| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Label | Theme | Desired outcome | Timestamp | Not Yet | Early Stage | Proficient | Exceptional | N/A to Product | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||
2 | Timestamp each row (recommend using keyboard shortcuts) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | score of 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 0a | Contact info - rubric questions | We would like your contact info in order to connect if needed about this rubric - Peter Morgan, pmorgan@echo360.com, 8019063563 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 0b | Contact info - for public directory submission | This contact info will be shared on the 1EdTech TrustedApp directory, and will be available for anyone to use if they have questions - Pete Morgan, pmorgan@echo360.com | |||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | 1a | Skills Validation | Tool (product, service, etc) supports the recognition and validation of learner skills based on reliable, authentic evidence. | Criteria | The product does not provide an ability to share evidence of skills. There may be evaluation options, but the product's capabilities are at a high level and do not allow for assessing at the skill level. There is little to no evidence that the student applied relevant knowledge or skills in creating the product. No performance indicators or criteria are established to show validation. | The product has some capabiity to evaluate skills, but the validation is inconsistent or superficial. There is limited evidence that the student engaged in meaningful application of skills. Assessment of skills may rely on indirect or inferred evidence rather than explicit demonstrations. | The product clearly reflects evaluation of skills, with multiple indicators showing application and understanding. Evidence is observable, though some skill demonstrations may require additional clarification or context. | The product provides robust, direct evidence of the student’s mastery of targeted skills. Every component is purposefully designed to validate specific abilities, with clear, authentic demonstrations embedded. The product may exceed expectations by integrating skills across domains and including self-assessment or reflection elements that strengthen the validation process. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/wC2sTYjbfYUmLSDMCcH3U8 | ||||||||||||||||
8 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Notes | GoReact's tech stack provides direct access to video evidence of skills/competencies through custom designable video-based analysis, simulation and demonstration acitivty types directly tied to feedback (evaluator assessment & self-reflection: text, audio, video and marker feedback options; AI Assistant: AI surfaced text feedback tied to discipline specific, owner designated skills) and custom buildable rubrics for summative assessment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | 1b | Skills Validation | Analyze the tool’s ability to track and report the number and type of skills attained by learners in specific pathways. | Criteria | The product does not track skills by pathway or make skill requirements visible to learners or admins. Neither group can see what skills are required for a particular credential, role, or program. Pathway guidance is absent or generic, and there is no alignment between learning experiences and specific skill outcomes. | The product tracks skills in the backend or / for administrative use, but provides limited or unclear visibility to learners. Skills may be listed in course descriptions or program overviews, but they are not dynamically connected to a learner’s pathway or progress. Learners must rely on external resources or advisors to understand skill requirements. | The product clearly tracks and displays skills required for each defined learning pathway. Learners can view pathway-specific skill maps, see which competencies they have completed, and understand which ones remain. The system supports alignment between skills, learning experiences, and credential outcomes. Visual indicators help learners monitor progress toward skill acquisition within the pathway. | The product offers advanced, personalized visualization of skill requirements and attainment per pathway. Learners can explore skill-to-pathway connections dynamically, with features such as interactive skill graphs, role-based outcomes, credential stacks, and real-time progress tracking. The system may suggest actions to close skill gaps and highlight opportunities for cross-pathway skill development. Skills are linked to labor market data, digital credentials, and learner-owned records (e.g., CLR, Open Badges), empowering learners to make informed decisions about their education and career trajectories. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/xKS4pW2fk7YWnrJn7HeRFv | ||||||||||||||||
12 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Notes | Visualization of skill requirements/attainment is captured in side-by-side video & feedback/assessment product design, learner self-reflective transcript and speech analytics and time-embedded AI feedback tying skils demonstration to deliberate praise or improvement markers. Improvement markers are construvtively suggestive in nature to induce practice and skill gap closure. All AI markers are based in dsicipline specific and durable skill definitions while editable by activity owner to draw direct connection to learning pathways, digital credentials and desired outcomes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | 1c | Skills Validation | Tool provides a measurement of learner progression over time by assessing how skill acquisition aligns with pathway milestones and learner goals. | Criteria | The product does not track skills by pathway or make them visible to learners. Learners cannot view required skills, competencies, or progression. There is no structured alignment between learner actions and skill development. Progress is either untracked or expressed in generic, non-skill-based terms (e.g., course completions only). | The product provides limited tracking and visibility of skills per pathway. Learners may see a static list of required skills or competencies, but these are not interactive or clearly aligned with real-time progress. The product may show completion of courses or modules but does not clearly connect these to skill mastery or show progression through a pathway. Reflection on progress is minimal and largely instructor-driven. | The product supports clear tracking of skills aligned to defined learning pathways. Learners can view which skills are required, which have been achieved, and which are in progress. Visual progress indicators (e.g., checkmarks, progress bars) are available for each skill or competency. The system provides structured feedback and reflects learner movement through the pathway. Skills are meaningfully tied to assessments and learning activities, supporting self-awareness and planning. | The product offers an integrated, learner-centered experience that tracks and visualizes skill attainment across individualized pathways. Learners can interactively explore required skills, view mastery evidence, and reflect on their own progression with rich, real-time feedback. Skill progression is visualized through dashboards, timelines, or portfolios, and personalized next steps are suggested. The system supports cross-pathway comparisons, career-aligned skill tracking, and integration with external validation (e.g., digital credentials, CLR, or employer-recognized frameworks). Reflection tools and learner-owned records foster deep engagement and goal setting. Learners are owners of their data, and are able to select how data is shared. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/oLbnaH7FGshuQx9t8NhY2Z | ||||||||||||||||
