OnlineHE_Toolkit

22 The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Project Number: 2020-1-RO01-KA226-HE-095434 copyright free material (e.g., images from Pixabay, Unsplash) , etc.). The learning material needs to be multimodal including audiovisual elements and interactivity (e.g., links to web pages). We can include augmented Reality (AR), for example, through the ARTutor (Lytridis & Tsinakos, 2018), three-dimensional (3D) multi-user virtual worlds (VWs) (Pellas & Kazanidis, 2015), digital diagrams/graphics, photographs/images, maps and infographics, posters, rubrics, job aids, various multimedia such as podcasts, among other resources, including printed material (e.g., books). Having collected the so-called “raw” material, we have to refurbish the digital versions of it, organise it and present it using digital tools. To achieve this, we have to purposefully select which technology is needed to support the pedagogical purposes we want to achieve (Kalogerou, 2019). For example, tools for audio- recording/editing (Audacity) , video capturing (Screencast-o-matic) , video creation (Animaker, Plotagon studio) , infographic/mind mapping creation (Genially, Canva) , digital content creation (H5P, iSpring Free) , quiz creation (Wordwall, Quizizz) . Since technology is vast, to discover the benefits and limitations of the tools we are considering to integrate, we could use ready-made rubrics o r prepare our own, for evaluation purposes. The rubrics can include specific criteria based on which each tool will be evaluated. Some examples of criteria are the following: ● whether the software meets the goals/standards of the curriculum (in terms of content either provided by the tool itself or developed using the tool) ● the degree of students’ involvement and interaction ● the degree of interaction with other users (e.g., especially if the tool is used for collaboration) ● the extent to which students engage with higher level thinking activities ● the degree of assistance/support (e.g., links to external websites, additional material) provided within the tool ● whether students’ progress can be tracked ● the degree of accessibility (e.g., the graphics/links/reading format) to cover learning abilities ● the quality of the multimedia incorporated ● the extent to which the design and structure is easy-to-use and navigate ● the extent to which the instructor can access students’ responses/interaction to monitor progress and provide feedback ● the extent to which the software is effective in teaching and/or assessing the desired content (depending on which of the two purposes we use it for) ● the degree of adaptability, that is the level on which the tool adapts to students’ learning needs such as the speed, the acquired skills, etc.