This week, I revisited and improved the evaluation framework I developed last week, applying it to assess a virtual reality (VR) tool we are considering for a pilot program at the university where I work. Even though I had previously evaluated this tool and recommended it for use, this exercise offered new insights. It’s fascinating how a structured framework can uncover nuances that may otherwise remain hidden.
There’s something uniquely clarifying about organizing information into structured categories and neat little boxes. Perhaps it’s the satisfaction of catering to my hyper-organized brain, which rebels against dense walls of unstructured text. Or maybe this process engages my cognitive pathways in a way that sharpens critical thinking. Either way, summing up my evaluation with a letter grade brought clarity and validation to feelings I hadn’t yet articulated about the tool.
Finding the right tool for the job is often more challenging than completing the job itself. This is particularly true in emerging fields like VR, where uncharted territory is the norm. Identifying needs becomes an ambiguous process when the landscape is constantly shifting, and innovation is both the opportunity and the challenge.
After extensive research and testing, my team and I settled on a tool that seemed to address most of our priorities. It checked the major boxes and aligned with the project’s key objectives. Despite this, I couldn’t shake the feeling that something better might be out there. Even after making our initial selection, I found myself scanning for alternatives in my spare time. That's a testament to how difficult it can be to feel fully confident in these decisions.
Before applying my evaluation framework, I anticipated that the tool we chose would earn a high A. After all, it met most of our essential requirements and performed well during testing. Yet, when the framework scored it at a B, I felt an unexpected sense of validation. Diving into the specific criteria where the tool fell short provided a structured way to unpack my lingering dissatisfaction.
The framework not only highlighted areas for improvement but also reinforced a critical truth: there should be something better out there. This realization wasn’t disheartening but empowering. It clarified what I’ve felt all along. The field of VR tools, and ed tech more broadly, has room for growth.
As someone passionate about building better ed tech tools, this experience revealed the framework’s hidden potential. Beyond helping educators and decision-makers evaluate current tools, it could also guide tool developers in designing the next generation of solutions. By pinpointing where tools fall short, frameworks like mine can help developers prioritize research and development efforts. This insight has far-reaching implications for innovation.
For example, if my rubric shows that a tool consistently underperforms in areas like accessibility or user customization, developers can focus their resources on addressing these gaps. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they can refine it, creating tools that are more aligned with evolving user needs.
However, this approach comes with a caveat: the myth of the universal tool. No single tool can meet all needs. Striving to design a product that scores an A across every rubric category risks missing the point of what tools are meant to do. Tools should excel at specific tasks, not attempt to be everything to everyone.
In practice, much of my time is spent adapting tools designed for one purpose to meet another. This isn’t always ideal, but it reflects the reality of working in ed tech, where perfect solutions are rare. Sometimes the tools we need don’t exist, or they’re prohibitively expensive or inaccessible. A framework can’t solve those limitations, but it can provide a lens to make smarter compromises.
Selecting ed tech tools, particularly for innovative applications like VR, is a complex process. The evaluation framework I’ve developed doesn’t eliminate this complexity, but it does offer a way to manage it. By breaking down the evaluation into clear, measurable components, the framework provides a snapshot of how well a tool addresses diverse stakeholder needs.
In the end, the framework is more than just a decision-making tool. It's a guide for reflection, a catalyst for innovation, and a reminder that progress often comes from embracing imperfection and seeking incremental improvements. Whether you’re selecting a tool or building one, the goal isn’t perfection; it’s evolution.
Comments