Comparaison des versions

Ancienne version 5

changes.mady.by.user Marybeth Koon

Sauvegardée le

comparé à

Nouvelle version 6

changes.mady.by.user Marybeth Koon

Sauvegardée le

Légende

  • Ces lignes ont été ajoutées. Ce mot a été ajouté.
  • Ces lignes ont été supprimées. Ce mot a été supprimé.
  • La mise en forme a été modifiée.

...

  •  

    Transparency - Stakeholders are able to find and access their desired level of information regarding the flow of the process and the status of items of interest.

  •  

    Inclusiveness - All stakeholders can give input into the decision-making process either directly or through representation.

  •  

    Nimbleness - Process can accommodate technology initiatives across the full range of scales, formality and stages of lifecycle.

  •  

    Multiple drivers of process - Both technological and pedagogical needs can independently or jointly initiate the process, but both shall drive the process to a final resolution.

  •  

    Sustainability - Process is supported in terms of time, effort, and funding in a way that can continue as long as it is needed.

 

...

 
Ancre
TechEval
TechEval
Technology Evaluation Criteria

CriterionConsiderations

Pass

FailFollow-Up Action

Accessibility

  •  Can the technology be used by students, staff, and instructors of all abilities?
  •  What contingency plans can be put in place to ensure people with disabilities can use the technology the way it is intended?

 

  
Sustainability
  •  Are the costs one-time or recurring?
  •  Can the project become self-sustaining?
  •  Are there external dependencies (e.g., service providers) whose support/lack-there-of will limit the continuation of use?
  •  Is there inter-operability with existing supported/adopted technologies?   

 

  
Usability
  •  Is the technology developed enough to be usable?
   
Scope of Use
  •  How many in the university system would use the technology?
   
FERPA
  •  How does the technology handle (or school?)  FERPA privacy concerns?
   
IRB/Human Subjects
  •  Are there concerns that the use of the technology will damage student learning or success?
   
Pedagogical value
  •  Does the technology and its use show promise for enhanced teaching and learning?
   
Cost vs. Benefit
  •  Is the cost reasonable for the number of students impacted and the magnitude/type of impact?
   
Differentiation

 

  •  Is the project significantly different from existing projects that it should be independent, or can it become an expansion of existing projects?
  •  Are there “built-in” intergrations already available through currently supported/adopted technologies?
   
Resources
  •  Do we have the hardware, software, and institutional knowledge to carry this out? (e.g., training and support varies with scope of adoption)
  •  Is there existing vendor technology support that can be used during pilot?
  •  Can existing support campus-based channels be used during a pilot?
   

...