Agent Evaluation‐Learning Objectives - RutgersGRID/VIDAHub GitHub Wiki
VIDA Learning Objectives Builder Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
The Learning Objectives Builder is an AI-powered educational tool that helps instructors create effective learning objectives using Bloom's Taxonomy as a framework. Based on the screenshots provided, this tool appears to be part of the VIDA (Virtual Instructional Design Assistant) project, which aims to support educators with intuitive, accessible applications that enhance instructional design capabilities.
This evaluation assesses the tool against the ten VIDA Project guiding pillars, identifying strengths, areas for improvement, and alignment with UOES and EmTech mission and services.
Tool Description
The Learning Objectives Builder consists of three main components:
-
Bloom's Taxonomy Guide: Provides comprehensive information about Bloom's Taxonomy, including cognitive domain levels, action verbs, and a rubric for effective learning objectives.
-
Objective Analyzer: Allows users to input learning objectives for analysis against Bloom's Taxonomy and best practices, providing feedback on strengths and suggestions for improvement.
-
Sample Objectives: Showcases example learning objectives across different disciplines and taxonomy levels, organized by cognitive domain.
The tool follows a clear, instructional design approach, helping faculty understand and apply Bloom's Taxonomy to create measurable, effective learning objectives for their courses.
Alignment with UOES & EmTech Mission
The Learning Objectives Builder strongly aligns with several core mission elements of UOES and EmTech:
- Online Learning Excellence: Supports the creation of high-quality learning objectives, which are foundational to effective course design.
- Digital Pedagogy Leadership: Implements established best practices in instructional design through Bloom's Taxonomy.
- Standardization & Best Practices: Promotes consistency in learning objective development across disciplines.
- Cross-Departmental Support: Provides support for instructional design needs.
- DEIA Commitment: Offers a standardized approach accessible to all faculty regardless of prior knowledge.
The tool directly supports UOES's Instructional Design services, particularly:
- Course design consultation
- Learning objective alignment
- Faculty training and support
- Quality assurance reviews
Evaluation Matrix
| Criteria | Rating (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Accessibility by Design | ||
| Meets WCAG 2.1 AA standards | 3 | Basic elements appear accessible, but full assessment not possible from screenshots |
| Keyboard navigation fully supported | 3 | Navigation elements visible, but functionality not fully verifiable |
| Proper heading structure and semantic HTML | 4 | Clear heading hierarchy observed in screenshots |
| Sufficient color contrast ratios | 4 | Good contrast between text and backgrounds |
| Text alternatives for non-text content | 3 | Alt text for Bloom's Taxonomy pyramid likely present but not verifiable |
| Responsive design works at 200% zoom | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Screen reader compatible | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Supports accessibility in its outputs | 3 | Outputs are text-based and likely accessible |
| Section Average | 3.4 | |
| 2. Augmentation, Not Replacement | ||
| Positions tool as enhancing rather than replacing human expertise | 5 | Clearly presented as assistant rather than replacement |
| Maintains "human in the loop" philosophy | 5 | Provides suggestions but leaves decisions to the instructor |
| Handles routine tasks while freeing users for higher-value work | 4 | Automates analysis of learning objectives against taxonomy |
| Includes collaboration features | 2 | Limited evidence of collaborative features |
| Emphasizes quality improvement in messaging | 5 | Focused on improving learning objective quality |
| Extends rather than replaces human expertise | 5 | Provides guidance while respecting instructor judgment |
| Section Average | 4.3 | |
| 3. Rapid Tool Development Framework | ||
| Uses standardized templates | 4 | Consistent interface suggests template usage |
| Employs modular, reusable components | 4 | Navigation, tabs, and input areas appear modular |
| Follows project coding standards | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Includes comprehensive documentation | 4 | Extensive documentation of Bloom's Taxonomy |
| Deployed through standard CI/CD pipeline | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Uses shared UI components and patterns | 4 | Consistent UI elements across sections |
| Section Average | 4.0 | |
| 4. Educational Pedagogy Integration | ||
| Aligns with established learning science principles | 5 | Directly implements Bloom's Taxonomy |
| Promotes active learning and engagement | 4 | Encourages thoughtful development of objectives |
| Supports diverse teaching and learning styles | 4 | Examples from multiple disciplines |
| Facilitates assessment and feedback mechanisms | 4 | Provides feedback on learning objectives |
| Incorporates Universal Design for Learning principles | 3 | Some elements present but not comprehensive |
| Enables mapping to learning objectives | 5 | Core purpose of the tool |
| Supports various educational contexts | 4 | Examples across multiple disciplines |
| Section Average | 4.1 | |
| 5. Faculty Empowerment & Agency | ||
| Provides intuitive interface requiring minimal technical expertise | 4 | Clean, straightforward interface |
| Offers granular control over AI-generated outputs | 3 | Analysis provided, but control over modifications unclear |
| Allows customization for specific teaching contexts | 4 | Supports different disciplines and levels |
| Includes clear, jargon-free documentation | 5 | Educational terms explained clearly |
| Respects faculty expertise and autonomy | 5 | Provides suggestions rather than mandates |
| Provides multiple pathways for different tech comfort levels | 3 | Basic features accessible, but may lack advanced options |
| Enables user contributions to tool improvement | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Section Average | 4.0 | |
| 6. Ethical AI Implementation | ||
| Transparent about AI involvement in content creation | 3 | AI role in analysis not explicitly disclosed |
| Addresses bias in AI-generated content | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Protects user privacy and data security | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Provides options to review and modify AI suggestions | 4 | Suggestions presented for user consideration |
| Establishes clear guidelines for appropriate use | 4 | Clear descriptions of how to use the tool |
