At the top of the checklist, the documentation of the evaluator (name and date) and the resource information (title, year, URL). This makes it easy to see and access the resource information.

​

The first column of the checklist is formatted listing the criteria for the evaluation, which is broken down into three major sections for ease: Resource, Alignment, Accessibility/Ease of Use. These sections are followed by a second column where the evaluator can document the evaluation findings from the listed criteria. This column is followed by a third column that is a checklist, where the evaluator can rate the findings as Poor, Good or “?” (unknown).

​

I refined the checklist multiple times, with the final iteration completed after applying the checklist to an open education resource (OER). It was during the application that I decided a combination for a rubric and a checklist was needed so I had a record of what I found (versus a yes/no check list). Documentation of the findings provides a synopsis for why I scored the material the way I did. I think this will be important when looking back over the different potential resources, so I have the context for my initial scoring.