Rubric - Steve Corbett

I decided to attempt to apply the rubric against the web based training (WBT) course I am currently developing at the office.

Category 1 – Learner Support & Resources
Based on my review of the criteria, the WBT achieves a status of “Baseline” in this category. The course contains limited information for online learner support and links to company resources. It provides limited course-specific resources, no contact information for instructor, department, and/or program. It offers limited resources supporting course content and different learning abilities. This can be improved by going through the course and looking for pages where attachments or links can be added for topics with additional info available on the company website. For example, three policies are mentioned. These can be added as attachments. Links to other relevant WBTs can be added as well as a support e-mail address.

Category 2 – Online Organization & Design
Based on my review of the criteria, the WBT achieves a status of “Effective” in this category. The course actually fell under criteria listed under all three ratings. The course is well organized and easy to navigate in Brainshark. As it is a WBT, there is no syllabus. The course uses a template and consistent layout to give it an aesthetic design that clearly communicates course information throughout the course. All pages work fine. Unfortunately, the only accessibility issue addressed by Brainshark is the provision of script for the audio impaired. That being said, it is relegated to small window and is very hard to read. One improvement could include attaching an easier to read script for the learner in the attachments section of the course.

Category 3 – Instructional Design & Delivery
Based on my review of the criteria, the WBT achieves a status of “Effective” in this category. Although it meets two of the criteria at a baseline level, it meets one exemplary criterion and two criteria for effective. Because it is a WBT, it offers no opportunity for interaction and communication student to student, student to instructor and student to content. Through the knowledge checks and case studies, the course provides adequate activities to help students develop critical thinking and/or problem-solving skills. Through the use of animated diagrams, it also provides adequate visual, activities to enhance student learning. Course goals are clearly defined and aligned to learning objectives, and learning objectives are identified and learning activities are clearly integrated with the objectives. Perhaps one improvement when it comes to increasing interaction would be to add a topic about the course to a discussion forum on the company website, and provide a link to the forum within the course.

Category 4 – Assessment & Evaluation of Student Learning
Based on my review of the criteria, the WBT achieves a status of “Baseline” in this category. Although the assessment strategy is clearly linked to learning objectives, the course only offers knowledge checks and a course assessment at the end. Furthermore, Brainshark’s examination question feature is limited to one answer selections, so only multiple choice and true false questions can be used. The examination question feature does provide some feedback to learners, but the course provides little in the form of self assessment or peer evaluation. There is not much that can be done to improve this category based on the limitations of a WBT and Brainshark, but if I were to make a simple suggestion to Brainshark, they should expand the capabilities of their examination question feature to include multiple answer selections and matching.

Category 5 – Innovative Teaching with Technology
Based on my review of the criteria, the WBT achieves a status of “Baseline” in this category. Brainshark is an adequate tool to facilitate communication and learning. There are limited multimedia elements in Brainshark. Although it can take you to websites within its content window, I'm not sure if it can play a video and I know its animation feature is limited. For example, you cannot click on boxes or buttons to view additional content. Everything simply runs. This makes it hard for students to maintain engagement as it is important that they can interact with the tool. One way to improve learner engagement is to take advantage of the poll and survey features included with the tool. Using polls to ask the student to give an opinion on a topic at least increases interactivity.

Category 6 – Faculty Use of Student Feedback
Based on my review of the criteria, the WBT achieves a status of “Effective” in this category. Students will be given multiple opportunities to give feedback on course content through surveys and polls. Additionally, the results of knowledge checks and the course assessment will help identify areas needing additional emphasis in future refreshes of the WBT. The end of course survey will also offer students a means to give feedback on ease of using the tool and accessibility of course. This is a tough category to improve. One way would be to observe some students as they complete the course to monitor their reactions.