16 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Notes | Activty-based engagement reporting, AI marker tracking, feedback, and scored rubric access available to all users with proper permissions to video sessions. Additionally, GoReact's Data API provides comprehensive data across an entire organization linking rubrics across multiple activites/courses, single learner progress over time, curriculum strengths/gaps and all other relevant action data deliverable to necessary roles/responsibilities. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | 1d | Skills Validation | Provides milestone tracking mechanisms for both learners and administrators. | Criteria | The product does not support the definition, tracking, or awarding of milestones within a learning pathway. There is no internal tracking system nor visible dashboard. There is no recognition of learner progress at intermediate stages, and learners cannot view or be notified of any meaningful checkpoints on their journey. | The product allows for manual or informal milestone tracking, but the process is limited and inconsistently applied. Milestones may be loosely defined (e.g., module completion), with limited automation for awarding or limited visibility to learners. Learners may receive completion messages or static badges, but there is little context or connection to a broader pathway. Tracking info and/or dashboards may be limited in even admin view. | The product enables structured tracking and awarding of clearly defined milestones aligned with competencies within a pathway. Milestones can be set at meaningful progression points (e.g., skill clusters, performance tasks), awarded automatically or by instructor validation, and are visible to learners through dashboards or notifications. Learners can track which milestones they have earned, see upcoming ones, and understand how milestones connect to their overall goals. | The product offers a fully integrated milestone system that supports dynamic tracking, automated awarding, and rich visibility for learners, admins and invited guests of the learner. Milestones are customizable and can be aligned to competencies, credentials, or career goals. Awards may include digital credentials (e.g., badges, CLR entries), and are visually integrated into learner dashboards, timelines, or portfolios. Learners receive real-time updates, contextual feedback, and can use earned milestones to signal progress to external audiences (e.g., employers, advisors). The system supports reflection, stackable credentialing, and showcases milestones as part of a learner’s mastery journey. Future skills paths and opportunities unlocked by those paths are visible. | (n/a is not an option in this category) | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/rJ4ay719PwSKpCAaQEzfcw | ||||||||||||||||
20 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Notes | GoReact provides access to visuals, data and other forms of evidence tied to milestones and accomplishments with the exception of an integrated milestone system for automated awarding. Connective tissue between video, feedback (evaluator and AI) and rubrics provides learners with ability to track progress and earned milestones while building awareness of which milestones still require additional work. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | 1e | Skills Validation | The Competency or Skill Architecture supports the following elements: Module or course (module or course not required, as your flow may start with competency) → competency → skill → evidence mapping to learners, faculty, and admins | Criteria | Does not support or make visible any of the listed elements in the outcome | Supports and gives visibility to 1 or 2 connections in desired outcome | Supports most connections in desired outcomes but does not provide visibility to all audiences (admin, faculty, learner); or provides visibility of 3/4 connections | Competency architecture supports all connections in desired outcomes and all audiences have visibility to connections | (n/a is not an option in this category) | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/JBHMmCw2mvqDDy9ZZXadCn | ||||||||||||||||
24 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Notes | GoReact, whether used as a standalone or integrated through an LMS system or publication, begins with course/module structure which fuels into competnecy specific learning activities designed for skills analysis, practice and/or demonstration, then maps evidence of action/competency/skill through evaluator and/or AI surfaced feedback, markers and rubrics to learners/faculty/admins. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | 2a | Credential Portability & Verification | Issues portable, verifiable credentials (VCs) | Criteria | The platform does not issue credentials, or issues them in a static format that cannot be validated or transferred to external systems. There is no support for open credentialing standards or verification protocols. | The platform issues credentials that include basic metadata, but they are not aligned with recognized standards and lack mechanisms for digital verification. Portability is limited, requiring manual intervention to share or validate. | Credentials issued by the platform follow recognized frameworks (e.g., Open Badges v2 or v3, Verifiable Credentials) and include mechanisms for recipients or verifiers to validate authenticity. Credentials can be easily shared across multiple platforms and reflect both for- and non-credit models. | The platform issues fully portable, interoperable credentials aligned with current global standards, using digitally signed or blockchain-anchored methods. Verification is automated, tamper-evident, and credentials are easily exchanged across ecosystems via standard APIs or wallets. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/fF5kiVeTKb4JJts7krZupf | ||||||||||||||||
