NS 644 Tremblay: Technology Assessment Rubric Template.
| Exceeds Expectations | Meets Expectations | Unacceptable | |
| Help/
Support
|
Help section is detailed; includes both video and textual content; clear indication of where and how to find help; seamless experience for user; phone or chat support available. | Provides a help section with information related to all classroom uses; easy to find and use. | Help section not provided; difficult to impossible to find; lacks content relevant to classroom use. |
| Student –Centered Learning focuses digital resource/Tool
|
The resources effectively apply technology to improve learning outcomes and help students develop the skills for college and career readiness.
|
The resource is able to navigate the learner to develop skills for college and career readiness | The resource can be navigated with active learning component to the site. |
| Function of the Tool/digital resource
|
Clearly explained how the tools work using a large range of action verbs and technical words | Clearly explained how the tools work using action verbs and technical words | Explained how the tools work using some action verbs and technical words |
| Design of Tool/Digital resource
|
Clearly identified and explained in detail, two problems with the tools | Clearly identified and explained two problems with the tools | Identified and explained two problems with the tools |
| Content of Tool/Digital resource
|
Reflects essential information; is logically arranged; concepts succinctly presented; no misspellings or grammatical errors | Reflects most of the essential information; is generally logically arranged; concepts presented without too many excess words; fewer than three misspellings or grammatical errors. | Contains extraneous information; is not logically arranged; contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors. |
| Text of Tool and Digital Resource
|
Easy to read/ appropriately sized; no more than three different fonts; amount of text is appropriate for intended audience; boldface used for emphasis. | Most text is easy to read; uses no more than four different fonts; amount of text generally fits intended audience. | Font too small to read easily; more than four different fonts used; text amount is excessive for intended audience. |
| Accessibility or Tool and Digital resource
|
The resource is accessible to all types of students. It accommodates those with learning and/or physical disabilities.
|
The resource is accessible to most types of students. It partially accommodates those with learning and/or physical disabilities
|
The resource is not accessible to all types of students. It does not accommodate for those with learning and/or physical disabilities.
|
| Resources used in the Tool /digital recourses are Evidence based and less then 5 years old.
|
Resource page:
Resources less then 5 years old Evidence Based resources used Resources supported in peer review practice and organizations |
Resources:
Most resources used less then 5 years. Resources are peer reviewed |
Resources:
Difficulty to find, None present Non-evidence based practice resources non-peer reviewed resources. |
| Technical Soundness
|
The resource is always reliable. It is easy to use and/or understand | The resource is reliable some of the time. It is slightly difficult to use and/or understand. | The resource is not reliable. It is difficult to use and/ or understand.
|
| Design and appeal of the tool/digital resource
|
Clean design; high visual appeal; four or fewer symbol shapes; fits page without a lot of scrolling; color used effectively for emphasis. | Design is fairly clean, with a few exceptions; diagram has visual appeal; four or fewer symbol shapes; fits page well; uses color effectively most of time. | Cluttered design; low in visual appeal; requires a lot of scrolling to view entire diagram; choice of colors lacks visual appeal and impedes comprehension. |
Bibliography
Franker, D. K. (2018, july 30). A+ Rubric. (U. o. Wisconsin-Stout, Producer) Retrieved from Schedule of online courses, online certificate programs, and graduate degree: https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/inspirationrubric.html
International Society for Technology in education (ISTE). (2018). ISTE . Retrieved from Essential Conditions: https://www.iste.org/standards/essential-conditions
Joanne. (2017, Aug 25). Inter-Tech Education. (Edublogs, Producer) Retrieved from How to write a deign technologies assessment rubric: https://intertecheducation.edublogs.org/2017/08/25/how-to-write-a-design-technologies-assessment-rubric/
RCampus. (2018). iRubric. Retrieved from iRubric: Technology Evaluation Rubric: https://www.rcampus.com/rubricshowc.cfm?code=D5654&sp=yes&
Tremblay's Tool Journey 
Hi Ammie,
I thought your rubric was well thought out and very inclusive. I know that you have incorporated a significant amount of technology in the courses you teach. I believe that you likely have had several opportunities to apply the use of technology rubrics when discriminating between the many options that are out there for instructors to choose from. One of the biggest things for me will be ensuring that I am comfortable using technology prior to asking students to use it. That makes me think that I will need many more hours in the day or more days in the week to achieve that level of comfort with some of the technology that is available to preview and use.
I enjoyed reading the other post you made also and look forward to continuing on this journey with you and our other classmates.
Jan
LikeLike