Happy birthday to H5P! I received an email today that it’s 10 years old! Wow!
I created an H5P Evaluation (Guideline) Checklist to help ensure good quality H5P OERs. I haven’t done a formal pilot of the tool. If anyone is interested in trying it out, I would love to get some feedback on it, so I can improve it. Here are some questions I have about it:
• Does this checklist work as a guideline for creating interactions?
• Does this document function as checklist to ensure quality?
• How many interactive types have you tested it on?
• How many interactions in total have you tested it on?
• Was there anything criteria that did not make sense?
• Any suggestions for improvement?
Very clear elaborated checklist, exactly what I am working on too! Here is the link for my first version, which I used it as Rubric in the training course for self evaluating the content developed by the participants. MoodleNet. Happy to see that your checklist is with Open License, so I will try to reuse it as is! attributing you
I’m curious if in use you would maybe want add notes to the question responses? Or what do you do with a completed form? Are you aiming for a certain number of checks? How ,long might it take to complete?
It might help to maybe share a completed form and a link to the H5P content evaluated, that might help illustrate how it is applied.
And one can dream that something like these rubrics can be added to the various platforms that are collecting H5P – the OER Hub? the H5P studios? or even commentary/feedback on shared H5P (I can dream of infinite ideas !)
Thanks Parm we appreciate you sharing here and hope we can generate more interest/feedback. And Happy 10th birthday, H5P! I must have missed the announcement, that is a powerful milestone.
Hi Parm, thank you for sharing.
At MERLOT and SkillsCommons we have been brainstorming ideas to propose a H5P quality assurance rubric. Ms Sushumna is part of that It is critical that we have a good instrument developed and validated by our community. When would you be available for a zoom brainstorming call?
Thanks for sharing your h5p evaluation rubric, this is great work. In the past I’ve used Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI) as a baseline for creating a peer-review mechanism for h5p (for example: in Learnful.ca, H5P shared in groups have a peer-review mechanism that uses LORI).
The checklist you’ve created certainly connects well with LORI version 1.4, which hasn’t been updated since 2002 (by the looks of it) - might be time for someone to posit an update.
In regards to implementation - I’ve been searching for a good checklist to include for h5p authors in OER Studio and will certainly be looking at implementing this checklist in-part or whole - please keep in mind if you make any updates to this checklist.
One last note that may be relevant to your effort: the folks at LibreTexts have put together an H5P Accessibility Guide at a per-content-type level. The guide is integrated into both h5p authoring and browsing, which should hopefully let educators make better content type choices. There is an open call for editors/maintainers for the guide, which is free to use and includes an API that can be used by any h5p system.
Thanks for taking time to look at the checklist and your comments. Great idea about adding rubrics/checklists to platforms hosting H5P!! And especially the feedback idea; that would be a great way for content creators to incorporate feedback and ensure the quality of interactive contents.
I posted the checklist to the two forums to get feedback from slightly different groups about it. Basically, I think I tried to do too much with one checklist, and wanted to get a sense of how (and if it is) useful it currently is and what others think can be improved. I intended it to be used to:
evaluate existing H5P interactive contents
guide the creation of H5Ps - functionally, a production checklist
be used as a quality checklist for H5P interactive contents
Also of the criteria won’t be applicable for all H5P interactive contents, so the checklist might be too detailed and tedious to use. I’m debating splitting it up.
Thanks for sharing information about the LORI instrument. I’ve never heard of that before. The work by LibreText is excellent. I’ll be drawing from that for sure. Thank you again for sharing these great resources.
I’m new to this forum, and I just realized I should have responded to the messages with one message rather than separate ones. I’ll be doing that in the future.
Maybe I can stir up the network and see if any folks want to respond to the call for editors.
That would be great - feel free to share this info wherever you’d like. We’re also discussing a future-proof remedy for accessibility with the H5P Group. The content in the Guides may or may not be used, but it will no doubt move discourse in the right direction.
Woah that is very sensible! Though I found in my experience many authors did not make use of the very helpful built in contextual help (Tutorial and Example buttons) because they went right into the main entry fields.
But maybe you see differently with folks using LibreStudio?
And shouldn’t the H5P folks be on this? sounds like a key feature (insert rim-shot sound)
It’s true, most authors don’t use the contextual help buttons. That could be for a variety of reasons, but I’ve noticed more seasoned authors certainly refer to them. Our implementation of the API on the Studio will also become more verbose, with things like peer-review and checklists (like the one Parm shared in this thread). Step-by-step we’ll try and provide more scaffolding around the activity of authoring h5p, which from reports seems to be lacking for many that are new to h5p.
The H5P Group is aware of our efforts with the Guide. They like the Accessibility button in the Editor. They are looking at potential ways to connect Accessibility Reviewers with Developers in a manner that ensures accurate/sustainable guides. We’re hopeful that our attempts with LibreTexts prompts discussions around a future-proof way of approaching this topic.
I agree with the idea of splitting it up. Not because it is tedious, but because it will just help the creators understand the level of interactivity that they have included.
Just thinking out loud-- I would keep accessibility and inclusion as the first aspect and split the usability and functionality part.
Thank you for sharing LORI, I haven’t seen or known this earlier. And having Accessibility guide handy in H5P authoring environment is a great idea and will be very helpful. Looking forward to see this in all H5P authoring environments.