28 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Notes | GoReact does not currently issue credentials. We support credential awarding partners (WGU Achievement Wallet, McGraw-Hill Education) by serving as the video evidence-base supporting credenital awarding. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | 2b | Credential Portability & Verification | Aggregates credentials from multiple systems of record | Criteria | The platform does not support the collection or integration of credentials issued outside its own system. Learner records are isolated and not interoperable. | Credentials can be manually uploaded from one or two external sources, but with limited metadata, no verification, and no centralized view. Aggregation is superficial and non-automated. | The platform supports the aggregation of credentials from multiple validated sources of record and credit type (e.g., other credentialing systems, institutions, or providers). The system can create a "unified learner profile," that includes data like imported credential metadata and verification status. Transfer and / or cross-institutional credits can be accomodated. | Credentials are dynamically aggregated from a wide range of systems in real-time using APIs and interoperability standards. Transfer and / or cross-institutional credits can be accomodated. Metadata is harmonized, deduplicated, and presented through a comprehensive learner record interface that includes timestamps, issuers, and usage insights. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/S64Efr2NNd1U66SF7xSh6B | ||||||||||||||||
32 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Notes | GoReact is used by credential issuing partners as the video evidence-base supporting credenital awarding, but those partner's platforms are collecting and integrating credentials aggregarted from a wide range of systems in real-time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | 3a | Accessibility, Ethics & Data Governance | Tech provider has a VPAT and/or HECVAT available and up to date | Criteria | The platform does not provide a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) or Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit (HECVAT), or the available documentation is severely outdated. There is no evidence of accessibility or security review. | A VPAT or HECVAT is available but may not reflect the current product version, may be incomplete, or is not easily accessible to users. The documentation may require formal request and may not include relevant updates. | A current VPAT and/or HECVAT exists, is complete, and available upon request. The documentation accurately reflects the most recent version of the platform, and addresses known accessibility and security concerns. | The platform offers publicly available, up-to-date VPAT and HECVAT documentation reviewed within the past year plus an accesibility review that was completed by a third party. Proof of meeting or exceeding WCAG, federal, and state standards are available. Accessibility and security practices are continuously monitored, updated, and transparently reported to stakeholders. | (n/a is not an option in this category) | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/L2z4UM7P4QyDUMJvwVB62u | ||||||||||||||||
36 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Notes | Publically avaialble VPAT, Third-Party VPAT and HECVAT documentation reviewed multile times annually. GoReact currently meets and exceeds all state, federal and WCAG 2.1 AA standards and is conducting a new Third-Party VPAT audit currently in progress to identify, develop and exceed WCAG 2.2 AAA standards. Accessiblity standards are continuously monitored, updated and reported. | https://get.goreact.com/compliance/ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | 3b | Accessibility, Ethics & Data Governance | Learners are able to opt in or out of data sharing when using vendor's product. | Criteria | Learners do not have any options regarding consenting to management of their data. | Learners are presented with information about how their data is managed, but they do not have any opt in/out tools to consent to sharing. or Learniers may opt out of data sharing, but their experience is then limited and creates risks around meeting academic requirements. | Learners may opt in or out of consenting to share data, but there is no transparency how that data may be shared | Learners have the option to opt in or out of consenting to share data; clear parameters of how (to whom, why, etc) of how that data is managed and shared is presented. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/QZKBuXmMMHZ1ixvVaFhDRe | ||||||||||||||||
40 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Notes | Learner data is unused for any sharing purposed driven by GoReact, but can be shared by learner/content owner through specific sharing functionalities. All data is protected by SOCII Tyle 2, HIPPA, COPA and FERPA regulations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Timestamp | Answered 10/8/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | 4a | Employer Alignment & Personalization | Customization to employer-specific skill frameworks | Criteria | The platform does not support customization or tagging to any employer-defined competencies or frameworks. All skills and outcomes are hardcoded and inflexible. | Skills can be tagged or organized into general domains but cannot be mapped directly to specific employer or industry frameworks. Customization requires workarounds or external tools. | Employers can configure their own skill frameworks within the platform or align existing program competencies to their models. These frameworks are used in assessments, reports, and learner-facing views. | The platform enables seamless import, editing, and visualization of multiple employer-specific frameworks. Frameworks are tightly integrated into all platform functions, including credentialing, reporting, and skill gap analysis. Real-time analytics provide insights into learner alignment and workforce readiness. Data is available for both internal and external reporting. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/BAFXVFqUfwKHoFqeYPeWet | ||||||||||||||||
