To evaluate Google Classroom I have used the following two tools:
- The rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation:
Category | Criteria | |
Functionality | Scale | Minor concerns: The tool can scaled to accommodate any size class but lacks flexibility to create smaller sub-groups or communities of practice |
Ease of Use | Works well: The tool has a user-friendly interface and it is easy for instructors and students to become skillful with in a personalized and intuitive manner. | |
Tech Support / Help Availability | Works well: Campus-based technical support and /or help documentation is readily available and aids users in troubleshooting tasks or solving problems experienced; or, the tool provider offers a robust support platform | |
Hypermediality | Works well: The tool allows users to communicate through different channels (audio, visual, textual) and allows for flexible/adaptive engagement with material (educators can share learning resources, reading materials, videos, links, and handouts) | |
Accessibility | Accessibility standards | Minor concerns: The tool has some limited capacity to meet accessibility guidelines |
User-focused participation | Works well: The tool is designed to address the needs of diverse users, their various literacies, and capabilities, thereby widening opportunities for participation in learning (Google Classroom has recently added the ability to send assignments for a specific student or group of students, what enables us to adapt more and more to the needs of our students) | |
Required Equipment | Works well: Proper use of the tool does not require equipment beyond what is typically available to instructors and students (computer with built-in speakers and microphone, internet connection, etc.) | |
Cost of Use | Works well: All aspects of the tool can be used free of charge. | |
Technical | Integration/ Embedding within a Learning Management System (LMS) | Works well: The tool can be embedded (as an object via HTML code) or fully integrated (e.g. LTIcompliant tools) into an LMS while maintaining full functionality of the tool. |
Desktop / Laptop Operating Systems | Works well: Users can effectively utilize the tool with any standard, up-to date operating system. | |
Browser | Works well: Users can effectively utilize the tool with any standard, up-to date browser | |
Additional Downloads | Works well: Users do not need to download additional software or browser extensions | |
Mobile Design | Access | Works well: The tool can be accessed, either through the download of an app or via a mobile browser, regardless of the mobile operating system and device. Design of the mobile tool fully takes into consideration the constraints of a smaller-sized screen. |
Functionality | Works well: There is little to no functional difference between the mobile and the desktop version, regardless of the device used to access it. No difference in functionality between apps designed for different mobile operating systems. | |
Offline Access | Minor concerns: Offers a kind of offline mode, where the tool can be used offline (check out your work) but core functionality is affected. | |
Privacy, Data Protection, and Rights | Sign Up/ Sign In | Minor concerns: instructors are the only users required to provide personal information to set up an account ( each user has unique login credentials so that individual accounts remain protected and the teacher should restrict Classroom activity to class members.) |
Data Privacy and Ownership | Works well: Users maintain ownership and copyright of their intellectual property/data; the user can keep data private and decide if / how data is to be shared | |
Archiving, Saving, and Exporting Data | Works well: Users can archive, save, or import and export content or activity data in a variety of formats You can customize your archive format: Delivery method - send download link via email -Add to Drive -Add to Dropbox - Add to Microsoft OneDrive -Add to Box Export type -One-time archive (Create a single archive of your selected data.) -Scheduled exports (Automatically create an archive of your selected data every 2 months for one year) File type -Zip files (These files can be opened on almost any computer.) -Tgz files (You may need additional software to open these files on Windows.) | |
Social Presence | Collaboration | Minor concerns: The tool has the capacity to support a community of learning through asynchronous but not synchronous opportunities for communication, interactivity, and transfer of meaning between users There is no real communication with others and they are not in the same place. |
User Accountability | not applicable | |
Diffusion | Works well: The tool is widely known and popular, especially with the pandemic situation. it’s likely that most learners are familiar with the tool and have basic technical competence with it. | |
Teaching Presence | Facilitation | Works well: The tool has easy-to-use features that would significantly improve an instructor’s ability to be present with learners via active management, monitoring, engagement, and feedback |
Customization | Works well : easily customized to suit the classroom context. You can modify the details of a class and customize its settings. For example, you can change the name of the class and select how class assignments are displayed on the board. Also, you can set up a rating system and show or hide overall grades in the class. if you allow it, students can post messages and comment on each other's posts on the board page.You can watch comments and posts that individual students have written and then deleted. | |
Learning Analytics | Serious concerns: The tool does not support the collection of learning analytics | |
Cognitive Presence | Enhancement of Cognitive Task(s) | Serious concerns:The tool acts as a direct tool substitute with no functional change to engagement in the targeted cognitive task(s) |
Higher Order Thinking | not applicable | |
Metacognitive Engagement | not applicable |
- Common Sense Privacy Program
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario