# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ready or not, it's almost time to go back to school. If you're like me, you've been spending the summer attending webinars, seminars, and conferences. You chatted with colleagues on Twitter and Facebook about learning tools they loved. You collected a long list of highly recommended resources that you can't wait to try in your classroom. But you could spend hours just previewing one item from that list, and many will turn out to be a waste of effort. How do you find the best of the bunch without running through all of your free time?

Maybe because I'm a technology teacher, I can usually sort through this list pretty quickly. I don't have a crystal ball that tells me what new web tools, apps, or programs I'll like, what will engage my students, or what will be more trouble than it's worth. Instead, I have checklists. Two of them. The first evaluates the big picture. Programs that make the cut move to the second checklist where I judge usefulness in my particular circumstances. In the end, I've eliminated everything that wastes time, is confusing, and/or doesn't fit my needs.

This two-step process doesn't assure that once I try the program in a real classroom, it'll perform as promised. Nor does it guarantee the program will survive the onslaught of student use. What it does is help me to waste as little of my time as possible while finding the best fit for my unique situation.

Step One: Qualify (Two Minutes)

I won't even open the app unless it passes these three questions:

Is it free or a small fee? If you have a school or district license on the app, software, or webtool, skip this one. Trust that your IT folks have already determined it will fit their budget and is a good value for the money.

Will it work with my learning management system (LMS)? This is a big plus. If it will, the roll out and application just became easier. Many classroom learning apps are aligned with LMS applications like Google Classroom, Schoology, and Canvas.

Is it easy to install and set up? If you can't get the program up and running in about two minutes (not counting time required to register, upload classes, and personalize goals), it's too complicated. Really. Take it from someone who's done this for over a decade. If you can't intuitively set the program up-it doesn't matter how wonderful it seems-you'll struggle to use it. I'll never forget my first experience with Moodle. This amazing web tool is legitimately one of the most versatile class organization tools out there but it is just too darn complicated for most people to use. I took hours (and hours) to setup it up, and then more hours teaching teachers to use it, only to find they still just didn't get it and wouldn't use it.

Step Two: Playtime (Five Minutes)

If the program gets past Step One, I test it. Here's what I look for:

It's easy to use (after set up and installation). If you spend a lot of time learning the app, you'll spend too much time helping students figure it out.

It supports the '4 C's' -creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration.

It isn't distracting or overwhelming in colors, music, or activity.

It offers levels that become increasingly more difficult, providing differentiation for student needs.
It will stand the test of time.
It has none or few ads -and those that are there do not take up a significant portion of the screen.

It is easily applied to a variety of educational environments.

It doesn't collect personal information other than user credentials or data required to operate the app.

It is rated 'for everyone' (or whatever the program's version of G is).
It has no in-app purchases or billing. In a nutshell: If it's not easy to set up, I might walk. If it's not intuitive to use, I do walk.
There are programs that don't pass these checklists and are in fact great choices. Most of these perform multiple functions such as assigning homework, planning lessons, collecting work, and grading it. For example, when I first used the LMS Canvas, it took me hours of time and too many mistakes to understand its intricacies.

But it now saves me lots of time on grading, running my classes, assigning work, moderating groups, chatting with students, and so much more.

What's your secret for evaluating new web tools, apps, or programs?
Jacqui Murray has been teaching K-18 technology for 30 years. She is the editor/author of over a hundred tech ed resources including a K-12 technology curriculum, K-8 keyboard curriculum, K-8 Digital Citizenship curriculum. She is an adjunct professor in tech ed, Master Teacher, webmaster for four blogs, an Amazon Vine Voice, CSTA presentation reviewer, freelance journalist on tech ed topics, contributor to NEA Today and TeachHUB, and author of two tech thrillers. You can find her resources at Structured Learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Evaluate Tech Tools You've Never Used in Less Than Seven Minutes | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ready or not, it's almost time to go back to school. If you're like me, you've been spending the summer attending webinars, seminars, and conferences. You chatted with colleagues on Twitter and Facebook about learning tools they loved. You collected a long list of highly recommended resources that you can't wait to try in your classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

The Evaluation Checklist for Online Courses has been developed by UWM's Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) to help UWM instructors develop and deliver high-quality online courses that promote student learning and success. This checklist supplements the practical pedagogical strategies outlined in the Online and Blended Teaching Program (OBTP) and can be used by:

Instructors who want a quick overview of effective online teaching practices

Instructors who want to self-evaluate their online courses before, during, or after the semester

Departments, schools, and colleges that want to facilitate peer-to-peer feedback

Evaluators who provide feedback for CETL's Certificate in Online and Blended Teaching

Evaluation Checklist for Online Courses

The Evaluation Checklist for Online Courses includes 50 items under 5 headings that address key components of online course development and delivery:

Assessing Your Students

Delivering Content

Building Community

Supporting Your Students

Evaluating Your Course

The first page of the checklist includes an overview of how to use the checklist. For suggested evaluation strategies and for more information about each item on the checklist, please visit the Help page.

