- Presentation abstract発表の要約
Moodle courses may be evaluated for any number of reasons such as assessing pedagogic quality according to established curricular paradigms, ensuring that content fulfills specific educational guidelines, providing peer-centred feedback in the workplace, or presenting awards to outstanding courseware. There are very few examples of Moodle-specific assessment standards. In Japan, the MAJ Showcase has developed a judging rubric that attempts to identify courseware that excels both at leveraging the unique features and capabilities of Moodle and at delivering pedagogically sound content. Selected entries are then awarded Best Open Courseware prizes. In Estonia, where Moodle is used for online delivery of course content nationwide, evaluation of e-courses is done with the help of a 23 bullet point metric based on a design framework called ADDIE. This presentation will review both evaluation systems and discuss similarities and differences between the two with the goal of building a broader picture of how Moodle courses may be evaluated, and with the specific intent of improving assessment of excellence in Moodle courseware.
- Original submission元の原稿
発表の題名: Evaluating Moodle Courseware
発表の種類: Presentation (20 mins) プレゼンテーション（２０分）
発表の言語: English 英語
発表のキーワード: assessment, evaluation, courseware, rubric, ADDIE
Moodle courses may be evaluated for any number of reasons such as assessing pedagogic quality according to established curricular paradigms, ensuring that content fulfills specific educational guidelines, providing peer-centred feedback in the workplace, or presenting awards to outstanding courseware. There are very few examples of Moodle-specific assessment standards. In Japan, the MAJ Showcase has developed a judging rubric that attempts to identify courseware that excels both at leveraging the unique features and capabilities of Moodle and at delivering pedagogically sound content. Selected entries are then awarded Best Open Courseware prizes. In Estonia, where Moodle is used for online delivery of course content nationwide, evaluation of e-courses is done with the help of a 23 bullet point metric based on a design framework called ADDIE. This presentation will review both evaluation systems and discuss similarities and differences between the two with the goal of building a broader picture of how Moodle courses may be evaluated, and with the specific intent of improving assessment of excellence in Moodle courseware.
- Peer review details査読詳細
Peer Review 1
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 8 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 8 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 10 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 10 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| | 91 / 100 |
Feedback Intriguing topic. I'll look forward to seeing this one. My only concern is that 20mins doesn't sound like enough time to consider two evaluation systems and then compare and contrast. I suggest switching to a 40 min presentation for this one.
Peer Review 2
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 8 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 9 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 9 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| | 91 / 100 |
Feedback This presentation contributes to a Moot and Moodle use in general in an area that often gets little attention. I wonder if it might not be appropriate to extend it to a longer 40-minute session.
Peer Review 3
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 8 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 9 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 10 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 9 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| | 91 / 100 |
Feedback A 20-minute presentation might be too short for the material that the presenter wants to cover. Also, that MAJ Showcase has been presented at other Moots, so hopefully the focus will be more on the ADDIE framework.
- Peer review notes査読メモ
Thanks for your submission!
Your proposal has been accepted.
We look forward to seeing you at the conference in February.