44 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Notes | GoReat is fully customizable for all evaluation and assessment opportunities. Centrally-designed learning activities include custom buildable rubrics, ownership and assignment of AI markers and additional/fully customizable marker sets (non-AI enabled). Real-time durable transcript, analytics, feedback and action data provided for both internal and external reporting needs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | 4b | Employer Alignment & Personalization | Engagement with employers is part of the academic journey. | Criteria | There is no feature within the platform to support employer-integrated projects or real-world learning workflows. | Employers can participate in limited ways, such as providing project descriptions or reviewing submissions, but without structured workflows or collaboration tools. | The platform supports employer use case workflows, including structured project templates, approval cycles, and progress tracking tools for authentic learning integration. | Full project lifecycle support for employer integration including team collaboration spaces, role-based access, milestone tracking, and real-time reporting. Employers can create, manage, assess, and certify projects aligned to skill outcomes. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/W4jFGwX61WrfgBpGBEEm47 | ||||||||||||||||
48 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Notes | GoReact supports employer engagement in multipel facets. HigherEd learning and Corporate training opportunities including all of the above listed features (team collaboration spaces, role-based access, milestone tracking, and real-time reporting). If adopting GoReact inside of the employer institution, employers have the ability to create, manage, assess and certify learner projects. If the employer is not adopting GoReact inside of their institution, learners from within thier HigherEd orgs or Personal Professional Development accounts can share video submissions with employers giving them access to all of GoReact's features/functionalities within the feedback/assessment experience to manage, assess and certify projects aligned to skill outcomes even while outside of the primary organization - this feature is known as Guest Review and is backed/certified by our SocII Type 2 security standards. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | 5a | Assessment & Reporting Rigor | Supports rubric-based, maturity-model, authentic, or tiered assessment/s. | Criteria | The platform only supports basic binary assessments (e.g., complete/incomplete) or single-score evaluations. No support for rubrics, authentic assessments, progression levels, or tiered models. | Rubric functionality exists but is limited in scope (e.g., no reusable templates, no multi-criteria scoring). Assessment data is siloed and cannot support longitudinal analysis. Limited support for authentic assessment. | The platform enables creation and application of rubric-based, tiered, authentic, or maturity-model assessments, with configurable criteria and outcome-based reporting. Data is stored for trend analysis and learner feedback. | The platform supports complex authentic assessment models and personalized criteria, dynamic scoring logic, and predictive analytics. Faculty can customize calculations in rubrics and scoring outside rubrics. Educators and learners can track mastery progression across time and learning pathways using rich visualizations and benchmarks. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/YMkQAErM5KbE79FzXBSXMS | ||||||||||||||||
52 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Notes | GoReact boasts a custom rubric builder avaialble for scoring and summitive evlauation on all activity types. The rubric builder includes structure models like Numeric scales, Qualitative scales, check-box items, points awarded out of possible items, and text response options. Each scoring logic can be customized in title, description, points, criteria, category and be utilized in combination with one another within the same form. Automatic score passback available by defauly when integrated through an LMS system via LTI 1.1. and 1.3. All data (criteria, line items, score/scale possible, score/scale awarded, text commetns, etc.) avaialble via GoReact's Insights Data API designed to be quereable by intenal org analytic tools (PowerBi, Tableu, Sigms, etc.). The API can produce data outputs tied to user, course, activity, time, and organization allocating data from rubric, comments, markers, videos submitted, videos critiqued, peer evaluation, and other media types. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | 5b | Assessment & Reporting Rigor | Integration with Carnegie credit or time-based systems | Criteria | The platform lacks any features to track time-on-task or map learning to academic credit systems. | Educators or admins can manually enter or associate learning activities with Carnegie units or clock hours, but tracking is disconnected from learning outcomes. | Learning outcomes and achievements are mapped to credit or time-based equivalencies using configurable templates. Integration with institutional reporting systems is available. Data is available for both internal and external reporting. | Automated calculation and export of Carnegie units or time-based credits tied to learning outcomes. Seamless integration with registrar or SIS platforms for transcript-ready reporting and auditing. Data is available for both internal and external reporting. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/6yzdEms47eHR93QTWXwg4u | ||||||||||||||||
56 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | Notes | Being video based, time is automatically calculated and reports per user. Additional metrics from GoReact's Insights Data API provide data supporting all Carnegie units and more competency-based units which can be extracted and reported/integrated to registrar, SIS platform, and internal/external use. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | 6a | Architecture, Integration & Innovation | Evaluate the tool’s ability to support open-source code access and allow for future extensibility through community-developed plugins or custom features. | Criteria | The product is fully proprietary and closed. It offers no open-source compatibility, no API access, and no extensibility. Users cannot customize or integrate the product with other systems to meet CBE-supporting-specific needs. Core components are fixed, limiting innovation or alignment with evolving competency frameworks. | The product offers limited extensibility, such as basic APIs or plug-in support, but is not open-source compatible. Customization is possible in narrow, vendor-defined areas, often requiring vendor involvement or additional fees. While some integrations may be available, they do not fully support the adaptability and modularity needed in CBE-supporting environments. | The product supports open standards and provides extensible APIs, webhooks, or SDKs that allow institutions to customize workflows, integrate external tools, or adapt the platform to specific CBE-supporting models. While not fully open-source, the product allows for substantial institutional control, including integration with open-source CBE-supporting-aligned systems (e.g., LRS, CLR issuers, CASE frameworks). Extensibility supports innovation and alignment with institution-specific competency structures. | The product is built with open-source compatibility at its core and/or is itself an open-source platform or provides robust support for open-source extensions. It offers deep configurability, modular architecture, and rich, well-documented APIs that empower institutions to co-develop, integrate, and extend the system to meet diverse and evolving CBE-supporting needs. The product participates in or supports open-source communities and contributes to open ecosystems, enabling collective innovation and sustainability. Institutions can fully tailor the system to support unique pedagogical models, reporting structures, and credentialing mechanisms. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/G3VD8ni2oQrBFghfwD2aLk | ||||||||||||||||