The Evaluation Checklist for Online Courses is provided as a fillable Word document that can be completed digitally or printed for handwritten feedback.

Please contact Dylan Barth with any questions.

Feedback about the Checklist

Do you have any suggestions for improving the Evaluation Checklist for Online Courses? Have you found it to be effective? Do you have questions about specific items on the checklist?

Please complete the form below to provide your feedback. Your name and email address are optional!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Evaluation Checklist for Online Courses has been developed by UWM's Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) to help UWM instructors develop and deliver high-quality online courses that promote student learning and success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Rubric for E-Learning Tool Evaluation offers educators a framework, with criteria and levels of achievement, to assess the suitability of an e-learning tool for their learners' needs and for their own learning outcomes and classroom context.

Credit: AnggunFaith / EDUCAUSE © 2018

As educational developers supporting the incorporation of technology into teaching, we are often asked by instructors for a tailored recommendation of an e-learning tool to use in a particular course. When they use the phrase e-learning tool, instructors are typically asking for some kind of digital technology, mediated through the use of an internet-connected device, that is designed to support student learning. Such requests tend to be accompanied by statements of frustration over the selection process they've undertaken. These frustrations often result from two factors. First, instructors are typically experts in their course's subject matter, yet they are not necessarily fluent in the best criteria for evaluating e-learning tools. Second, the number and the variety of e-learning tools continue to proliferate. Both of these factors make it increasingly challenging for faculty members to evaluate and select an e-learning tool that aligns with their course design and meaningfully supports their students' learning experience.

Yet, we firmly believe that instructors should be the ultimate decision-makers in selecting the tools that will work for their courses and their learners. Thus, we saw an opportunity to develop a framework that would assist with the predictive evaluation of e-learning tools-a framework that could be used by non-tech experts and applied in a variety of learning contexts to help draw their attention to the cogent aspects of evaluating any e-learning tool. To address this need, we created the Rubric for E-Learning Tool Evaluation.

At our institution, Western University, the Rubric for E-Learning Tool Evaluation is currently being utilized in two ways. First, educational developers are using the rubric to review the tools and technologies profiled on the eLearning Toolkit, a university online resource intended to help instructors discover and meaningfully integrate technologies into their teaching. Second, we have shared our rubric with instructors and staff so that they can independently review tools of interest to them. These uses of the framework are key to our intended purpose for the rubric: to serve as a guide for instructors and staff in their assessment and selection of e-learning tools through a multidimensional evaluation of functional, technical, and pedagogical aspects.

Foundations of the Framework

In the 1980s, researchers began creating various models for choosing, adopting, and evaluating technology. Some of these models assessed readiness to adopt technology (be it by instructors, students, or institutions)-for example, the technology acceptance model (TAM) or its many variations. Other models aimed to measure technology integration into teaching or the output quality of specific e-learning software and platforms. Still other researchers combined models to support decision-making throughout the process of integrating technology into teaching, from initial curriculum design to the use of e-learning tools.

However, aside from the SECTIONS model, existing models fell short in two key areas:

They were not typically intended for ad hoc instructor use.

They did not enable critique of specific tools or technology for informing adoption by instructors.

To address this, we integrated, reorganized, and presented existing concepts using an instructor-based lens to create an evaluative, predictive model that lets instructors and support staff-including instructional designers and courseware developers-evaluate technologies for their appropriate fit to a course's learning outcomes and classroom contexts.

Why a Rubric?

Educators often use rubrics to articulate "the expectations for an assignment by listing the criteria or what counts, and describing levels of quality." We have adapted these broad aims to articulate the appropriate assessment criteria for e-learning tools using the standard design components of other analytical rubrics: categories, criteria, standards, and descriptors.

We organized our rubric's evaluation criteria into eight categories. Each category has a specific set of characteristics, or criteria, against which e-learning tools are evaluated, and each criterion is assessed against three standards: works well, minor concerns, or serious concerns. Finally, the rubric offers individual descriptions of the qualities an e-learning tool must have to achieve a standard.

