, but are not properly defined.
	3.	Good	:	Objectives are clearly defined and achievable.
	4.	Very good	:	Objectives are clearly defined, achievable and relevant.
	5.	Excellent	:	Objectives are clearly defined, achievable, relevant and measurable.

2.2 Content is pedagogically structured, logically sequenced and consonant with learner profile.

1.	Poor	: Content does not reflect pedagogical structure, logical sequence and
			consonance with learner profile.
2.	Average	: Content marginally reflects pedagogical structure, logical sequence
			and consonance with learner profile.
3.	Good	: Content reflects good pedagogical structure, though logical sequence
			and consonance with learner profile are marginally reflected.
4.	Very good	:	Content reflects very good pedagogical structure and logical
			sequence, though consonance with learner profile is marginally
			reflected.
5.	Excellent	: Content reflects very good pedagogical structure, logical sequence
			and consonance with learner profile.

2.3 Instructional Strategy is clearly stated, appropriate, achievable and compliant with ‘Analysis’ requirements.

1.	Poor	: Instructional strategy is not stated.
2.	Average	: Instructional Strategy is stated, but not clear.
3.	Good	: Instructional Strategy is clearly stated and is appropriate.
4.	Very good	: Instructional Strategy is clearly stated, appropriate and achievable.
5.	Excellent	: Instructional Strategy is clearly stated, appropriate, achievable and
			compliant with requirements captured in the “Analysis” phase.
2. 4 Media mix is appropriate, engaging and consonant with objectives.
1.	Poor	: Media mix is neither appropriate, nor engaging and does not reflect
			consonance with objectives.
2.	Average	: Media mix is appropriate,		but not engaging	and	does	not	reflect
			consonance with objectives.
3.	Good	: Media mix is appropriate		and engaging,	but	does	not	reflect
			consonance with objectives.
4.	Very good	: Media mix is appropriate,		engaging and reflects		consonance with
			objectives.
5.	Excellent	:	Media mix is appropriate, engaging, and consonant with objectives and is very well integrated in the product.

2.5 Learner Evaluation Scheme includes a variety of assessment techniques and is consonant with learning objectives.

1.	Poor	: Learner evaluation scheme is not outlined.
2.	Average	: Learner evaluation scheme is outlined, but includes a limited variety
		of assessment techniques and does not reflect consonance with
		learning objectives.
3.	Good	: Learner evaluation scheme includes a fair variety of assessment
		techniques and reflects consonance with a few learning objectives.
4.	Very good	: Learner evaluation scheme includes a large variety of assessment
		techniques and reflects consonance with most learning objectives.
5.	Excellent	: Learner evaluation scheme includes a large variety of innovatively
		conceived assessment techniques and reflects consonance with all
		learning objectives.

2.6 The Graphical User Interface (GUI) Design is intuitive, visually appealing and consistent.

1.	Poor	: GUI Design is not included as part of the process.
2.	Average	: GUI Design is included, but is not intuitive, visually appealing and
			consistent (with respect to use of colour, style etc).
3.	Good	: GUI Design is intuitive, but not visually appealing and consistent.
4.	Very good	: GUI Design is intuitive and visually appealing, but not consistent.
5.	Excellent	:	GUI Design is intuitive, visually appealing and consistent.

2.7 Fonts are legible and visually appealing.

1.	Poor	: Legibility of fonts (size, type, language, etc) and visual appeal
		(colour, style, etc) are not given consideration.
2.	Average	: Legibility of fonts is somewhat considered, but visual appeal is not
		given consideration.
3.	Good	: Fonts are legible and appropriate, but visual appeal is only marginally
		considered.
4. Very good		: Font legibility and visual appeal are adequately considered. (Font
		colours communicate information hierarchy).
5.	Excellent	: Font legibility and visual appeal are adequately as well as
		appropriately considered. (Font colors communicate information
		hierarchy and overall technicalities with respect to fonts are also
		considered).