60 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | Notes | GoReact is proprietary and closed-source, but offers access to our data API and is fully customizable and integratable via 1EdTech LTI 1.1 and 1.3 standards meeting tailorability for diverse and evolving CBE standards, Durable Skills, Discipline specific skills, and workforce readiness focuses. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | 6b | Architecture, Integration & Innovation | Analyze the extent to which the tool supports integration via APIs, LTI, and recognized interoperability standards such as 1EdTech. | Criteria | The product does not support any form of interoperability. It lacks API access, does not support LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability), and has no alignment with 1EdTech standards. It functions as a closed system, making it difficult or impossible to integrate with external tools or systems used in CBE-supporting environments. | The product provides limited or partial interoperability capabilities. It may offer basic API access or support older or minimal versions of LTI (e.g., LTI 1.1). Integration with other tools or platforms is possible but often requires workarounds or vendor involvement. There is minimal support for 1EdTech standards relevant to CBE-supporting, such as CASE (for competencies) or CLR. | The product offers robust and well-documented API access, supports current LTI standards and aligns with key 1EdTech standards relevant to CBE-supporting such as CASE, CLR, and Open Badges. It integrates well with learning ecosystems (e.g., LMS, SIS, credential platforms) and allows for secure data exchange and orchestration across systems to support mastery tracking and learner mobility. | The product is fully committed to open interoperability and serves as a model of 1EdTech-aligned integration. It supports comprehensive, standards-based interoperability, including advanced API capabilities, LTI 1.3 Advantage, CASE, CLR, Open Badges, QTI, and other relevant specifications. The product demonstrates leadership in interoperability by participating in working groups, certifications, or open initiatives. It enables institutions to flexibly connect, scale, and innovate their CBE-supporting infrastructure through a standards-first design. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/qDStH3J9SNefCBzxjZtepD | ||||||||||||||||
64 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | Notes | Already listed as a 1EdTech prefferred vendor, GoReact fully supports comprehensive, standards-based interoperability, including advanced API capabilities, LTI 1.3 Advantage, and other relevant specifications. Interoperability is and has always been a core focus of the technology founded in standards-first design. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | 7a | Learner Empowerment & Experience | Understand how clearly and accessibly the platform communicates learning outcomes to students. | Criteria | Learners have no access to their learning outcomes within the product. Competencies, progress, and expectations are either invisible or presented in technical, confusing, or inaccessible ways. The system is opaque, and learners are unable to monitor or understand their progress toward mastery. | Learners can view learning outcomes, but presentation is limited or lacks clarity. Outcomes may be difficult to interpret, buried in menus, or expressed in institutional language rather than learner-friendly terms. Progress indicators may exist but offer little guidance or actionable insight for the learner. Understanding is possible but not well-supported. | Learners have clear, consistent, and intuitive access to their learning outcomes and progress toward mastery. Outcomes are framed in accessible language, aligned with competencies, and supported by visual indicators (e.g., progress bars, status labels). Learners can track their advancement, identify unmet competencies, and understand what is required for mastery. The system supports reflection and encourages self-directed learning. | Learners experience full transparency and ownership of their learning journey. Learning outcomes are presented in highly understandable, personalized, and interactive formats (e.g., dashboards, mastery transcripts, performance evidence). Learners can see how competencies connect to career, credentials, or life goals. The product fosters learner agency through reflection prompts, action plans, and goal setting tied to outcomes. The experience empowers learners to make informed decisions, advocate for their learning needs, and celebrate growth. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/dVA33uVu13GHJZvkdGD2Vs | ||||||||||||||||
68 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | Notes | Dashboards, transcripts, performance evidence, time-embedded/encoded feedback, rubric posting and reporting, skills markers (strengths), skills markers (areas of improvement) and more available to learners side-by-side with video evidence submissions. Activity design drives self reflection, peer evaluation, needed practice/repractice opportunities, and goal setting strategies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | 7b | Apply real-time data visualization to assess learner progress and engagement via interactive dashboards. | Criteria | The product does not offer a progress dashboard for learners. There is no way for learners to view their progress toward competencies or mastery. Any updates on progress are inaccessible, delayed, or dependent on instructor communication. | A progress dashboard is available but is limited in functionality or delayed in updates. Learners may see static snapshots of progress or broad completion percentages. Dashboards are mostly informational, not interactive, and may require manual (instructor, admin, etc) input to refresh. The view lacks detail on competency-specific progress. | The product provides a clear, interactive dashboard that reflects real-time or near real-time updates on learner progress. Learners can track their status by competency, view evidence of learning, and explore what remains to be completed. The dashboard includes visual cues (e.g., color codes, bars, or icons) to enhance understanding and supports learner agency by enabling filtering or drilling down into specific areas. | The dashboard is dynamic, real-time, and deeply personalized. Learners can interact with it to explore progress across competencies, skill areas, and time. It integrates multiple forms of data (e.g., assessment results, feedback, artifacts) and allows learners to reflect, set goals, or link progress to credentials and future learning pathways. The experience supports continuous learning by promoting self-assessment, nudges for action, and transparency in how every activity contributes to mastery. Dashboards are mobile-friendly, accessible, and aligned with CBE-supporting best practices. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/pKtUp9eKvbvbm2HiU2DUBX | |||||||||||||||||
