Quality Assurance in Multimedia Learning Materials/Analysis

I ANALYSIS

Indicators

1.1 Needs are clearly stated and comprehensive.

1.	Poor	: Needs are not stated and stakeholders are not defined.
2.	Average	: Needs are somewhat clearly stated, but stakeholders are not
		defined.
3.	Good	: Needs are clearly stated and few stakeholders are defined.
4.	Very good	: Needs are very clearly stated and most stakeholders are well
		defined.
5.	Excellent	: Needs are very clearly stated and all stakeholders are very well
		defined.

1.2 Needs are appropriately prioritised.

1.	Poor	: Needs are not prioritised / wrongly prioritised.
2.	Average	:	Needs are prioritised to some extent, but inputs used are not clear.
3.	Good	:	Needs are prioritised to a large extent and indicate usage of some
			inputs.

Excellent : All needs are appropriately prioritised and indicate usage of all inputs

(primary and secondary).

1.3 Context is clearly and fully mapped.

1.	Poor	:	Context is not mapped.
2.	Average	: Context is somewhat clear, but only partially mapped. (e.g. learning
			environment mapped but socio-cultural aspects and /or technical
			facilities not considered).
3.	Good	: Context is clear, though not fully mapped.(e.g. Learning
			environment mapped and technical facilities determined, but socio-
			cultural aspects not considered).
4.	Very good	: Context is very clear and well mapped. (e.g. Socio-cultural aspects
			well mapped along with the learning environment and technical
			aspects).
5.	Excellent	: Context is very clear, well mapped and is clearly reflected in the
			profile document so as to guide the Design and Development
			stages.

1.4 Learner profiles are adequately captured.

1.	Poor	: Learner profile is not captured.
2.	Average	: Learner profile is partially captured. (e.g. Academic level of the
			learner determined, but learner attributes not considered).
3.	Good	: Learner profile is captured to a large extent. (e.g. Academic level
			and attributes considered, but learners with special needs not
			considered).
4.	Very good	: Learner profile is well-captured and the need for inclusiveness is
			emphasised. (Learners with special needs also considered).
5.	Excellent	: Learner profile is very well-captured and reflects how it will impact
			the Design and Development stages.
1.5 Primary purpose of MLM is clearly stated.
1.	Poor	: Purpose of MLM is not stated.
2.	Average	: Purpose of MLM is stated, but not clear.
3.	Good	:	Purpose of MLM is clear, but task is not defined in detail.

Excellent : Purpose of MLM is clearly stated with task well defined and includes

suggestions for treatment at Design and Development stage.

Usage aspects of MLM are clearly specified. (e.g. standalone / series, supplementary, integrated and/or any other).

1.	Poor	: Usage aspects of MLM are not indicated.
2.	Average	: Usage aspects of MLM are indicated, but not clear.
3.	Good	: Usage aspects of MLM are clearly stated, but do not include
		additional suggestions/details.
4.	Very good	: Usage aspects of MLM are clearly stated and include suggestions for
		treatment.
5.	Excellent	: Usage aspects of MLM are clearly stated, include suggestions for
		treatment and reflect how they will impact the Design and
		Development stages.

1.7 Content outline is indicative of the scope of the MLM.

1.	Poor	: Content outline is not given.
2.	Average	: Content outline is given, but only partially indicates the scope of the
		MLM. (Few titles/sub-titles given).
3.	Good	: Content outline is given and indicates the scope of the MLM to a
		large extent. (Most titles / sub-titles are given and clearly placed).
4.	Very good	: Content outline is well given and clearly indicates the scope of the
		MLM. (All titles / sub-titles are clearly given and placed in logical /
		natural sequence / hierarchy).
5.	Excellent	: Content outline is well given, clearly indicates the scope of the MLM
		and incorporates suggestions that impact the Design and
		Development stages.

1.8 Raw content has been validated for appropriateness and accuracy.

1.	Poor	: Raw content has not been validated for appropriateness and
		accuracy. (e.g. features like logical sequencing, following content
		outline, factual correctness, inclusiveness, etc., not considered).
2.	Average	: Raw content has been only partially validated for appropriateness

and accuracy. (Only a few features considered and checked).

3.	Good	: Raw content has been validated to a large extent for
		appropriateness and accuracy. (e.g. Content outline is well followed
		and checked for appropriateness and completeness).
4.	Very good	: Raw content has been almost fully validated for appropriateness
		and accuracy. (e.g. content outline, factual correctness and
		completeness are considered and checked).
5.	Excellent	: Raw content has been fully and thoroughly validated for
		appropriateness and accuracy. (All features like content outline,
		logical sequencing, completeness, factual correctness, sensitivity
		and inclusiveness are considered and checked).

1.9 Content is accurately classified for design treatment as per learning domain.

1.	Poor	: Content is not classified and learning domain is not identified.
2.	Average	: Content is classified, but learning domain is not identified.
3.	Good	: Content is classified and learning domain is identified, though not
			appropriately.
4.	Very good	: Content is classified accurately and learning domain identified
			appropriately.
5.	Excellent	: Content is accurately classified, learning domain is appropriately
			identified and suggestions for Design and Development treatment
			are given.

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.