Although our rubric integrates a broad range of functional, technical, and pedagogical criteria, it is not intended to be overly prescriptive. Our goal is for the framework to respond to an instructor's needs and be adapted as appropriate. For example, when a rubric criterion is not relevant to the assessment of a particular tool, it can be excluded without impacting the overall quality of the assessment.

The rubric reflects our belief that instructors should choose e-learning tools in the context of the learning experience. We therefore encourage an explicit alignment between the instructor's intended outcomes and the tool, based on principles of constructive alignment. Given the diversity of outcomes across learning experiences, e-learning tools should be chosen on a case-by-case basis and should be tailored to each instructor's intended learning outcomes and planned instructional activities. We designed the rubric with this intention in mind.

The Rubric Categories

The rubric is intended to be used as a stand-alone resource. The following is an explanation of each category and how we framed it to meet our development goals.

Functionality

Broadly speaking, functionality considers a tool's operations or affordances and the quality or suitability of these functions to the intended purpose-that is, does the tool serve its intended purpose well? In the case of e-learning tools, the intended purpose is classroom use.

Scale. Postsecondary classrooms vary in format and size, ranging from small seminars to large-enrollment courses. In larger courses, creating small groups increases contact among students, fosters cooperative learning, and enhances social presence among learners. An e-learning tool should therefore not only be flexible in accommodating various class sizes but also be capable of supporting small-group work. Hence, scale focuses on the tool's affordances to accommodate the size and nature of the classroom environment.

Ease of Use. When a tool is inflexible, is cumbersome in design, is difficult to navigate, or behaves in unexpected ways, it is likely to be negatively perceived by instructors and students. Comparatively, a tool tends to be more positively perceived when it feels intuitive and easy to use and offers guidance through user engagement. The ease of use criterion therefore focuses on design characteristics that contribute to user-friendliness and intuitive use.

Hypermediality. Cognitive psychology emphasizes the importance of giving learners multiple, diverse forms of representation organized in a way that lets them control their own engagement. Hypermediality is achieved by providing multiple forms of media (audio, video, and textual communication channels), as well as the ability to organize lessons in a non-sequential way. This criterion therefore focuses on assessing how a tool's functions support and encourage instructors and students to engage with and communicate through different forms of media in a flexible, nonlinear fashion.

Accessibility

Here, we define accessibility both broadly-as outlined by the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles of flexible, adaptable curriculum design to support multiple learning approaches and engagement for all students-and in terms of legislative requirements for meeting the specific accessibility needs of learners with disabilities.

Accessibility Standards. At a minimum, an e-learning tool should adhere to mandated requirements for accessibility, including those of legislative accessibility standards, as well as generally accepted guidelines, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative. The documentation for an e-learning tool should provide information regarding the degree and nature of a tool's ability to meet accessibility standards. Unfortunately, such information is often missing, raising a serious concern that developers have not valued accessibility standards in their design and support of the e-learning tool.

Required Equipment. Given that inaccessibility is a mismatch between a learner's needs in a particular environment and the format in which content is presented, we examine environmental factors that impact accessibility. These factors include necessary hardware (e.g., speakers, a microphone, and a mobile phone) and the technology or service (e.g., high-speed internet connection) that users need to engage with an e-learning tool. Generally, the less equipment required, the more accessible the tool will be to a broad group of users, regardless of socioeconomic, geographic, or other environmental considerations.

Technical

In a review of e-learning readiness models, researchers found that a user's technology-that is, internet access, hardware, software, and computer availability-was integral to successful e-learning implementation. This category thus considers the basic technologies needed to make a tool work.

Integration/Embedding within a Learning Management System (LMS). LMSs are internet-based, institutionally-backed platforms that support teaching and learning at the course level. Any e-learning tool adopted for teaching should be able to "play well" with an institution's LMS.

A fully integrated tool shares data back and forth with the institution's LMS. Currently, tool integration is most often achieved by being Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) compliant. Using an LTI-compliant tool should mean a seamless experience for users. For example, accounts are created in the integrated e-learning tool without user input, and assessments occurring within the tool are synced automatically to the LMS gradebook. In contrast, an embedded tool is added as an object with HTML code-that is, the tool is "inserted" into a webpage. An example here is adding a streaming video, which users can start, stop, and pause, to an LMS web page. While both integration and embedding permit student interaction with the tools, only integrated tools offer a two-way flow of data.

Overall, if students can access a tool directly and consistently within an LMS, as allowed by both embedding and integration, the learning experience is strengthened.

