Learning Object Review Instrument

From EduTech Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This article or section is a stub. A stub is an entry that did not yet receive substantial attention from editors, and as such does not yet contain enough information to be considered a real article. In other words, it is a short or insufficient piece of information and requires additions.

Draft

1 Definition

The Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) is used to evaluate the quality of e-learning resources. LORI is an online form consisting of rubrics, rating scales and comment fields. The current version of LORI available from eLera is version 1.5.

2 LORI 1.5

In About LORI, retrieved 00:16, 17 August 2007 (MEST) the instrument is defined as follows, with nine dimensions:

Content Quality
Veracity, accuracy, balanced presentation of ideas, and appropriate level of detail
Learning Goal Alignment
Alignment among learning goals, activities, assessments, and learner characteristics
Feedback and Adaptation
Adaptive content or feedback driven by differential learner input or learner modeling
Motivation
Ability to motivate, and stimulate the interest or curiosity of, an identified population of learners
Presentation Design
Design of visual and auditory information for enhanced learning and efficient mental processing
Interaction Usability
Ease of navigation, predictability of the user interface, and the quality of UI help features
Accessibility
Support for learners with disabilities
Reusability
Ability to port between different courses or learning contexts without modification
Standards Compliance
Adherence to international standards and specification


Reviewers have to evaluate quality of a learning object on a scale of five levels with the above criteria at hand. It is probably best to work with the LORI Manual, or make a contextualized version of it and then use a panel of reviewers.

3 Other versions

3.1 Nisbit and Belfer (LORI v. 1.4 )

  1. Content Quality: Veracity, accuracy, balanced presentation of ideas, and appropriate level of detail
  2. Learning Goal Alignment: Alignment among learning goals, activities, assessments, and learner characteristics
  3. Feedback and Adaptation: Aadaptive content or feedback driven by differential learner input or learner modeling
  4. Motivation: Ability to motivate, and stimulate the interest or curiosity of, an identified population of learners
  5. Presentation Design: Design of visual and auditory information for enhanced learning and efficient mental processing
  6. Interaction Usability: Ease of navigation, predictability of the user interface, and the quality of UI help features
  7. Accessibility: Support for learners with disabilities
  8. Reusability: Ability to port between different courses or learning contexts without modification
  9. Standards Compliance: Adherence to international standards and specifications.


3.2 Krauss and Ally's modified LORI

The Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI), version 1.4 developed by Belfer et al. (2002) was used to collect faculty's individual assessments of the quality of the pharmacology learning object and to ensure that a consistent evaluation criteria was used by all participants. Faculty were asked to assess the learning object in the following areas using a five point rating scale ranging from low to high and to provide a rationale for their score (see Table 1).

Krauss and Ally (2005) used a modified Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) It's Evaluation Criteria were:

  1. Content Quality: Veracity, accuracy, balanced presentation of ideas, and appropriate level of detail.
  2. Learning Goal Alignment: Alignment among learning goals, activities, assessments, and learner characteristics.
  3. Feedback and Adaptation: Adaptive content or feedback driven by differential learner input or learner modeling.
  4. Motivation: Ability to motivate, and stimulate the interest of an identified population of learners.
  5. Presentation Design: Design of visual and auditory information for enhanced learning and efficient mental processing.
  6. Interaction Usability: Ease of navigation, predictability of the user interface, and the quality of the user interface help features.
  7. Reusability: Ability to port between different courses or learning contexts without modifica-tion.
  8. Value of accompanying instructor guide: ability of resource to enhance instructional methodology.

Source: Adapted from Belfer, et al. (2002)


4 Links

5 References

  • Belfer, K., Nesbit, J., & Leacock, T. (2002) LORI Manual, online.
  • Belfer, K., Nesbit, J., & Leacock, T. (2002) Learning object review instrument (LORI). Version 1.4, Unpublished manual.
  • Nesbit, J. and Belfer, Karin, Collaborative Evaluation of Learning Objects, unpublished paper HTML
  • Krauss, Ferdinand and Ally, Mohamed (2005). A Study of the Design and Evaluation of a Learning Object and Implications for Content Development, Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, Vol 1. PDF