72 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Notes | Default dashboards avaialble for activity engagement, AI driven analytics, durable transcripts, and feedback interaction all in real-time. GoReact integrates multiple forms of data through assessment results, feedback and artifacts as well as allows learners to reflect, set goals, or link progress to credentials and future learning pathways through our Guest Review link functionality. GoReact in its entirety is mobile friendly (hosted as a PWA), 100% accessible, and perfectly aligned/designable with CBE and skills mastery supporting best practces. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | 8a | Evidence & Artifact Management | Create a repository of learner artifacts that support performance-based assessments and showcase competency development. | Criteria | The product does not provide a feature for storing or organizing learner-created artifacts. There is no centralized location for uploading, managing, or aligning performance-based evidence with competencies. Learners and instructors must rely on external tools or informal methods to track and store work. | The product includes a basic artifact storage function. Learners can upload files or submit work, but there is limited organization or alignment with specific competencies. Tagging or metadata may be inconsistent, and search or retrieval features are minimal. The product's solution to serve as a "artifact library" serves more as a repository than a structured evidence system. | The product offers a structured artifact library that allows learners and educators to store, organize, and tag performance-based evidence aligned with specific competencies. Artifacts may include various formats (e.g., documents, videos, images, links), and the system enables clear connections between artifacts, feedback, and learning outcomes. Users can easily retrieve artifacts for review, reflection, or validation. | The artifact library is a robust, dynamic component of the CBE-supporting experience. It supports multimodal, performance-based evidence and is fully integrated with the competency framework, dashboards, and learner records (e.g., CLR, mastery transcript). Learners and instructors can tag artifacts to competencies, add reflections, receive and archive feedback, and curate collections for portfolios, credentialing, or employer review. The library supports version control, sharing, and long-term storage, fostering transparency, learner agency, and authentic demonstration of mastery over time. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/6b7gCSJ3Jdv1i2p1QJtoSX | ||||||||||||||||
76 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Notes | GoReact serves in itself as an artifact library as long as users have access to course/activity integrations as well as the embedded GoReact Library serves as the repository for all meida, assessment forms, markers, documents and more. In the event that any course/activity access point is lost, GoReact preserves all video evidence saved on our servers for a federally required 5-year period. Videos, feedback, transcripts, reports, analytics, rubrics and more can be downloaded by owner pariticpants to fill personal portfolios and populate potential employer review. In addition, GoReact's Guest Review functionality allows video sessions still hosted on GoReact's servers to be accessed by ourside reviewers through email invitation or portable-share link allowing full access to GoReact's feedback tools/features side-by-side with video submission in a secure observation/evaluation space. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | 8b | Evidence & Artifact Management | Apply multimedia tools to capture and submit learning evidence in diverse formats (e.g., images, videos, audio). | Criteria | The product offers very minimal support regarding evidence files types. It does not support uploading media files such as screenshots, audio, video, or other file types as learner evidence. Learners have no way to submit or store multimedia artifacts to demonstrate their competencies. | The product allows limited media upload functionality. Learners can upload some types of files (e.g., images or documents), but there may be restrictions on file formats, sizes, or the number of uploads. There is no clear workflow for aligning media artifacts with specific competencies or assessments. Media may be stored but not meaningfully integrated into the learning experience via metadata, information stored with the artifact, etc. | The product enables learners to upload a variety of media types—such as screenshots, video recordings, audio files, and other formats—as evidence of learning. These uploads can be associated with specific competencies or performance tasks. The system provides a straightforward process for uploading, tagging, and retrieving artifacts. Instructors can access, review, and leave feedback on media submissions. | The product offers advanced, seamless support for capturing and uploading rich media evidence—including direct recording or screen capture within the platform. Media artifacts are tightly integrated with the competency framework, allowing learners to tag competencies, reflect on submissions, and receive time-stamped feedback. The platform supports versioning, accessibility standards (e.g., captions, alt text), and long-term storage. Artifacts can be curated into portfolios or credentials, and are exportable or shareable for external validation (e.g., with employers or credentialing bodies). Learners manage access to their own portfolios and can invite others (mentors, advisors, external supervisors, etc) to access, review, and leave feedback. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/6Vkx54tY8ssA9RHBVtyjqc | ||||||||||||||||