Desktop/Laptop Operating Systems and Browser. Although operating systems and browsers are distinct, we describe these separate rubric criteria as one here since they relate to the same underlying question: Can learners effectively use the e-learning tool on a desktop or laptop computer if they have a standard, up-to-date operating system (OS) and/or browser? (We consider mobile OSs later, in the Mobile Design category.)

We define standard here as any commonly used OS and up-to-date as any OS still supported by its vendor. The more OSs or browsers a tool supports, the better: any tool that can be used only by users of one OS or browser is cause for concern. Selecting an e-learning tool that can be installed and run on up-to-date versions of Windows and Mac OS enables access for nearly all desktop and laptop users.

Additional Downloads. A tool that requires learners to install additional software or browser plug-ins-whether on their own system or in the tool itself-is problematic. As in the case of Adobe Flash players, which were initially popular but later blocked by many browsers due to security issues-if an e-learning tool relies on another piece of software in order to work, it risks being rendered obsolete due to factors beyond the tool developers' control.

Mobile Design

With the continued adoption of mobile devices worldwide, instructional methods and tools that deliver content using mobile technology will continue to grow and therefore warrant their own assessment category.

Access. For e-learning tools accessed using a mobile device, the best ones will be OS- and device-agnostic. This means that students, regardless of the mobile device they choose to use, should be able to access and interact with the tool either through the download of an application ("app") built for their OS or through the browser.

Functionality. Ideally, the mobile version will have few to no differences from the desktop version. If there are multiple mobile versions for different OSs, the functionality of different versions should be the same. In addition the user experience should consider the constraints of smaller mobile device screens, either by using responsive design or by offering a mobile app.

Offline Access. To enhance its flexibility, any e-learning tool that accesses the internet should offer an offline mode to expand access for those who have limited or intermittent connectivity.

Privacy, Data Protection, and Rights

While e-learning tools offer numerous potential benefits for learners and instructors, they also can entail risks. The primary concerns relate to personal information and intellectual property (IP).

Archiving, Saving, and Exporting Data. The platforms used for hosting a tool may not reliably ensure adequate protection against data loss. Instructors should thus analyze e-learning tools to determine how data or content can be migrated back and forth between the service and its user. In part, this guards against data loss through export and backup while also offering learners the flexibility to freely move their content between tools rather than being locked into or committed to one tool.

Social Presence

The final three categories of the rubric stem from the Communities of Inquiry (CoI) model, which considers, in part, how the design of online learning environments might best create and sustain a sense of community among learners. D. Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer define social presence as the ability of participants "to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as 'real people.'" This category focuses on establishing a safe, trusting environment that fosters collaboration, teamwork, and an overall sense of community.

Collaboration. Based on the principles of the CoI model, instructors are encouraged to design learning activities and environments that provide students with frequent and varied opportunities to interact with their peers and collaborate on activities to build a sense of community. This manifests in not only providing synchronous and asynchronous channels for knowledge exchange but also establishing a sense of community between users-for example, through the prompted creation of online profiles that allow participants to establish an online identity.

User Accountability. If students are to engage willingly, a safe and trusted environment is essential. Establishing and maintaining this requires that instructors be able to identify students, even if they are otherwise using pseudonyms to protect their privacy. Instructors must also be able to control users' contributions by moderating forums and managing forum privileges. These features not only support social presence but also aid in supporting student assessment.

Teaching Presence

Garrison defines teaching presence as "the crucial integrating force that structures and leads the educational process in a constructive, collaborative and sustained manner." In our rubric, we interpret teaching presence as related to tool elements that enable instructors to establish and maintain their teaching presence through facilitation, customization, and feedback.

Facilitation. Effective teaching presence requires a facilitative approach, characterized as: providing timely input, information, and feedback; questioning or challenging students' thinking; modeling inquiry; and demonstrating cognitive engagement. Some e-learning tools support these activities better than others. The rubric gives preference to tools providing easy-to-use features that enhance an instructor's ability to effectively engage in facilitation activities.

Customization. As educational developers, we value alignment between intended learning outcomes and learning activities and assessments, advocating for technologies and tools that complement learning outcomes. A tool can support this alignment when it gives instructors the flexibility to customize how learners will engage with a tool, thus enabling them to focus on specific uses while disregarding other, distracting functions. Ideally, the tool also supports instructors in communicating this intentionality-making it clear to students why they are doing what they are doing.

Learning Analytics. The NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition defines learning analytics as a diverse array of tools and applications that enable instructors, students, and institutions to "collect, connect, combine, and interpret data to more clearly understand learner capabilities and progress [and] fuel personalized and adaptive learning experiences." Reviewers of an e-learning tool should assess the availability, quality, and user-friendliness of the analytics offered to ensure the tool supports the desired data required for tracking performance, providing feedback on learning, and informing course design.

Cognitive Presence

The third and final CoI framework category is cognitive presence: engagement in "the process of inquiry that moves from problem definition to exploration of relevant content and ideas, integrating those ideas into a meaningful structure or solution." In our evaluation context, this category considers a tool's ability to support students' cognitive engagement in learning tasks.

Higher-Order Thinking. This criterion measures a tool's ability to help learners integrate, rearrange, or extend new and existing information to achieve a purpose or find answers to a complex problem. In considering a tool's cognitive elements, reviewers should consider its ability to support higher-order learning tasks such as critical thinking, problem solving, and reasoning.

Metacognitive Engagement. Metacognitive activities are those that prompt understanding, regulation, and reflection of students' own cognitive activities across the learning process. Many e-learning tools offer avenues for metacognitive engagement and are considered successful on this criterion when they help students "think about their learning, how they approach specific tasks, and the success of their strategies." This is commonly achieved through formative feedback-the opportunity to test knowledge, track performance, and monitor improvement in an effort to modify thinking or behavior for improved learning. The rubric directly links formative feedback and metacognitive practice, giving priority to those tools that enable instructors to provide formative feedback in support of students' growth through self-regulated learning and reflective practice.

Conclusion

The Rubric for E-Learning Tool Evaluation offers educators a framework, with criteria and levels of achievement, to assess the suitability of an e-learning tool for their learners' needs and for their own learning outcomes and classroom context. The rubric was designed with utility in mind: it is intended to help decision-makers independently evaluate e-learning tools.

We designed the rubric to be practical for everyday use. Although we wrote it within a Canadian postsecondary context, our hope is that other researchers will adapt the rubric for their local context in tertiary education. The rubric is freely available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Given the rapid developments in e-learning and technology-enhanced instruction, we hope others will use and build on our rubric to ensure its ongoing relevance in light of future advances in the field.

To assist with the sharing and adaptation of the Rubric for E-Learning Tool Evaluation, the authors created a Git Hub repository for the rubric.

Notes

1. For more on the SECTIONS (Students; Ease of use; Costs; Teaching and Learning; Interactivity; Organization; Novelty; Speed) model, see A. W. Bates and Gary Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2003). ↩

2. Barbara J. Millis, "Why Faculty Should Adopt Cooperative Learning Approaches," in Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy, ed. Barbara J. Millis (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2012), 1-9; Chih Hsiung Tu and Marina McIsaac, "The Relationship of Social Presence and Interaction in Online Classes," American Journal of Distance Education 16, no. 3 (2002), 131-150. ↩

3. Kim Watty, Jade McKay, and Leanne Ngo, "Innovators or Inhibitors? Accounting Faculty Resistance to New Educational Technologies in Higher Education," Journal of Accounting Education 36 (September 2016), 1-15; S. Sharma, Geoff Dick, Wynne Chin, and Lesley Land, "Self-Regulation and e-Learning," ECIS 2007 Proceedings 45 (2007); Hong Zhao and Li Chen, "How Can Self-Regulated Learning Be Supported in E-Learning 2.0 Environment: A Comparative Study," Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE) 9, no. 2 (2016), 1-20. ↩

4. Carmelo Ardito, Maria Francesca Costabile, Marilena De Marsico, Rosa Lanzilotti, Stefano Levialdi, Paola Plantamura, Teresa Roselli, et al., "Towards Guidelines for Usability of E-Learning Application," in User-Centered Interaction Paradigms for Universal Access in the Information Society UI4ALL 2004, LNCS vol. 3196, ed. Christian Stary and Constantine Stephanidis (Berlin: Springer, 2004), 82. ↩

5. Greg Gay, "Accessibility in E-Learning: What You Need to Know," Council of Ontario Universities, [n.d.]. ↩

6. "Policy Brief: Ancillary Fees," Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, 2016. ↩

7. Andreas Schroeder, Shailey Minocha, and Christoph Schneider, "The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of Using Social Software in Higher and Further Education Teaching and Learning," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26, no. 3 (2010), 159-174; Anthony E. Kelly and Mika Seppala, "Changing Policies Concerning Student Privacy and Ethics in Online Education," International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6, no. 8 (2016), 652-655. ↩

8. D. Randy Garrison, E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice, 2d ed. (London: Routledge, 2011).

9. Garrison, "Online Collaboration Principles," 28. ↩

10. Ruben R. Puentedura, "SAMR: A Contextualized Introduction" [n.d.]. ↩

Lauren M. Anstey is an educational developer with a focus on e-learning and curriculum in the Centre for Teaching and Learning and is Adjunct Research Faculty in the Centre for Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education at Western University.

