An Expert Appraisal

Of
The 2015 Multimedia Award Finalists

DETT 620
Fall 2015
Sarah R. Andrews
Assignment # 2

Introduction
Technology and time continue to redefine our abilities and choices to
educate as well as learn online. An increase of work responsibility and a
decrease of scheduled availability are only a few contributing factors which
support online learning. The Web offers countless educational courses, labs,
and interactive training simulations to increase a learners skill set or
knowledge base. While the term, Information Age, may be regarded as an
overdue learning solution for some educators; for others the term remains a
learning challenge. To counteract the challenge, adequate evaluation can
determine quality standards of multimedia learning tools. Comparative
analysis of an educational products effectiveness and efficiency for the
learner is also common practice. Many learning and training professionals
stay current of multimedia technology by reading the latest articles or
product reviews. For other executives and elite shareholders, attending the
annual award winning multimedia conference in Orlando ranks high in
priority, but for product developers winning is vitally important. This years
multimedia conference marks an evaluative breakdown of product reviews
by various interactive learning systems across all industries and disciplines.
The heavily anticipated outcomes showcased further successful
advancements in hypermedia learning environments. Common threaded
inquiries among passing audience members, ranged from what the jury

panel uses to gauge qualifying contenders to questioning characteristics of

quality educational software. The SADA jury panel critique highlights the
educational software dimensions under evaluation for effectiveness and
efficiency for intended learning purposes.

The Contenders
As a veteran juror, with sole responsibility of composing the conference
press release, a closer inspection of qualifying attributes of finalists shall be
performed to satisfy the publics interest. The two finalists of Multimedia
Presentations Award are Goodwill Community Foundation Learn Free (GCF)
and Alison Typing Tutorial courseware. In order to establish one multimedia
software tool as the best in the industry there are instruments a juror must
rely upon to qualify as the winner. The selected instrument a juror uses to
evaluate contenders this year was the Learning Object Review Instrument
(LORI). Although, more than one version of the instrument has been
designed by Belfer, Nesbit, and Leacock (2002, 2007) this conference used
the later version.
The vast majority of the public is unfamiliar of what classifies one learning
object from another. Learning objects are referred to as an informational
resource(s) or software that is capable of interacting with the user to
promote learning in an online environment. Learning objects stretch from a
single graphic, text on a page, task simulation, or the duration of a course.
Instructional designers evaluate and analyze learning objects to determine

their effectiveness and efficiency in meeting the learning expectations or

outcome requirements. As a finalist is up for review, the two criteria to
examine are the pedagogical components and the usability of the learning
material.

The Contender Evaluations

To evaluate both finalists, LORI assess the nine criteria of each learning
objects capability for a learners use. GCF and Alison have the similar goals
for the learner to experience. `Often times a gap in learners knowledge may
be subtle difference to some (Leacock, Nesbit 2007) learning professionals as
the evaluation tools tend to reflect the learning materials of the course.
(Leacock, Nesbit 2007). The nine criteria used in evaluating the learning
objects are illustrated further in the text. Each of the nine descriptive
characteristics are ranked on a sliding scale from five being the highest to
one being the lowest possible score. The purpose of LORI is to support
reviewers in weighing the strengths and weaknesses of learning objects in
future use. In addition to future use, LORI assists in providing set guidelines
for a more unified set of quality standards in the use of multimedia learning
tools and educational software for lifelong learners.

Conclusion
The year has brought much attention to center on our ever growing list
of multimedia learning tools full of engaging activities and interactive

modules. What continues to be a contributing factor is the absence of a

uniform set of quality standards which are used by all learning and
development professionals. LORI is one of only few evaluative tools for the
purpose of selecting qualifying learning objects to improve future
development and academic achievement. While both winners have won past
awards, Alison has lead the victory in surpassing the speed of typists on a
multigenerational level. Time and technology will continue to improve
learning opportunities, in turn educators need to evaluate the effectiveness
of all learning tools for every future learner.

Learning
Object Review
Instrument - - LORI

OER
GCFLearnFree.Org

OER Alison.com

Nine Items to
Rate & Comment

Rate & Comment

Rate & Comment

Content
Quality
Veracity
Balanced,
Accuracy
Balanced,
Presentation of
ideas, and
Appropriate
level of detail.
Learning Goal
Alignment
Alignment
among learning
goals,
activities,
assessments,
and learner
characteristics.

****
Error Free
Logical ordering,
Relative Professional
Topics
Subject Content Error
Free
Reviews
Presentations cover Key
Points
***
Generalized, not
individualized levels
Lesson has exercises
and / or practice.
Learner option
Only one course
description available.
Learning goal /
objectives not listed.
**

*****
Error Free
Reviews
Fact Sheets / Logical ordering
Extensive Modules, Balance
of Module Content
Presentations cover Key
Points

Feedback &
Adaption
Adaptive
content or
feedback
driven by
differential
learner input or
learner
modeling.
Motivation
Ability to
motivate and
interest an
identified
population of
learners.
Presentation
Design
Design of visual
and auditory

Will receive delayed

feedback somewhat
non descriptive through
course prior to
receiving feedback.

*****
Self -determined goal, lesson
outcome, Multiple levels
Objectives listed
Goals Listed
Study Group Advantages
Multiple Assessments
Flash Testing

****
Immediate
Virtual learning environment
LMS individualized capability
Study Groups
Unable to see courses and
Certificate/Diploma

***
Less real-life learning
activities took away
from interest level.
Self-paced .Exploration
was still possible

*****
More real life-learning
activities added interest and
extended interest for
additional exploration
Personal virtual coach

****
Graphics
Audio
Practice

*****
Visible coach, describing
practice and purpose.
attractive

information for
enhanced
learning and
efficient mental
processing.
Interaction
Usability
Ease of
Navigation,
predictability of
the user
interface, and
quality of the
interface help
features
Accessibility
Design of
controls and
presentation
formats to
accommodate
disabled and
mobile learners
Reusability
Ability to use in
varying
contexts and
with learners
from differing
backgrounds.
Standards of
Compliance
Adherence to
international
standards and
specifications
Totals
Difference Total
Multimedia
Competition
Award Winning
Finalist

Video Modeling

****
User help apparent and
visible
Effective in layout and
display

Text examples, descriptions

Graphics match
Audio
Practice
Video Modeling
*****
Higher quality f descriptions
More ease
Modules in sequential steps

**

*****

Depends on server

Multi-device capability
Mobile Apps available

*****

*****

Accommodating to
Multi-gene rations
Other language options

Stronger suitability I
appearance
Accommodating to Multigenerations
Various language options

N/A

N/A

27 / 40
13

38 / 40
2
Alison

References

Typing Tutorial Online Introduction to Typing | Goodwill Community

Foundation. (205, October 27). Retrieved from
http://www.gcflearnfree.org/computers/typing

Krauss, F. & Ally, M. (2005). A Study of the Design and Evaluation of a

Learning Object and Implications for Content Development. Retrieved from
http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p001-022Krauss.pdf

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A Framework for Evaluating the Quality
of Multimedia Learning Resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2),
44-59

Typing Tutorial Online Introductory Course | ALISON. (2015, October 27).

Retrieved from https://alison.com/topic/learn/64/5200/touch-typingskills/introduction