Fill - Free fillable Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation PDF form

Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation

Morgan County R-II School District

Name:

Building(s):

Name of tool to be evaluated:

Website/URL for tool/company:

Cost:

Instructions:

This rubric has been designed for technology support staff, administrators, and teachers as a formative tool to evaluate eLearning

tools in the education (K-12) setting. ELearning tools are defined as any digital technology, mediated through the use of a

computing device, deliberately selected to support student learning and teacher instruction. The rubric supports a multi-

dimensional evaluation of functional, technical, and pedagogical aspects of eLearning tools.

Not all rubric criteria are necessarily applicable to all eLearning tools and those using the rubric are encouraged to assess irrelevant

criterion as “not applicable”. However, some are necessary (e.g. Accessibility or Privacy, Data Protection, and Rights). The rubric

does not identify a discrete threshold that an eLearning tool needs to cross before a tool should be used; the rubric is a formative

tool intended to offer insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of an eLearning tool, as evaluated against a set of criteria.

Please check the boxes within each category that apply.

Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation

Category

Criteria

Works Well

Minor Considerations

Serious Considerations

Not

Applicable

Functionality

Scale

☐

The tool can be scaled to

accommodate any size class

with the flexibility to create

smaller sub-groups or

communities of practice.

☐

The tool can be scaled to

accommodate any size class

but lacks flexibility to create

smaller sub-groups or

communities of practice.

☐

The tool is restrictive to a

limited number of users and

cannot be scaled.

☐

Ease of Use

☐

The tool has a user-friendly

interface and it is easy for

teachers and students to

become skillful within a

personalized and intuitive

manner.

☐

The tool has an interface

that may be confusing to

either the teacher or

students; there is limited

opportunity for

personalization.

☐

The interface is not user-

friendly for either the

teacher or students; it is

cumbersome, unintuitive,

rigid, and inflexible. There

are other options easier to

use/work with.

☐

Tech Support/

Help Availability

☐

District-based technical

support and/or help

documentation is readily

available and aids users in

troubleshooting tasks or

solving problems

experienced; or, the tool

provider offers a robust

support platform for use by

teachers.

☐

Technical support and help

documentation is available

but limited, incomplete, or

not user-friendly.

☐

Technological support and

help documentation is not

available.

☐

Hypermediality

☐

The tool allows users to

communicate through

different channels (audio,

visual, textual) and allows

for non-sequential,

flexible/adaptive

engagement with material.

☐

The tool allows users to

communicate through

different channels (audio,

visual, textual) but is limited

in its ability to provide non-

sequential, flexible/adaptive

engagement with material.

☐

The tool is restrictive in

terms of the communication

channels employed (audio,

visual, textual) and presents

information sequentially in a

rigid, inflexible format.

☐

Accessibility

Accessibility Standards

☐

The tool meets accessibility

guidelines (e.g. local

accessibility legislation

and/or W3C WCAG 2.0

Standards).

☐

The tool has some limited

capacity to meet

accessibility guidelines.

☐

The tool fails to meet

accessibility guidelines or no

information of compliance

has been made available for

the tool by the platform and

its company/tool provider.

☐

User-focused

Participation

☐

This tool is designed to

address the needs of

diverse users, their various

literacies, and capabilities,

thereby widening

opportunities for

participation in learning.

☐

The tool has some limited

capability to address the

needs of diverse users, their

various literacies, and

capabilities.

☐

The tool is restrictive in

meeting the diversity of

needs reflective in the

student body. The tool

likely restricts some

students from fully

participating.

☐

Required Equipment

☐

Proper user of the tool does

not require equipment

beyond what is typically

available to teachers and

students (computer with

built-in speakers and

microphone, Internet

connection, etc.).

☐

Proper user of the tool

requires specialized

equipment (e.g. unique

device) that likely requires

purchase

☐

Proper use of the tool

requires specialized

equipment requiring

moderate to significant

financial investment.

☐

Cost of Use

☐

All aspects of the tool can

be used free of charge.

☐

Limited aspects of the tool

can be used for free with

other elements requirement

payment of a fee,

membership, or

subscription. Or, cost to

department/building budget

is manageable under current

budget.

☐

Use of the tool requires a

fee, membership, or

subscription. Use of the tool

requires a purchase that is

likely to have serious impact

to department/building

budget under current

budget.

☐

Technical

Integration/embedding

within Learning

Management System

(LMS)

☐

The tool provides for full

functionality with current

Learning Management

System (LMS) used by the

district (e.g. works

with/integrates Google

Classroom).

☐

This tool provides some

functionality with current

Learning Management

System (LMS), perhaps with

limited functionality, but

cannot be fully integrated.

☐

The tool can only be

accessed in an LMS through

a hyperlink or static

representations of the tool

(e.g. file export), rather than

a functional version of the

tool itself.

☐

Desktop, Laptop, and

Chromebook Operating

Systems (OS)

☐

Users can effectively utilize

the tool with any standard,

up-to-date operating

system, including

Chromebook OS.

☐

Users may encounter limited

or altered functionality

depending on the up-to-

date operating system being

used.

☐

Users are limited to using

the tool with one specific,

up-to-date browser. Not

including Chromebook OS.

☐

Browser

☐

Users can effectively utilize

the tool with any standard,

up-to-date browser,

including Chrome.

☐

Users may encounter limited

or altered functionality

depending on the up-to-

date browser being used.

☐

Users are limited to using

the tool through one specific

browser.

☐

Additional Downloads

☐

Users do not need to

download additional

software or browser

extensions.

☐

The tool uses a browser

extension or software that

requires a download and/or

a user permission to run.

☐

The tool requires a past or

version of a browser

extension or software.

☐

Mobile

Design

Access

☐

The tool can be access,

either through the

download of an app or via a

mobile browser, regardless

of the mobile operating

system and device. Design

of the mobile tool fully

takes into consideration the

constraints of a smaller-

sized screen.

☐

The tool offers an app, but

only for a limited set of

mobile operating. Tool is

not accessible through a

mobile browser. Design of

the mobile tool constrained

by the limitations of the

mobile device.

☐

Access to the tool is limited

or absent on a mobile

device.

☐

Functionality

☐

There is little to no

functional difference

between the mobile and

the desktop version,

regardless of the device

used to access it. No

difference in functionality

between apps designed for

different mobile operating

systems.

☐

Core features of the main

tool are functional on the

mobile app but advanced

features are limited. Some

difference in functionality

between apps designed for

different mobile operating

systems, but has limited

impact on students’ use of

the tool.

☐

The mobile app functions

poorly such that core

features are not reliable or

non-existent. Significant

difference in functionality

depending on the mobile

device operating system

used to access the tool.

☐

Offline Access

☐

Offers an offline mode:

Core features of the tool

can be accessed and utilized

even when a teacher or

student is working offline,

maintaining functionality

and content.

☐

Offers a kind of offline

mode, where the tool can be

used offline but core

functionality and content

are affected.

☐

The mobile platform cannot

be used in any capacity

offline.

☐

Privacy,

Data

Protection,

and Rights

☐

User of the tool does not

require the creation of an

external account or

additional login, such that

no personal user

information is collected and

shared.

☐

Either teachers are the only

users required to provide

personal information to set

up an account; or the tool

has been vetted through

appropriate channels to

ensure strict adherence to

federal and state

government, district, and

building policies/standards

for protecting the collection

and use of student personal

data by a third party group.

☐

All users (teachers and

students) must provide

personal information to a

third party in creating an

account and there is some

question or concern of the

adherence to federal and

state, district, and building

policies/standards for

protecting the collection and

use of such data by the third

party group.

☐

Data Privacy and

Ownership

☐

Users maintain ownership

and copyright of their

intellectual property/data;

the selected system admin

can set tool to keep data

private and decide if / how

data is to be shared.

☐

Users maintain ownership

and copyright of their

intellectual property/data;

data is shared publically and

cannot be made private.

☐

Users forfeit ownership and

shared publically and cannot

be made private, or no

details provided by

company/tool provider.

☐

Archiving, Saving, and

Exporting Data

☐

Users can archive, save, or

import and export content

or activity data in a variety

of formats.

☐

There are limitations to

archiving, saving, or

importing/exporting content

or activity data.

☐

Content and activity data

cannot be archived, saved,

or imported/exported.

☐

Social

Presence

Collaboration

☐

The tool has the capacity to

support a community of

learning through both

asynchronous and

synchronous opportunities

for communication,

interactivity, and transfer of

meaning between users.

☐

The tool has the capacity to

support a community of

learning through

asynchronous but not

synchronous opportunities

for communication,

interactivity, and transfer of

meaning between users.

☐

Communication,

interactivity, and transfer of

meaning between users is

not supported or

significantly limited.

☐

User Accountability

☐

The tool has easy-to-use

features that would

significantly improve the

teacher’s ability to be

present with

eLearners/students via

active management,

monitoring, engagement,

and feedback.

☐

The tool has limited

functionality to effectively

support a teacher’s ability to

be present with students via

active management,

monitoring, engagement,

and feedback.

☐

The tool has not been

designed to support a

teacher’s ability to be

present with students via

active management,

monitoring, engagement,

and feedback.

☐

Diffusion

☐

The tool is widely known

and popular, it’s likely that

most students are familiar

with the tool and have basic

technical competence with

it.

☐

Students’ familiarity with

the tool is likely mixed,

some will lack basic

technical competence with

its functions.

☐

The tool is not well

known/foreign, it is likely

that students are not

familiar with the tool and

lack basic technical

competence with its

functions.

☐

Teaching

Presence

Facilitation

☐

The tool has easy-to-use

features that would

significantly improve a

teacher’s ability to be

present with students via

active management,

monitoring, engagement,

and feedback.

☐

The tool has limited

functionality to effectively

support a teacher’s ability to

be present with students via

active management,

monitoring, engagement,

and feedback.

☐

The tool has not been

designed support a teacher’s

ability to be present with

students via active

management, monitoring,

engagement, and feedback.

☐

Customization

☐

Tool is adaptable to its

environment: easily

customized to suit the

classroom context and

targeted learning

outcomes.

☐

Limited aspects of the tool

can be customized to suit

the classroom context and

learning outcomes.

☐

The tool cannot be

customized.

☐

Learning Analytics

☐

Teacher can monitor

student’s performance on a

variety of response

measures. These measures

can be accessed through a

user-friendly dashboard.

☐

Teacher can monitor

student’s performance on

limited measures; or data is

not presented in a format

that is easily interpreted.

☐

The tool does not support

the collection of learning

analytics.

☐

Cognitive

Presence

Enhancement of

Cognitive Task(s)

☐

The tool enhances

engagement in targeted

cognitive task(s) that were

once overly complex or

inconceivable through other

means.

☐

The tool enables functional

improvement to

engagement in the targeted

cognitive task(s).

☐

The tool acts as a direct tool

substitute with no functional

change to engagement in

the targeted cognitive

task(s).

☐

Higher Order Thinking

☐

Use of the tool easily

facilitates students to

exercise higher order

thinking skills (given

consider to design,

facilitation, and direction

from the teacher).

☐

The tool may engage

students in higher order

thinking skills (given

significant consideration to

design, facilitation, and

direction from the teacher).

☐

The tool likely does not

engage students in higher

order thinking skills (despite

significant consideration to

design, facilitation, and

direction from teacher).

☐

Metacognitive

Engagement

☐

Through the tool, students

can regularly receive

formative feedback on

learning (i.e. they can track

their performance, monitor

their improvement, and/or

test their knowledge).

☐

Opportunities for receiving

formative feedback on

learning are available, but

infrequent or limited (i.e.

poor opportunities for

tracking performance,

monitoring improvement,

testing knowledge on a

regular basis).

☐

There are no opportunities

for formative feedback on

learning (i.e. lacking

opportunities for tracking

performance, monitoring

improvement, testing

knowledge on a regular

basis).

☐

Additional Comments:

References:

the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

• Online Tool/Resource Evaluation Rubric - https://edtech.worlded.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/TTALE-Rubric-2.26.pdf

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation Form

Related forms

Fillable Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!