The documents starts with the part that describes what are the envisioned evaluation criteria and how they relate to the KP-Lab heuristics (usability heuristics The part in the report 2.5.2).
In the next section, the model drawn in the two virtual meetings is presented with an attempt to explicate the relations between the different aspects including a section that poses questions of the distinction of non-functional requirements, design principles and evaluation criteria.
In the third part, the KP-Lab heuristic points 7-10 are presented
In the fourth part, the modified table of design principles, common language description of design principles, non-functional requirements and evaluation criteria are presented.
The fifth part includes the rest of the report 2.5.2.
The usability heuristics presented in chapter 2.1 above are quite general and unspecific with regard to pedagogical or practical aims of the activities in question. That is why the usability task force has had as one of the goals the developing of evaluation criteria for “trialogical” activities, that is, to have some criteria for evaluating how well or badly the tools in question support trialogical activities as well as to develop ‘means’ to assess the usefulness of tools in trialogical settings. This provides a challenge. In what sense can there be usability criteria in relation to general principles of trialogical learning, which are not connected just to the use of tools but to more long-term practices and activities?
We do not have any ready-made answer to these issues yet but we are going to develop more specific “trialogical criteria” by:
KP-Lab design principles aim at defining general characteristics of something that could be called “trialogical learning” and related activities, and how those kinds of activities can be implemented with technology-enhanced learning. As such KP-Lab design principles describe very general and high-level requirements and are meant to guide the development (design and evaluation) of both tools and practices (Hakkarainen et. al., 2006; KP-Lab Deliverable D3.1).
The different focus on the evaluation requires also a different framework for the evaluation. Taking practices into account requires also identifying the different groups using the software and their motives and objectives in the practice. This shifts the focus of evaluation from the boundaries of a person using the tool, to the boundaries of a group using the tool.
The following table shows the KP-Lab design principles and some examples of criteria for evaluation. The aim is to translate general design principles to a more concrete level of functionalities of the tools.
See the rest of the document by down loading the attachment.
|Trialogical Criteria for evaluation04_04_07.doc||371712 bytes|