Gavan P. L. Watson is Associate Director, eLearning, in the Centre for Teaching and Learning and is Adjunct Research Faculty in the Centre for Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education at Western University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
a rubric for evaluating e-learning tools in higher education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Rubric for Evaluating E-Learning Tools in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Rubric for E-Learning Tool Evaluation offers educators a framework, with criteria and levels of achievement, to assess the suitability of an e-learning tool for their learners' needs and for their own learning outcomes and classroom context.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have been searching high and low for an efficient, easy-to-understand list of criteria for evaluating hardware, software, tools, and everything in between. Most online articles that I found focus on selling things, or are incredibly vague or incomplete so I decided to do some brainstorming based on what I have found in my own practice speaking to students, teachers, specialists, and researching online. Here's what I came up with.

TechPudding's checklist for evaluating technology:

Always put learning first. What is it that you want your students to learn, examine, discuss, think about, use as assistive technology, and research? it is useful to create a list of what you want to do first so that you don't forget anything or get distracted by extra bells and whistles. How does the technology help to accomplish your learning goals? There are so many options for applications, software, and hardware out there that you will definitely be able to find a tool for every learning opportunity.

Higher order thinking skills. Does the tool support you and your student's engagement in higher-order thinking? Andrew Churches' Educational-Origami wiki provides a look at Bloom's Taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) and Bloom's Digital Taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating).

Does it follow universal design for learning (UDL) principles? Meaning, does it allow for: 1) multiple means of representation, 2) multiple means of expression, and 3) multiple means of engagement? UDL principles are becoming more and more important as we move toward personalized, real-world learning and away from teachers as conduits of knowledge that use limited modes of teaching and delivery.

How about usability? Is it user-friendly? Is it easy to learn for everyone who will need to learn it, including teachers, administrators, students, and parents? What kinds of training and support are necessary? How long does it take to get comfortable with it? One way in which you can "try before you buy" is by downloading a trial of a prospective application or service. It is useful to have people of varying comfort with technology try it out, and for students to try and evaluate it.

How much does it cost? What can you, your students, and your institution afford to spend on training, maintenence, upgrades, and the like?

Word-of-mouth. Researching online user discussion boards and asking specialists for recommendations can be very useful. But also be careful about word-of-mouth. I find that people often recommend anything that is new, just to sound like they are on top of the trends (or they try to sell you products and services).

Reliability and support. How much support is required? Are there frequent updates that need to be installed? Does it break down easily? You can find information about this from real users on discussion boards.

Flexibility. This refers to how the software is used, what it can produce, how much it can expand with increased use and access, and how it might expand to offer more services in the future. For instance, utilizing Google Apps may offer incredible options in the future as its services and access points expand.

Evaluation and monitoring tools. Does the technology come with tools for you to monitor how you and your students are using it? Does it come with tools for you to evaluate your students' learning? If these tools are built-in to the application, it can be a huge bonus for both teachers and students.

Security and privacy. How does this technology protect information and privacy of its users? Who has access to what is shared and how is it shared?

User interface. The more I use different tools, the more this has become a deal-breaker for me. When user interfaces are cluttered, illogically laid out, or overly complicated, they immediately turn me off. Information and commands should be laid out with the most-used ones easily accessible. There should be no more than 3 mouse clicks to access any option or command, and vocabulary should be readily accessible to new users. Again, UDL principles dictate that software and apps should offer visual, audio, text, and other forms of support, not just one. Furthermore, the user should be able to create their own shortcut keys and commands for exactly what she/he would like to accomplish.

Sharing and communication. We know that collaboration online and sharing with an authentic audience is important to both student learning and teacher collaboration. Therefore, the software should enable sharing either in a secure way to authorized users, or in a public way to all users online. The tool should make it easy to view, share, comment, communicate, evaluate, contribute, and socialize synchronously and asynchronously.

Integration with existing tools. Does this tool support or integrate well with the existing tools that you are currently paying for or using? Can you use it to "fill in the gaps" for existing applications? How can all of the tools that you use collaborate with each other and enable you to do more than you could with them independently?