80 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | Notes | GoReact supports video and audio submission as evidence of skill/competency through the following formats: MP4, M4V, MP2, MPG, MTS, WMV, MOV, AVI, FLV, 3GP, VP6, MP3, WMA, M4A, AAC, MKV. In addition, supported video uploading/ingesting integrations from YouTube (public or unlisted links) and Zoom Cloud avaialble by default. All video evidences are held on our servers by a federally required 5-year period unless removed by artifact owner, are protable/shareable for external evaluation through Guest Review, completely aligned with accessiblity standards for captions, alt text, screen readers and durable transcrpt. Learners own an manage access to portfolio evidences for evaluation and feedback purposes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | Timestamp | Answered 10/10/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | 9a | Use Case Support for Hybrid/Traditional Models | Analyze the system’s flexibility in accommodating both CBE structures and traditional Carnegie unit frameworks. | Criteria | The product is rigidly in support of a single instructional model—typically traditional, time-based structures like fixed terms, seat time, or credit hours. It does not support flexible pacing, mastery-based progression, or competency tracking. Adaptation to CBE-supporting or hybrid environments is not possible. | The product is primarily designed for one model (usually traditional or time-based), but has some limited capabilities that could be adapted for CBE-supporting or hybrid use. These capabilities may include custom fields, manual tracking of competencies, or flexible course timelines. However, significant workarounds are required, and the system does not inherently support model flexibility. | The product is intentionally designed to support both competency-based and traditional learning models. It allows institutions to choose between—or blend—learning structures. Features include support for mastery progression, pacing flexibility, credit-hour alignment, and role-specific views. Institutions can configure workflows, assessments, and reporting to align with their preferred model. A variety of content delivery models are accomodated: Courses, modules, single or bundled competencies or skills, certifications, licensure, etc. Data is available for both internal and external reporting. | The product offers seamless, native support for fully competency-based, traditional (Carnegie-based), and hybrid learning models. It enables organizations to customize features of their choosing, like learning pathways, pacing logic, and assessment models at the course, program, or learner level. A variety of content delivery models are accomodated: Courses, modules, single or bundled competencies or skills, certifications, licensure, etc. Data is available for both internal and external reporting. Multiple features are available, like dynamic scheduling, flexible credit awarding, dual transcript generation (e.g., mastery and credit hours), and model-specific analytics. The system empowers institutions to evolve or coexist across models without sacrificing functionality, coherence, or learner experience. Data is available for both internal and external reporting. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/2vPgBX7q8Q3yJ2dFvzhQz5 | ||||||||||||||||
84 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | Notes | Seamless, native and self-serve support for all learning models, as well as direct access to tool/design experts to help translate organizational visions into realities. Whether used in GoReact.com or integrated into an LMS system, course, module, single activity, competency/skill specific and bindled opportunities aligned to certifications, credentials and licensure requirements. Data availalbe for both internal and external reporting. Features, functionalities and integration standards allow orgs to complete thier work across multiple models with no sacrifice to efficiency, tools or experience. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | Timestamp | Answered 10/22/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | 10a | Partnership, Support, and Vision | Design clear and aligned evaluation criteria for assessing the tool’s suitability within a CBE framework. | Criteria | The product supports only one rigid evaluation model (e.g., a single rubric or grading scheme). It lacks flexibility to define or apply different evaluation methods. There is no support for qualitative assessments, mastery thresholds, or customization of criteria to align with various instructional or institutional philosophies. | The product allows limited customization of evaluation criteria. It may offer multiple rubric templates or grading scales but is constrained in format, alignment to competencies, or feedback mechanisms. Evaluation models can be selected but not meaningfully modified. The product supports one-size-fits-all assessment models with minimal flexibility for discipline-specific or program-level needs. | The product supports a range of evaluation approaches that can be aligned to competencies, such as rubric-based assessments, binary/pass-fail, mastery thresholds, performance bands, narrative feedback, or point-based systems. Institutions can configure evaluation models at the course or program level. The system supports alignment of criteria to specific competencies and allows evaluators to apply different methods based on context. | The product provides robust, flexible, and extensible support for diverse evaluation models. It enables granular control of evaluation types (e.g., criterion-referenced, standards-based, portfolio scoring, peer review, AI-assisted feedback) and seamless alignment to competencies. Educators can apply and re-use different models across contexts, personalize evaluation criteria, and generate analytics tied to each method. The system also supports culturally responsive and equitable evaluation practices, integrates evidence-based assessments, and allows for co-designed or learner-selected evaluation criteria. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/czCKu3RqB63HtexMVnRgMZ | ||||||||||||||||
