Resource evaluation criteria

Submitted resources are assessed broadly across three main categories, as described below.  A resource is not expected to satisfy all of the guidelines listed below, but should conform to most guidelines of best practice in order to be considered for endorsement.

Accessibility evaluation

A. Does the material conform to the UDL guidelines for content representation?:

  • Allow customised display of information (1.1)
  • Offer alternatives for auditory information (1,2)
  • Offer alternatives for visual information  (1.3)     
  • Clear vocabulary and symbols (2.1)
  • Clear syntax and structure (2.2)
  • Support decoding of text and symbols (2.3)
  • Promote understanding across languages (2.4)
  • Illustrate through multiple media (2.5)
  • Activate or supply background knowledge (3.1)
  • Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas and relationships (3.2)
  • Guide information processing and visualisation (3.3)
  • Maximise transfer and generalisation (3.4)

B. Is expected prior knowledge that is required to understand the resource clearly communicated?

C. Are the resources organised coherently and intuitively?

Suitability/use case evaluation

D. Different types of resources (content exposition / tutorials / labs / demonstrations) will be checked for suitability within the context of the resource type.

Quality evaluation

E. Is the content appropriate and sufficient to be useful as a resource at the level specified?


F. Do elements in this resource flow logically from one to the next (i.e., no discontinuous jumps)?


G. For visual materials (such as animations, videos and lecture slides / illustrations), does the material conform to Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Principles? 

  1. Matching Modality: Does the visual material combine diagrams / visual aids with spoken word (not too much written text). 
  2. Temporal Congruity: Are the audio and visual components synchronous?
  3. Spatial Contiguity: Are words and corresponding pictures co-located?
  4. Audio/Visual Quality: Are the audio and visual components of high quality (i.e. high resolution, no artefacts)?
  5. Signalling: Does the resource cue the user’s attention to important components, instead of simply presenting the information?
  6. Simplicity: Is the video free from extraneous images and sounds, and digressions off topic?

H. For interactive materials

  • Are interactive elements clearly distinguished from non-interactive elements?
  • Is the simulation screen relatively free from clutter and extraneous content?
  • Is the simulation in a modern, secure format (e.g. HTML5, not Adobe Flash)?