Don't get attached to one tool. This is the most important thing to remember! There was a time when we all thought that Microsoft Word was the be-all and end-all of word processing tools. But now there are multiple ways to produce, share, collaborate, and contribute to written texts. There will always be new tools-one is released every second, so don't get stuck using only one. Always be on the look-out for recommendations and discussions about the next thing. That way, you will be able to find the best tool for whatever job you are engaged in. You can sign up for online newsletters, blogs, and other services to help stay up to date.

What are your criteria for evaluating technology, applications, software, tools, or hardware for the purposes of learning and teaching? What can you add to this list based on your experiences?

Checklist for Evaluating Tech Tools, Apps, Software, and Hardware

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Checklist for Evaluating Tech Tools, Apps, Software, and Hardware

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I have been searching high and low for an efficient, easy-to-understand list of criteria for evaluating hardware, software, tools, and everything in between. Most online articles that I found focus on selling things, or are incredibly vague or incomplete so I decided to do some brainstorming based on what I have found in my own practice speaking to students, teachers, specialists, and researching online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
iRubric: Evaluation of Web 2.0 Tools rubric - N5XA4A: RCampus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
iRubric N5XA4A: Rubric title Evaluation of Web 2.0 Tools. Built by lctaylor using iRubric.com. Free rubric builder and assessment tools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
George Lucas Educational Foundation

The benefits of movement in the classroom aren't limited to younger students. Pairing new words and concepts with gestures or dance moves locks in understanding-and active brain breaks prime students to learn even more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A free source of information, inspiration, and practical strategies for learning and teaching in preK-12 education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Blaine Smith and Cynthia J. Brame Print Version Cite this guide: Smith, B., & Brame, C. (2014). Blended and Online Learning. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blended-and-online-learning/. Online courses are those in which at least 80 percent of course content is delivered online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free Higher Education News, Jobs, Career Advice and Events for college and university faculty, adjuncts, graduate students, and administrators.

# data[].attributes.body
Tutorials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These videos and playlists are available in English only.

Need help with Blackboard Learn? Want to learn something new?

Doesn't seem familiar? Jump to the "Ultra" video playlist.

Get familiar with features in minutes. Watch short, engaging Blackboard Help videos on our YouTube channel.

You can see the full list of instructor videos and choose which ones you want to watch, or you can view multiple videos in a row about a particular topic using the following playlists. Also see our list of student videos.

For a list of the links to the Flash format Learn 9.1 videos that appeared on the On Demand Learning Center, see Video Archives.

Take a look at Blackboard Learn with the Ultra experience!

Doesn't seem familiar? Jump to the "Original" video playlists.

Check it out! You're going to love the delightful details in our modern design. The intuitive, fluid interactions are simple and fun to use.

These videos and playlists are available in English only.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These videos and playlists are available in English only. Need help with Blackboard Learn? Want to learn something new? Doesn't seem familiar? Jump to the "Ultra" video playlist. Get familiar with features in minutes. Watch short, engaging Blackboard Help videos on our YouTube channel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gutman Library's "Websites for Educators" is a selective list of websites that support the research and practice of educators. Please tell us about websites we should consider adding.

Adult Education and Literacy

The Arts

Bilingual Education / ESL

Boston Area Libraries (selected)

Charter Schools

Children's Literature

Colleges and Universities

Comparative/International Education

Counseling and Guidance

Curriculum Resources (K-12)

Distance Education

Early Childhood

Education Administration and Policy

Education Associations, Organizations, and Conferences

Education Journals (Open access)

Education Law

Education Libraries (Selected)

Education Reform

Educational Technology

Employment Opportunities

ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)

ERIC (unrestricted access via the Education Resources Information Center)

Family & Community Engagement

Foreign Languages

Gifted and Talented

Grants and Funding

Higher Education

History of Education

Home Schooling

K-12 Schools

Language Arts

Listservs

Massachusetts

Media

Music

Philosophy of Education

Polls

Prevention Science and Practice

Psychology

Reading

Reference Resources

Science & Mathematics

Social Studies/Social Sciences

Special Education

Statistical Data

Teaching and Pedagogy

Testing, Assessment, Evaluation, and Standards

United States Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gutman Library's "Websites for Educators" is a selective list of websites that support the research and practice of educators. Please tell us about websites we should consider adding. ERIC (unrestricted access via the Education Resources Information Center)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bring TED-Ed Student Talks to Your School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transform your classroom with TED-Ed! Discover hundreds of animated lessons, create customized lessons, and inspire your students to share their big ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Current Resources & Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Week American Education News Site of Record - Education Week

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find breaking news, analysis, and opinion on K-12 education issues affecting school and district leaders, teachers, policymakers, and ed-tech professionals.