| Implements content filtering for problematic outputs | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Section Average | 3.7 | |
| 7. Institutional Integration | ||
| Works within existing educational technology ecosystems | 3 | Standalone web application, integration unclear |
| Supports flexible authentication | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Allows institution-specific branding/customization | 2 | No evidence of institutional branding options |
| Facilitates analytics aligned with institutional needs | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Complies with institutional data policies | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Enables LMS integration where appropriate | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Provides flexible deployment options | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Section Average | 2.5 | |
| 8. Continuous Improvement Through User Feedback | ||
| Includes robust feedback mechanisms | N/A | No visible feedback mechanisms in screenshots |
| Provides clear pathways for feature requests | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Incorporates analytics to identify usage patterns | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Maintains communication channels with users | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Has undergone usability testing | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Demonstrates improvements based on user feedback | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Section Average | N/A | |
| 9. Scalable and Sustainable Infrastructure | ||
| Designed for growth in users and functionality | 3 | Simple web interface should scale well |
| Optimized for resource efficiency | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Includes maintenance documentation | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Has appropriate monitoring and alerting | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Designed with cost efficiency in mind | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Plans for long-term sustainability | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Section Average | 3.0 | |
| 10. Knowledge Sharing and Community Building | ||
| Facilitates sharing of best practices | 4 | Provides examples and guidelines |
| Supports collaborative development | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Includes case studies or examples | 5 | Rich examples across disciplines |
| Provides mechanisms for peer support | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Recognizes community contributions | N/A | Cannot verify from screenshots |
| Promotes inclusive community of practice | 3 | Tool accessible to various disciplines |
| Section Average | 4.0 |
Overall Score
| Pillar | Average Rating | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Accessibility by Design | 3.4 | Generally accessible, but some aspects cannot be verified |
| 2. Augmentation, Not Replacement | 4.3 | Strong focus on enhancing faculty capabilities |
| 3. Rapid Tool Development Framework | 4.0 | Evidence of standardized development approach |
| 4. Educational Pedagogy Integration | 4.1 | Excellent integration of established pedagogical principles |
| 5. Faculty Empowerment & Agency | 4.0 | Empowers faculty with guidance while preserving autonomy |
| 6. Ethical AI Implementation | 3.7 | Generally ethical approach but limited transparency about AI role |
| 7. Institutional Integration | 2.5 | Limited evidence of institutional integration features |
| 8. Continuous Improvement Through User Feedback | N/A | Cannot assess from available screenshots |
| 9. Scalable and Sustainable Infrastructure | 3.0 | Limited evidence available |
| 10. Knowledge Sharing and Community Building | 4.0 | Strong educational resources and examples |
| OVERALL AVERAGE | 3.7 | Solid educational tool with strong pedagogical foundation |
Key Strengths
-
Strong Pedagogical Foundation: The tool is built on well-established educational principles (Bloom's Taxonomy) and provides comprehensive guidance on their application.
-
Faculty Empowerment: The tool respects faculty autonomy while providing valuable guidance, positioning itself as an assistant rather than a replacement.
-
Educational Resource Quality: Excellent documentation of Bloom's Taxonomy with clear examples, action verbs, and rubrics for effective learning objectives.
-
User-Friendly Interface: Clean, intuitive design with logical navigation and clear instructions.
-
Discipline Flexibility: Supports multiple academic disciplines with relevant examples.
Areas for Improvement
-
Collaboration Features: Limited evidence of features that would enable sharing or collaboration among faculty.
-
Institutional Integration: No clear indication of how the tool integrates with existing institutional systems like LMS platforms.
-
Feedback Mechanisms: No visible methods for users to provide feedback for tool improvement.
-
AI Transparency: The role of AI in the analysis process could be more explicitly communicated.
-
Advanced Customization: Limited evidence of advanced features for more technically proficient users.
N/A Items and Next Steps
Several criteria could not be evaluated based solely on the screenshots provided:
-
Accessibility Testing: Conduct formal accessibility testing with screen readers and keyboard-only navigation.
-
User Feedback System: Implement mechanisms for users to provide feedback and request features.
-
Integration Capabilities: Develop LMS integration options and institutional customization features.
-
Privacy and Security: Document data handling practices and ensure compliance with institutional policies.
-
Monitoring and Analytics: Implement usage tracking to identify patterns and improvement opportunities.
-
Community Features: Consider adding capabilities for sharing user-created learning objectives and best practices.
Conclusion
The Learning Objectives Builder demonstrates strong alignment with the VIDA Project's educational focus and several key pillars, particularly in pedagogical integration, faculty empowerment, and augmentation rather than replacement of human expertise. The tool effectively supports UOES's instructional design mission by providing faculty with guidance on creating effective learning objectives.
To fully realize the project's vision, future development should focus on enhancing institutional integration, implementing feedback mechanisms, improving collaboration features, and ensuring comprehensive accessibility. With these improvements, the Learning Objectives Builder could become an even more valuable component of the VIDA ecosystem and further advance UOES's mission of online learning excellence.