Designing a rubric can sometimes be a daunting task. Trying to determine all the elements you want to evaluate, especially of a complex project, can lead to frustration and gaps. In this case, using the SECTIONS framework significantly helped to narrow down and focus the development of categories. It was interesting to see how the framework is general enough to evaluate a specific technology application and also effective to evaluate an entire technology learning platform. Isolating each part of the framework allowed us to target the specific needs of the University. We could essentially ask, “What questions would the University need to answer?” and then incorporate these questions into topics under each category. Most topics were easy to provide reasoning for numerical data, i.e. for IT support, 24 hour assistance vs. limited time of availability. Others were much more challenging as there was no exact way to distinguish a 3 from a 4, i.e. Usage Strategies, where some or all available components would constitute a change in levels, rather than an obvious linear evaluation. It was valuable to view other online rubrics as a reference and to further flesh out topics.
Applying the concepts of the case study allowed the application of the framework in an authentic way, bringing the concepts to life. Considering the needs of the University in context of a globalized learning system and the complexity of both the market and the delivery systems, allowed us to understand the value of the framework. Factoring in where the University stands now, where they want to be in the future and some of the strategies they plan on using to get there, allowed for a longitudinal analysis. Ensuring that they chose a platform that would mesh with their current situation and be sustainable for the future is of key importance for an implementation of their size. Committing to a platform that will affect all teaching staff and be flexible to the addition of students from multiple countries is a significant decision that should be well researched.
In terms of group work, it was useful to have multiple forms of communication. Using the asynchronous discussion message board allowed us to share initial brainstorming ideas. Using the Google doc allowed all members to contribute and edit each others work. On multiple occasions more than one group member was adding to the doc at the same time and we used it as a temporary instant messaging system, providing instant feedback. Working collaboratively offered us a chance to deepen our understanding and create a more complete and reflective rubric.