Learning Object Review Instrument

Draft

Definition

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's modified LORI

Krauss and Ally (2005) present a modified Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) It's Evaluation Criteria are

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)

Links

• Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects

References

• Belfer, K., Nesbit, J., & Leacock, T. (2002) Learning object review instrument (LORI). Version 1.4

• 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

• Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Vargo, J. (2002). A convergent participant model for evaluation of learning ob-jects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28 (3). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/nesbit_etal.html

[[Category: