Quality framework for assessment of multimedia learning
0 likes772 views
The document presents a quality framework for assessing multimedia learning materials (MLM), developed by the Commonwealth of Learning Media Centre for Asia and the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education. It focuses on evaluating finished MLM products and provides a structured assessment guide, which includes prerequisite data and quality indicators. The framework aims to ensure high-quality e-learning materials that enhance learner engagement and effectiveness in education.
Quality framework for assessment of multimedia learning
- 1. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579 1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of i-Learn Centre, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.362 The 3rd International Conference on e-Learning ICEL2011, 23-24 November 2011, Bandung, Indonesia Quality Framework for Assessment of Multimedia Learning Materials Version 1.0 Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamada* , David Asirvathamb and Halimatol Hanim Mohd Khalidc a Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia b Universiti Malaya, Malaysia c Malaysia Open University, Malaysia Abstract This paper reports about an instrument which has been developed by the Commonwealth of Learning Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA) and the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MOHE). This instrument aims to be a standard quality framework which can be used by multimedia users in evaluating the quality of the e-learning materials. Basically, the instrument is constructed to evaluate two sections, which are the learning material development process and the finished learning material product. However, this paper merely discusses the second section. © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of i-Learn Centre, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Keywords: multimedia learning materials; quality assurance; assessment * Corresponding author. E-mail address: syedjamal145@salam.uitm.edu.my Available online at www.sciencedirect.com © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of i-Learn Centre, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
- 2. 572 Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579 1. Introduction Multimedia learning materials(MLM) can be defined as the combination of various digital media types, such as text, images, sound and video, into an integrated multi-sensory interactive application or presentation to convey a message or information to learners that promotes effectives learning (Neo and Neo, 2000). It is an important component in e-learning or distance learning. Studies have shown that MLM has a huge impact on the outcome of learning. A well designed MLM can promote better performance among learners. MLM that is designed using good teaching methodologies and instructional models can have a positive impact on the learners. MLM can be engaging, while simulated experiment and game-based learning can be fun for learners. Today, large investments are made on developing MLM for teaching and learning. For example, as one of the flagship programs of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), RM300m was allocated for smart schools where it involved the development of MLM for schools (Vicziany & Marlia, 2004). E-learning or distance learning can be supported by multimedia-rich content. It deploys videos, audios, animations, chats, interactive contents and other collaborative contents. The use of MLM makes learning interesting and fun. Hofstetter (1995) defined interactive multimedia as the use of a computer to present and combine text, graphics, audio and video, with links and tools that let the user navigate, interact, create and communicate. As more MLM are being developed, it becomes important to determine the quality of these products. Users need a guide to select and use these products. Users also need to know the quality of these products. Adopting poor quality content can result in poor performance of the learners and subsequently increase the drop-out rate. 1.1. Type of MLM Product Addressed by This Framework The type of MLM product referred here is the finished MLM used for the purpose of teaching and learning. The guidelines for the summative assessment of MLM is provided for MLM related to teaching and learning rather than other type of content such as for advertisement-based or entertainment. Assessment can be defined as evaluating the appropriateness of the material for the purpose. Formative assessment involves the judgment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the development process. Summative assessment involves the assessment of the competed MLM products. In formative assessment, the purpose is to improve the product during the development stage. Normally, the guidelines serve as strategy or plan that can be used to improve the product. In summative assessment, the finished product is evaluated. The purpose of summative assessment is to make a decision to whether to adopt the product or, in some cases, to grade the product. The summative assessment determines the quality of the finished product. As MLM development is slowly taken over by production companies ad publishers, summative assessment becomes more important to users, who could be students, teachers or other stakeholders. Quality Framework for Assessment of MLM is divided into two parts – Part A and Part B. Part A covers the Pre-requisite Data for Assessment of MLM and includes some basic information relating to the MLM while Part B serves as an Assessment Guide for Multimedia Learning Materials and provides some useful guidelines to the evaluators/stakeholders for the assessment of MLM to minimise subjectivity. 1.2. The Construction QAMLM The idea of constructing the QAMLM was initiated by Commonwealth Educational Media Centre For Asia (CEMCA) during the 1st Roundtable Meeting with a group of experts in Bangaluru, India on the 7th of August 2007. The meeting group agreed to have a standard framework as a guide for the learning
