The following rubric represents an evaluation system for objects (resources) found within the Resource Bank. An object could include images, books, lessons, units, assessments, and more. For this evaluation, any component that can exist as a stand-alone qualifies as an object. The rubrics in this packet can be applied across content areas and object types.
In general, the rubric should be applied to all objects. In some cases, this may be a single lesson or instructional support material, while in others it might be a complete unit of study, set of support materials, or student-developed resource. At times, multiple lessons are included in a single OER. In that case, the reviewer needs to determine if all lessons will be examined, if only those lessons that deal with essential aspects of the curriculum are to be considered, or if it would be best to evaluate random lessons, looking at, for example, every third or fifth lesson.
This rubric was created using the OER commons rubrics (from oercommons.org) and “Appendix B” from the Government of Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Education’s Learning Resources Evaluation Guidelines.
These rubrics are typically used to rate the potential, not actual, effectiveness of a particular object in a learning environment. Each rubric should be scored independently of the others using the following scores that describe levels of potential quality, usefulness, or alignment to outcomes:
3: Superior – The resource exceeds the expected standard and will be included in The Resource Bank (and may even be featured). The resource should be rated at a minimum of 4 stars.
2: Quality – The resource meets the expected standard and will be included in The Resource Bank. The Resource Bank librarian and users will determine ratings.
1: Limited or unacceptable – This resource does not meet the expected standard and may not be included in The Resource Bank.
N/A: Rubric Not Applicable – The not applicable (N/A) rating is used any time a particular rubric does not apply to the object being rated. This is not a pejorative score; it simply means it would be inappropriate to apply this rubric to this object.
Like the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education resource on “Learning Resources & Evaluation Guidelines”, the criteria used are written in question format. The criteria are designed to guide the curator(s) to approve high-quality and appropriate resources to help meet the needs of teachers, students, and parents.
Please consider the following criteria when creating and submitting resources to ensure their quality.
Focus Area: Guiding Questions |
Physical Quality/Format | Not applicable | Limited / unacceptable | Quality | Superior |
N/A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Is the information in the resource (links, documents) easy to find and download properly? | | | | |
Is the resource organized to permit easy use? | | | | |
If graphics are used, are they an integral part of the text? | | | | |
Is the writing/text/description of the resource clear and easy to understand? | | | | |
Physical Quality/Format Overall Assessment | | | | |
|
Content | Not applicable | Limited / unacceptable | Quality | Superior |
N/A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Are sources of information (E.g., statistics, research) cited? | | | | |
Is the resource listed under the proper subject heading and enough metadata (information) completed for the resource to be found and used by others? | | | | |
Is the learning resource current? | | | | |
Is there an accurate and realistic presentation of content? | | | | |
Is the learning resource tagged with appropriate keywords/tags to make it easily searchable? | | | | |
Does the learning resource list Indigenous, Métis, and Inuit peoples as distinct nation groups, use terms based on what is deemed appropriate to specific Indigenous, Métis, and Inuit audiences, and when possible, avoid the overuse of umbrella terms such as Aboriginal? | | | | |
Content Overall Assessment | | | | |
|
Social Considerations | Not applicable | Limited / unacceptable | Quality | Superior |
N/A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Does the learning resource contain appropriate multicultural content and perspectives? | | | | |
If relevant; could the learning resource contribute to students’ understanding of the complexities of contemporary society? | | | | |
Is the resource appropriate for the students and/or the audiences it is intended for? | | | | |
Does the learning resource follow copyright laws? | | | | |
Social Considerations Overall Assessment | | | | |
|
Indigenous, Métis, and Inuit Content (if incorporated) | Not applicable | Limited / unacceptable | Quality | Superior |
N/A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Are Indigenous, Métis, and Inuit worldviews (beliefs and values) sensitively and accurately presented? | | | | |
Is the language accurate and respectful? | | | | |
Is the information balanced and objective? | | | | |
Are the visuals accurate and respectful? | | | | |
Indigenous, Métis, and Inuit Content Overall Assessment | | | | |
|
Instructional Design | Not applicable | Limited / unacceptable | Quality | Superior |
N/A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Does the learning resource support the philosophy of the curriculum regarding at least one of the following: What will be taught/learned? Why it will be taught/learned? With whom it will be taught/learned? How it will be taught/learned?
| | | | |
Is the learning resource suitable for a range of learning styles and instructional approaches (or will it provide a complement to other resources to meet a variety of needs in a variety of manners)? | | | | |
Does the learning resource stimulate the interest of the audience? | | | | |
Does the learning resource integrate 21st-century skills or competencies? | | | | |
When included in the resource, are the assessment tools useful? | | | | |
Instructional Design Overall Assessment | | | | |
View the rubric in French
Voir la rubrique en francais
