Collaborative Evaluation of the OIR

Rationale for Selecting Evaluation Process and Templates

The group chose to follow the evaluation process learned in Module 7, Website Design and Evaluation. This module provided comprehensive tools for evaluating the content and design of web resources. The group decided to modify the module templates, or the spreadsheets, for evaluating online content and design because it was determined that they were a definitive starting point.  Both the content and design templates were modified by adding additional criteria to each one, and creating scoring capabilities for each member of the group.  The next step was to collaboratively apply this criteria to the group’s OIR website.  

Description of Evaluation Process

Two members of the group, Becky Labonte and Jean Ruark, modified the spreadsheets, and then distributed them to the rest of the group for review and submitting their final evaluation of the OIR.  When the final revisions were complete, each group member filled out their sections of the content and design evaluation spreadsheets, using a numbered scoring system. The group also met in a videoconference via Google Hangouts to collaboratively score and evaluate the OIR.  The results of the scoring were discussed and each member contributed their interpretations of the results during the group evaluation process. 

The following group members made these contributions to the OIR pertaining to the final collaborative evaluation process:

·         Jennifer Webster added the rationale in selecting the evaluation process of the OIR and description of that process

·         Jean Ruark added the completed templates

·         Brooke VanDerlin added the evaluation results

·         Bree Stephany added the interpretation of the results

·         Becky Labonte added the conclusions

Templates used:
Content-Weighted Score
Content-Checklist
Design

Results

In regards to the content-weighted score for this OIR, the average percentage score was 93%. The highest individual rating was 95% and the lowest individual rating was 88%. The numerical rankings were consistent within the group, varying only by one point throughout this particular evaluation. 

The content checklist received a score of 95% of possible check marks.This student created blog missed only one of twenty one possible check marks. The question that was left unchecked is "is this page linked from or reviewed by other reliable or authoritative sites?" 

Though ratings became more divergent in the design evaluation phase, the average percentage of perfect score is 92%. Four out of six categories contained ratings that differed by at least two points. Information Architecture Goals contained the question, "how effective is the search system?" Ratings for this question ranged from 0 to 5. Subtotals for this category ranged from 19-25 (out of 25 possible points).

User Experience Goals contained the question, "how motivating is the site (that is, moves you to explore the site, fill out a form, request further information, etc.)? Ratings for this questions ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 5. Subtotals for this category fell in the range of 17-20 (out of 20 possible points).

Functionality contained the question, "how effective was a blog format vs. a website?" Ratings for the question ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 5. Subtotals for this category ranged from 16-20 (out of 20 possible points). 

Universal Access Goals contained two questions with noticeable rating differences. The questions, "to what extent are universal access goals achieved in this site?" and "to what extent were assistive features incorporated?" garnered ratings from a low of 3 to a high of 5. Subtotals for this category ranged from a low 9  to a high 13 (out of 15 possible points).

Interpretation of the results:

The members of the group completed evaluations of the OIR from the perspective of Kent State University SLIS students. During the last two online collaborative meetings, we discussed formatting issues and ways to improve the blog with features such as links and graphics. The content checklist received a 95% and accurately illustrates how confident and pleased we are with the finished product. The content-weighted score is a 93% which conveys our united consensus and pride in the work that we have created together.  

Conclusions:

The OIR content evaluation that was decided upon allows for a clear understanding of the positive aspects and achievements accomplished. The overall collaboration effort has produced a suitable professional blog that meets the criteria of the fore mentioned content evaluation sheets. Through the content evaluation process, the totality of the collaborative team effort has given way to a well-formatted, informative, effective and efficient OIR.  The usability and functionality of the OIR features provide access to professional information ethics awareness. According the results and their interpretation, the OIR meets the goal of ensuring other information professionals of required and reliable content.