- 3. 573Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579 materials developers and the end users as well. They also agreed that the development of the framework should involve experts and stakeholders from various Asian countries. Two core groups – one in India and the other in Malaysia were constituted to undertake the development of the framework as a result of collaboration between CEMCA and Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) (CEMCA,2010). This followed by a series of roundtable meetings which was conducted involving experts from India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Brunei and Singapore. The Indian core group merely concentrated on the first section which is the learning material development process where the Malaysian core group focused on the finished learning materials. Both groups have agreed to adopt ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) as an underlying theory to develop the framework. The first draft of QAMLM was tabled out in Dec 22nd 2008 and after 18 months of serious deliberation process which involved experts and stakeholders from various organizations around Southeast Asia. It was circulated widely to various stakeholders and hosted to CEMCA website and Wiki Educator of Commonwealth of Learning in order to get feedback from diverse parties in the world. The draft framework for finished learning materials was tested rigorously by several content developers and users. Amendments were made based on the feedbacks from the pilot tests. Table 1. Reliability of Three Pilot Tests Table 1 summarizes the entire three pilot tests. The first pilot test was conducted by deploying 10 assessors to evaluate one multi-media learning material. The second pilot test on the other hand involved one assessor to evaluate 25 multi-media learning materials. Both results were presented to the panel of experts from Malaysia and India and resulting a more improved version or set of items. Based on the final version the third pilot test was conducted and the reliability values have met the acceptable value. The MLM Framework Structure The MLM framework structure is divided in two parts: Part A addresses the pre-requisite data (14 items) for the assessment such as Information of the MLM like module title, target audience, language, minimum hardware and software requirement etc.
- 4. 574 Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579 Part B provides a set of quality indicators with 5 points scale (19 quality indicators) that help the users assess the quality of an MLM product. The higher the rating of the indicator the higher the quality of the MLM product. Who can use the Framework The framework is useful to those who use the MLM like learners, teachers, parents, administrators, librarians and etc. Table 2 shows the final version of Quality Framework for Assessment of Multi-Media Learning Materials. Table 2. Quality Framework For Assessment of Multimedia Learning Materials PART A: PRE-REQUISITE DATA FOR ASSESSMENT OF MLM
- 5. 575Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579 PART B: ASSESSMENT GUIDE FOR MULTIMEDIA LEARNING MATERIAL
- 6. 576 Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579
- 7. 577Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579
- 8. 578 Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579
- 9. 579Syed Jamal Abdul Nasir bin Syed Mohamad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (2012) 571 – 579 4. Conclusion Generally, the framework is able to serve as a reliable tool to assess multi-media learning materials or at least can assist users to get general ideas about the quality of a MLM. Even though no weight has been given but the quality indicators are divided into two main categories that are critical indicators, which are marked as * and the rest is considered as desirable indicators. A MLM is considered having quality if the critical indicators are rated above average. As for the desirable indicators, the greater the rating means the better the quality of the MLM. Nevertheless, the framework is not conclusive, it is ready to receive suggestions for further improvement. References Anuradha Deshmukh (2009) Quality Assurannce Framework for Multi-Media Learning Materials: A Field Testing Report, Paper presented at: QAMLM International Roundtable, New Delhi. Bangsal K.(2003) Educational Audio-Visual Media: Some Indicators For Evaluation, Paper Presented in a Seminar Organized by the Academic Staf College at Jamila Millia Islamia, December, 2, 2002, New Delhi, India Bowser, J.(1998). Revolutionizing Workforce Performance: A System Approach to Mastery. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass CEMCA (Commonwealth Educational Centre Media For Asia) (2010) Quality Assurance of MultiMedia Learning Materials (Version 1.0), New Delhi: CEMCA Ehlers U, Hildebrand B, Tescheler S, Pawlowski, J.(2004) Designing Tools and Frameworks For Tomorrows Quality Development. In: EQO Workshop@ICALT 2004 Quality in European eLearning. EOQ, Jowensuu, Findland. Hofstetter, F. (1995). Multimedia literacy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Khan, B.H. (2004). The People-Process-Product Continuum in e-Learning: The e-Learning P3 Model, Educational Technology, Volume 44, Number 5, pages 33-40 Neo, M., Neo, T.K. (2000), "Multimedia learning: using multimedia as a platform for instruction and learning in higher education", Proceedings of the Multimedia University International Symposium on Information and Communication Technologies 2000 (M2USIC'2000), P.J. Hilton, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5-6 October, . Vicziany Marika and Marlia Puteh, Vision 2020, The Multimedia Supercorridor And Malaysian Universities, Conference Proceedings 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia 29 June-2 July 2004 The Institute For Higher Education Policy (2000) Quality on The Line, Washington: Blackboard.