2.8 Layouts are clearly defined, consider all elements and reflect information hierarchy.

1.	Poor	: No thought is given to layouts
2.	Average	: Layouts are defined, but not clear and do not reflect information
		hierarchy and consideration of all elements. (e.g. video windows,
		pop-ups etc).
3.	Good	: Layouts are clearly defined and marginally reflect information
		hierarchy, but do not consider all elements.
4. Very good		: Layouts are clearly defined, largely reflect information hierarchy, but
		do not consider all elements.
5.	Excellent	: Layouts are clearly defined, fully reflect information hierarchy and
		consider all elements appropriately.

2.9 Content, visuals, and instructional strategy are contextually relevant, gender and racially sensitive.

1.	Poor	:	Content, visuals and instructional strategy are not contextually
			relevant and sensitivity to gender and race is not observed.
2.	Average	: Content, visuals and instructional strategy are contextually relevant
			to some extent, but sensitivity to gender and race is not observed.
3.	Good	: Content, visuals and instructional strategy are contextually quite
			relevant and slight sensitivity to gender and race is observed.
4.	Very good	: Content, visuals and instructional strategy are contextually relevant
			as well as gender and racially sensitive.
5.	Excellent	: Content, visuals and instructional strategy are contextually relevant,
			gender and racially sensitive and the visual style is both relevant and
			innovative.

2.10 Technical design is consonant with ‘Analysis’, ‘Instructional Strategy’ and ‘Visual Design’ requirements.

1. Poor : Technical Design does not reflect consideration of ‘Analysis’, ‘Instructional Strategy’ and ‘Visual Design’ requirements.

2. Average : Technical Design reflects marginal/slight consideration of ‘Analysis’, ‘Instructional Strategy’ and ‘Visual Design’ requirements. (Few requirements considered).

3. Good : Technical Design reflects considerable consideration of ‘Analysis’, ‘Instructional Strategy’ and ‘Visual Design’ requirements. (Many requirements considered).

4. Very good : Technical Design reflects consideration of all (explicit and implicit) ‘Analysis’, ‘Instructional Strategy’ and ‘Visual Design’ requirements.

5. Excellent : Technical Design reflects consideration of all explicit and implicit requirements, is well documented and uses innovative design approaches to take care of requirements.

2.11 The technical design reflects the latest developments in technology.

1.	Poor	: The Technical Design does not reflect the use of the latest
		developments in technology.
2.	Average	: The Technical Design reflects limited use of the latest developments
		in technology.
3.	Good	: The Technical Design reflects considerable use of the latest
		developments in technology.
4.	Very good	: The Technical Design reflects adequate and effective use of the
		latest developments in technology.
5.	Excellent	: The Technical Design reflects effective and innovative use of the
		latest developments in technology to meet overall requirements and
		create new paradigms in learning.

2.12 Technical Design is compatible with on-line delivery requirements.

1.	Poor	: Technical Design does not consider on-line delivery requirements.
2.	Average	: Thought appears to be given to on-line delivery requirements but
		does not translate in the technical design clearly.
3.	Good	: Technical Design reflects compatibility / scalability to on-line delivery
		requirements
4. Very good		: Technical Design reflects compatibility / scalability to on-line delivery
		requirements and documents the format changes required.
5.	Excellent	: Technical Design reflects compatibility / scalability to on-line delivery
		requirements and documents the format changes required. Uses
		innovative techniques to make the content compatible with on-line
		delivery.

2.13 Prototype Testing shows the effectiveness of ‘Instructional Design Strategy’, ‘Visual Design’ and ‘Technical Design’.

1.	Poor	: Prototype testing is not done at all.
2.	Average	: Prototype Testing though conducted shows that Design decisions
		are not in accordance with requirements.
3.	Good	: Prototype testing shows that Design decisions are in accordance
		with requirements, but require enhancements in all the three design
		areas.
4.	Very good	: Prototype Testing shows that Design decisions are in accordance
		with requirements but require slight enhancements in one or more
		of the design areas.
5.	Excellent	: Prototype Testing shows that Design decisions are in accordance
		with requirements and no further enhancements are required for
		firming up the design.

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.