all Service

Evaluation

JUDGING CRITERIA

JUDGING CRITERIA
Phase Evaluation categories Evaluation criteria Points
International training Pre-training Online class
  • Understanding of online class
10
PDP
(plan for developing project)
  • Proposal for e-learning content
30
Onsite training Individual reflection notes
  • Participation & initiative during training
10
Team reflection notes
  • Active cooperation & communication within team
10
World Contest Peer Evaluation Peer Evaluation Peer Evaluation 40
Content presentation Developed content
  • Degree of proposal reflection
10
  • Completeness
10
  • Accessibility
10
  • Interactivity
10
  • Usability
10
  • International collaboration
20
Presentation of outcomes
  • Presentation skills
20
  • Growth potential &
    future plans
10
Total score 200

DETAILED CRITERIA

INTERNATIONAL TRAINING

DETAILED CRITERIA
Stage Evaluation categories Evaluation content Evaluation method Points
Pre-training Evaluation of online class ○ Understanding of online class ○ Submission of online class essay
Scores of all team members are totaled
10
Evaluation of PDP
(plan for developing project)
○ Proposal for e-learning content ○ Evaluation by judging panel
Refer to PDP evaluation criteria
30
  Total pre-training score 40
Onsite training Individual reflection notes ○ Individual reflection and activities demonstrate initiative and faithfulness towards learning activities ○ Submission of individual reflection notes
- Missing a submission results in a deduction of 2.5 points
Scores of all team members are totaled
10
Team
reflection notes
○ Active exchange & communication within team ○ Submission of team reflection notes
- Missing a submission results in a deduction of 2.5 points
10
  Total onsite training score 20
Sum total 60

Criteria for judging PDP (plan for developing project)

Criteria for judging PDP
Classification of evaluation Evaluation criteria Evaluation content Points
Proposal Relevance
  • Are the development topic and project design related to each other?
5
Clarity
  • Are the development topic, project design, and implementation method presented clearly?
5
Suitability
  • Is the development topic suitable for developing
    e-learning content through international collaboration?
10
Creativity
  • Do the project design and proposed e-learning content demonstrate creativity?
20
Action plan Organization
  • Has a well-organized action plan been set up for the development of e-learning content?
10
Needs analysis Suitability
  • In performing the needs analysis for the proposed e-learning content, have appropriate learners, learning environment, and instructional content been selected?
5
Validity
  • Does the needs analysis effectively address the learner-related matters intended to be analyzed?
  • Does the needs analysis effectively address the learning environment-related matters intended to be analyzed?
5
Clarity
  • Were the results of the needs analysis for learners, learning environment, and instructional content presented concretely or clearly?
5
Design proposal Feasibility
  • Are the details of the design proposal actually feasible for development?
10
Clarity
  • Do the learning flowchart and storyboard clearly represent the proposed content?
5
International collaboration Cross-cultural respect
  • Was the socio-cultural background of each partner country considered in the course of the project?
10
  • Was the technological environment of each partner country considered in the course of the project?
10
Total 100 points

World Contest

World Contest
Stage Evaluation categories Evaluation criteria Evaluation content Pts. Notes
International training Online class
  • Understanding of online class
  • Submission of online class essay
    (pre-training)
10 10 when submitted / 0 points
if not submitted
PDP
(plan for developing project)
  • Proposal for
    e-learning content
  • Evaluation of PDP     
  (pre-training)
30 Judging panel
Individual reflection notes
  • Participation & initiative during training
  • Submission of individual
    reflection notes
    (onsite training)
10 10 when submitted / 0 points
if not submitted
Team reflection notes
  • Active cooperation & communication within team
  • Submission of team
    reflection notes
    (onsite training)
10 10 when submitted / 0 points
if not submitted
World Contest Peer Evaluation Peer Evaluation Peer Evaluation 40 Relative evaluation
Developed content
  • Degree of proposal reflection
  • Was the e-learning content developed, in accordance with the project proposal, needs analysis, and design proposal?
10  
  • Completeness
  • Was it developed at the prototype level?
10  
  • Accessibility
  • Is the collection and use of data convenient and easily accessible?
10  
  • Interactivity
  • When used for e-learning instruction, does the content enable interactivity between learner/content, learner/learner, and learner/teacher?
10  
  • Usability
  • Was ease of use given consideration in the production of the material?
10  
  • International collaboration
  • Was the socio-cultural background of each partner country considered in the course of the project?
10 20  
  • Was the technological environment of each partner country considered in the course of the project?
10
Presentation of outcomes
  • Presentation skills
  • Does the presentation have aesthetic quality?
5 20  
  • Were appropriate explanations given?
5
  • Was an appropriate attitude demonstrated?
5
  • Did participant adhere to time constraints?
5
  • Growth potential & future plans
  • Is there growth potential and a plan to continue development in the future?
10  
Total score 200  
  • �̿���
  • �������� ��޹�ħ
  • ��� �� ȯ�ұ���
Institute of APEC Collaborative Education (IACE) 63beon-gil 2, Busandaehak-ro, Geumjeong-gu, Busan, 46241 Republic of Korea
Bussiness lisence no. 621-82-06068
Tel: (+82) 51-515-7617 Fax : (+82) 51-515-2617