# data[].attributes.body
Angela Duckworth - Grit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Character Lab is a nonprofit organization that advances scientific insights to help kids thrive. We provide actionable advice for parents and educators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructor Strategies Suggested ways to accomplish key tasks and address common challenges Re-imagine Your Class! Regardless of the mode of delivery, our focus needs to remain student-centered and on achievement of the learning objectives. In planning, this is an opportunity to re-think the cont ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Lesson Plans & Activities (FYE) & Connecting Activites

# data[].attributes.subject
Lesson Plans & Activities (FYE) & Connecting Activites

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We invite you to explore our sample lesson plans, provided by FYE instructors who have successfully used them in their classrooms. International section...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlocking knowledge, empowering minds. Free course notes, videos, instructor insights and more from MIT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The MERLOT system provides access to curated online learning and support materials and content creation tools, led by an international community of educators, learners and researchers.

MERLOT is an international community of educators, learners, and researchers.

Add a Material

Submit an online learning material you've found or created to the MERLOT Collection.

Create your own materials, add materials to the MERLOT collection, and be a part of the community. All for free!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The MERLOT system provides access to curated online learning and support materials and content creation tools, led by an international community of educators, learners and researchers.

# data[].attributes.body
Waymaker & Lumen - Used in our COB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Lumen Learning | Open for student success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Guy Krueger, Lecturer in Writing and Rhetoric, The University of Mississippi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lumen Learning | Online Materials & Resources for Higher Ed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lumen Learning offers affordable digital courseware & professional development resources to enhance effective teaching and increase student success. Explore our 50+ college courses today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructional design has been undergoing significant changes resulting from developments in areas including pedagogy, learning science, and technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here are the Top 100 Tools for learning generated from the 17th Annual Tools for Learning survey. There were a total of 2,022 votes and this year there were more votes from the education sector than last year, which is why many of the educational tools have regained lost ground on this year's list. New tools on the list are shaded yellow in the table below, and tools returning to the list are shaded green. The big news for this year is that ChatGPT has jumped straight into the chart in the No 4 place. 2023 is the year that AI has finally taken off. For a categorisation of the tools (both as a list and in graphical format), take a look at By Category

To work through the list tool by tool, start with YouTube and follow the link at the top right of each page.

Total Page Visits: 921732 - Today Page Visits: 295

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 100 Tools for Learning 2023 – Results of the 17th Annual Survey published 4 September 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are the Top 100 Tools for learning generated from the 17th Annual Tools for Learning survey. There were a total of 2,022 votes and this year there were more votes from the education sector than last year, which is why many of the educational tools have regained lost ground on this year’s list. New tools on the list are shaded yellow in the table below, and tools returning to the list are shaded green. The big news for this year is that ChatGPT has jumped straight into the chart in the No 4 place. 2023 is the year that AI has finally taken off. For a categorisation of the tools (both as a list and in graphical format), take a look at By Category

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Open Author helps you build and publish Open Educational Resources for you and for the benefit of educators and learners everywhere.

Learn more about creating OER

Groups provides a flexible environment to organize, create, share, and discuss resources with others in your network. Collaborate with group members, tag and add resources to shared folders, create your own collections, all within a public or private group.

Groups

Search through collections curated by our digital librarians

Collections

Common Core resources organized for your needs

Common Core

Hubs

A Custom Resource Center

Projects, districts, states, and initiatives make use of Hubs to bring groups of educators together to create, organize, and share OER collections that meet their common goals. Explore Hubs

Microsites

Custom Digital Libraries

Microsites are custom, flexible sites that include all the features available on OER Commons. Microsites allow your users to search resource collections using a custom taxonomy at a unique URL. Contact Us

Our award-winning OER Professional Learning programs support instructors and curriculum specialists to gain the necessary skills required to find, adapt, and evaluate high quality open materials.

In-person and virtual OER workshops help focus instructors to develop a "commons" mindset, to experience the benefits of open processes using the platform's tools, collaborative features, and workflows. This can include using Open Author for creating, remixing, and publishing shared curriculum.

Learn More

How to Search OER Commons

View all How-to videos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OER Commons is a dynamic digital library and network. Explore open education resources and join our network of educators dedicated to curriculum improvement.