88 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | Notes | All above cited details/requirements 100% supported! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | Timestamp | Answered 10/22/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | 10b | Partnership, Support, and Vision | Tool has structures within that reflect CBE principles such as mastery, pacing, and authentic evaluation. | Criteria | The product lacks alignment with CBE principles. Competencies are undefined or missing, and the assessment design appears time-based, task-centered, or traditional in nature. There is no evidence of personalized learning, mastery progression, or formative feedback loops. The assessment does not support student ownership or transparency in learning outcomes. | The product includes some references to competencies, but they are either generic or not clearly integrated into the assessment design. Some elements suggest a shift toward CBE (e.g., formative checks or flexible pacing), but the structure still leans heavily on fixed content delivery or summative assessment. Limited support for learner agency and limited adaptability to individual progress are present. | The product is intentionally aligned with CBE principles. Competencies are clearly defined and drive assessment design. Assessments are structured to be flexible, formative, and mastery-based, allowing learners to progress upon demonstrating competency. It supports learner agency, includes meaningful feedback, and provides transparency in outcomes and criteria. Pacing options are available and learner-driven. Evidence of scaffolding and varied performance opportunities is present. | The product exemplifies a comprehensive, learner-centered approach to CBE assessment design. Competencies are well-articulated, deeply embedded, and contextualized in real-world or authentic performance tasks. Assessment pathways are fully customizable and adaptive, supporting multiple modalities and allowing continuous demonstration and refinement of learning. Pacing options are available and learner-driven. It promotes full learner ownership, self-assessment, and co-construction of learning goals. Feedback is timely, personalized, and actionable, fostering a culture of growth and mastery. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/6paFAdmcT4tyW2SSpu3jom | ||||||||||||||||
92 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | Notes | GoReact's custom/central design roots lends itself to ensrue CBE assessment is avaialble for assessing observation/anaylsis, simulation and skills demonstration opportunities. All skills/competencies are founded in discipline-specific and Durable Skill definitions, plus canbe custom tailored to match CBE context and verbiage. Extremely flexible design/delivery, device agnostic, learner driven (pacing and practice), and feedback exceeds all listed expectations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | Timestamp | Answered 10/22/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | 10c | Partnership, Support, and Vision | Product/ vendor actively collaborates with industry stakeholders to ensure relevance and applicability of skills. | Criteria | There is no evidence that the organization engages with employers or industry representatives. The product is developed in isolation from workforce needs or industry input. There are no partnerships, consultations, or references to labor market relevance. | The organization shows minimal or occasional engagement with employers or industry bodies. This may include a single advisory meeting, general awareness of industry expectations, or informal consultations. However, engagement is limited in scope, not sustained, and may not meaningfully shape the product or its outcomes. | The organization maintains active and purposeful engagement with employers or industry bodies. These partnerships inform the design, validation, or implementation of the product. There is evidence that employer input influences key decisions (e.g., defining competencies, shaping assessments, or aligning credentials with workforce demand). Engagement is structured and recurring. | The organization demonstrates deep, sustained, and reciprocal partnerships with a diverse range of employers and industry bodies. These stakeholders co-create or co-validate the product and ensure it remains relevant, future-oriented, and reflective of evolving workforce needs. Engagement strategies are systemic, equitable, and embedded in ongoing decision-making. The product may support in direct workforce opportunities (e.g., internships, hiring pipelines, recognized credentials). | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/Ujj63Yp7EtrTrwh1LqMd87 | ||||||||||||||||
96 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | Notes | GoReact maintains partnerships with both action, industry and thought leading partnerships to ensure proper product positioning and relevance in our ever-changing market across both Higher Education and Corproate learning and development. In HigherEd and continued education - partners in publishing, distribution, research/definition, large enterprise, non-traditional education pathways (apprenticships) and trades programs have and continue to help guide GoReact's development to align with industry needs while maintaining an inclusive and equitablelearning experience. In Corporate learning and development, industry partners found in teaching hospitals, manufacturing services, QSR, grocery, insurance, retail and more collaborate daily with GoReact stakeholders to define, create and validate the bridge vetween education and the workforce and maintain GoReact as the video-based skills assessment tool trusted in both spaces. Supporting skills/competencies in the flow of learning and/or work through internships, apprenticeships, credentialing, certification, resume evidence and hiring practices alike. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | Timestamp | Answered 10/22/2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | 10d | Partnership, Support, and Vision | Examine the system’s alignment with and support for recognized open standards and credentialing initiatives. | Criteria | The product does not reference or incorporate any recognized edtech open standards. It uses proprietary or siloed data structures and lacks interoperability features. There is no evidence of alignment with initiatives like Open Badges, CLR, or W3C VC. | The product shows awareness of one or more edtech open standards but has limited or partial implementation. It may claim future alignment or offer basic export/import options that are not fully compliant. Interoperability is minimal, and support for credential portability or transparency is weak. | The product actively supports recognized edtech open standards (e.g., fully implements Open Badges v2.0, publishes CLR records, or supports W3C VC format). It enables secure, interoperable sharing of learner achievements with other platforms or systems. Standards are used in alignment with accepted specifications, enhancing transparency and learner mobility. | The product demonstrates adopting, implementing, and advancing edtech open standards. It supports multiple open standards seamlessly (e.g., integrates Open Badges, CLR, and W3C VC in tandem), and contributes to community-driven innovation or governance (e.g., participation in 1EdTech, W3C, or related consortia). The product enables verifiable, learner-owned records that are portable across systems and sectors, and is built to evolve with emerging interoperability needs. | N/A; this does not apply to the product under evaluation. | https://goreact.hubs.vidyard.com/watch/EXm3b2brJMaWQX17RSwa7Q | ||||||||||||||||
100 | Self-Score | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||