Instructor Ratings for University of Toronto Pharmacology Learning Object

December 2003

	ê	ê ê	ê ê ê	ê ê ê ê	ê ê ê ê ê
Low	----------------------------------à					High
1. Content Quality: Veracity, accuracy, balanced presentation of ideas, and appropriate level of detail	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 While I am not a pharmacologist and so do not believe I should comment on the accuracy or veracity  (so have bolded NA as well as making a numerical selection), I believe that the overall balance of the LO and the level of detail seem excellent. E2 Works as an adjunct to the text.					X X		NA
2. Learning Goal Alignment:  Alignment among learning goals, activities, assessments, and learner characteristics	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 The LO seems to strongly reinforce the therapeutic principles presented, and the relationships between concepts. It allows a high level of learner interaction. E2				X	X
3. Feedback and Adaptation: Adaptive content or feedback driven by differential learner input or learner modeling	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 The LO does – as is stated in the description – expect a certain level of background from the students – and so may be very challenging for students just undertaking the study of pharmacology. E2 After plotted curves several times, it’s impossible to go back and view the previous curves.		X		X
4. Motivation: Ability to motivate, and stimulate the interest or curiosity of, an identified population of learners	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 The content seems highly relevant and stimulating for students – especially those in the health sciences – the clinical applicability seems readily apparent. E2 Able to modify the variables.					X X
5. Presentation Design: Design of visual and auditory information for enhanced learning and efficient mental processing	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 Overall the design seems very effective.  One minor comment - the text with patient variables at the bottom could be slightly larger. E2 Clear visual information.  It would be better if it had auditory information.				X	X
6. Interaction Usability: Ease of navigation, predictability of the user interface, and the quality of UI help features	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 An option to clear individual plots (vs clear all) would be useful. E2 It took me awhile to figure out how to use it.			X	X
7. Reusability: Ability to port between different courses or learning contexts without modification	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 I believe that some modification would be required to adapt the LO to more basic courses – especially for use at early stages – for example, a 2nd year Pharmacology course for nursing students.  This might consist of an extra module of information about the drugs chosen, the principles illustrated, and potentially more detailed feedback about the principles applied. E2 Can be use in physiology work.				X X
8. Student/ Instructor Guides: Pedagogical value of proposed instructional and learning strategies.	1	2	3	4	5		NA
Rationale: E1 These were very clearly set out, and seem readily applicable.  The philosophy of fully informing the student of the learning goals and strategies seems excellent! E2 Helpful and clear.					X X

Adopted from Belfer, K., Nesbit, J.C., Archambault, A., & Vargo, J. (2002) Learning object review instrument (LORI). Version 1.4. Available online http://elera.matchbox.surrey.sfu.ca/eLera/Home