Platform Evaluation Rubric
Group #4:
Sabrina Fonagy
Keely Switzer
David Wees
Kris Hancock
Ryan Edgar
Precis:
The Royal Roads University’s MBA in Greater China is increasing its enrolment up to 2400 students per year (800 per term). Unfortunately, the increased number of students in their distance education program using current technology has caused numerous server issues (ie: server’s been crashing).
|
LMS Evaluation Rubric |
|||||
|
Criteria (Multiplier) |
Poor (1) |
Unsatisfactory (2) |
Satisfactory (3) |
Good (4) |
Excellent (5) |
|
Cost (x1) |
· Product is out of budget range |
· Product is slightly out of budget range |
· Product meets the budget range |
· Product cost is below budget |
· Product is free |
|
Usability- Learning Curve (x1) |
· Difficult to use
· Not intuitive and many components are required to master.
· “Help” website difficult to understand. |
· Some aspects of this LMS require considerable time to master |
· LMS platform can be mastered within a reasonable timeframe.
· “Help” website provides solutions to most problem |
· Most aspects of LMS are simple and quick to master.
· Little reference to manual or training material required.
· Useful “Help” website |
· LMS is simple and quick to master.
· Can use without manual or training.
· Easy to use “Help” website. |
|
Accessibility for Varied Learning Communities (x1) |
· LMS platform does not support people of varying abilities
· LMS platform is available in only one language |
· LMS does little to support people of varying abilities
· LMS platform is available in only one language |
· Several adaptations & modifications are available to people who require additional support
· LMS platform is available in more than one language |
· Some effective adaptations & modifications are incorporated into the LMS to promote accessibility for a varied learning community.
· LMS platform is available in several languages |
· LMS platform supports varied learning communities. |
|
Features (x2) |
· Lacks significant useful “extra” features
· No interactive tools, or available tools are difficult to use/integrate |
· Very few useful “extra” features |
· Basic social interaction tools are available
· Integrating additional web 2.0 tools is time-consuming and sometimes not possible. Integration is not smooth |
· Several ‘extra’ features
· Some social tools are available, while others are available on line.
· Additional web 2.0 tools purchased can usually be integrated into the LMS |
· Many helpful ‘extra’ features
· A variety of social interaction tools are embedded into the LMS for easy use
· Additional web 2.0 tools purchased can be easily integrated into the LMS |
|
Server Requirements (x1) |
· Unable to host on school server because of requirements |
· Able to host on school server but requires high degree of IT support |
· Able to host on school server but needs constant IT monitoring |
· Compatible with school server but requires IT support from time-to-time |
· Compatible with school server. |
|
Reliability (x2) |
· Frequent crashes
· Incompatible with most operating systems and limited to certain versions |
· Periodic crashes
· Compatibility with limited operating systems (and versions) |
· Crashes are infrequent
· Compatible with limited operating systems (and versions) |
· Crashes are rare
· Compatible with several operating systems (and versions) |
· Crashes are rare
· Compatible with most, if not all, operating systems (and versions) |
|
Technical Support (x1) |
· No technical support provided |
· Little technical support provided and is very slow to respond |
· Technical support is available but often slow to respond |
· Technical support is provided and response time is tolerable |
· Technical support provided and response is immediate |
Articulation:
As a group, we negotiated the criteria for evaluating a Learner Management System (LMS). We based our decisions on the needs of Royal Roads, our own expectations of an LMS, and pertinent course readings. In light of the multiple server crashes and recent enrollment spike, we felt Royal Roads would be most concerned with server requirements, reliability, and technical support. In addition to these categories, we also saw a need to look at the accessibility of an LMS, particularly with respect to multiple language capabilities. In our own contexts cost is always an issue, and even if money is not a primary concern for the developers at Royal Roads, the cost of the system will most likely still be a factor in the decision-making process. The SECTIONS model (Bates & Poole, 2003) seems to support the categories we chose to focus on. The SECTIONS model can be applied to any educational context, and the answers depend on the context (Bates and Poole, 2003). It is our hope that the rubric can be used to evaluate all LMSs, and the answers created in context will enable the school to choose the best LMS for them. The multiplier system used in the rubric, in which we applied greater value to certain criteria, can be modified by a school to better suit the needs of that school. Royal Roads, for example, may choose to apply the greatest weight to accessibility and reliability, while assigning a lesser value to cost. Our rubric was intentionally designed to be customizable in order to help schools with a variety of different needs find an LMS that works for them.
References:
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.