Quality Assurance in Multimedia Learning Materials/Development

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.


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