Evaluation Report

AIL 604
The University of Alabama
Tracy Hinton

Part 1: Introduction

Updated Formative Evaluation Plan

Purpose/Goals of the Evaluation
A peer review process was conducted prior to the actual implementation of
this professional development online course. According to Morrison, Ross, Kalman,
and Kemp (2011), formative evaluation provides feedback so that instructional
designers can make improvements to the instructional course or unit before the
final version is developed. Using the feedback that is provided, I made revisions to
course material in order to improve course instruction. This critical feedback was
necessary to make decisions regarding any changes needed to be made in the
online course prior to its implementation so that the best possible instruction can be
provided. Since this workshop is intended to instruct teachers and school library
media specialists on the effective choice and implementation of iPad apps for
integration in grades K - 5 instruction, the content is intended for educators with a
wide array of technology skills. The evaluation process certainly provided valuable
feedback regarding the accessibility, content, and presentation of the online course.
Methods
Instruments
In Part I, reviewers were asked to answer questions regarding the overall
effectiveness of the online course. They used a checklist to mark Yes, No, or N/A,
and could also provide any additional comments. Part II asked reviewers to give an
overall rating of the course and contained two open-ended questions designed to
allow elaboration on Parts I and II as they provided valuable feedback regarding
ways to improve the course content and instruction. In Part III, reviewers assessed
accessibility, content, and presentation in a brief checklist format.

Participants
A panel of four colleagues that are trained in online learning principles and
techniques served as members of a peer review committee. Actually, I received full
feedback from five colleagues with an additional comment by a sixth colleague,
which was a pleasant surprise, as additional feedback was indeed helpful. Using the
provided instrument to evaluate my project, they provided critical feedback on the
organization of the course as well as suggestions for improvement. Peer evaluators
utilize both a checklist and short answer responses as they were encouraged to
provide commentary regarding course content and design. Each review should
lasted approximately 20-30 minutes.
Interpretation of Results
I will compiled the results from both instruments into an evaluation report
that assesses both course content and design. The peer reviewer results reflect a
need for minor changes which are explained in this report. Design issues will be
addressed in relation to the eLearning principles learned in this course.
Timeline
Peer Review
Interpretation of results
from peer review
Final Evaluation Report

Date
Saturday, July 26th from
1:00 5:00 pm
Sunday, July 27th

Completed by
4 peer reviewers

Monday, July 28th

Saturday, August 2nd

T. Hinton

T. Hinton

Part 2: Peer Review Results

Instruments Used
As previously described, the peer review checklists provided opportunities for
reviewers to use checklists, ratings, and open-ended questions to review the course
design, accessibility, content, and presentation. In Part I, reviewers were asked to
answer questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the online course. They
used a checklist to mark Yes, No, or N/A, and could also provide any additional
comments. Part II asked reviewers to give an overall rating of the course and
contained two open-ended questions designed to allow elaboration on Parts I and II
as they provided valuable feedback regarding ways to improve the course content
and instruction. In Part III, reviewers assessed accessibility, content, and
presentation in a brief checklist format. The peer reviews are included as
Appendices A F.
Presentation and Discussion of Peer Data
While much of the peer review feedback was positive, several reviewers
provided valuable suggestions for improvement. For instance, Rebecca marked that
I do not give learners adequate opportunities to practice or apply what they learned.
When I considered this suggestion, its true, but the intention of the training is to
provide an overview of the available apps that can be used for digital storytelling.
In addition, the final module requires the learner to plan a lesson that can be used
with his or her own students.
Rebecca also indicated that the instructional strategies are not appropriate
for the targeted learners. To further clarify the issues, she suggest to reorganize

and beef up the 4th module to bring the discussion of different disciplines into play
earlier. Rather than focusing on a single example in each discipline, she suggests
focusing on a particular skills, such as synthesis or summarizing or something and
showing how those can be enacted in particular disciplines. In my opinion, those
suggestions are too specific for the targeted learners, as they already have lesson
ideas of their own, often based on years of experience in teaching library and
information retrieval skills.
Another suggestion offered by Rebecca is to chunk the summative
assignment that Ive given to teachers. Rather than having one big assignment
from them due at the end, perhaps you could ask them to create sample
assignments in each module, or connect a learning objective with an element of
digital storytelling. While at first I considered her chunking suggestion, I feel that
one larger lesson at the end is more appropriate to this set of learners. Throughout
the modules, the learners have been provided opportunities to brainstorm and link
apps to their own lesson ideas, so I feel that it is best to provide one activity at the
end from which they can choose to make connections with one of their own lessons.
Since librarians teach a wide variety of different skills to a wide range of learners,
usually based on teachers suggestions, it is difficult to focus on one or more
objective that every librarian teaches. For that reason, I feel that it is best that
learners develop a comprehensive lesson at the end of the modules.
In Juanitas peer evaluation, I also received valuable suggestions. In regards
to the instruction, she states, The presentation is visually challenging due to all the
different font colors. I am having a hard time seeing some colors. Would suggest
reconsider artful license for accommodation of visually challenged learners.
Orange, green, fuchsia, red, blue it is a lot of different colors. While I can respect

her opinion, I respectfully disagree. With an audience of elementary librarians, we

appreciate bright visuals and cheerful dcor. Also, my son that has a pretty severe
visual impairment has reviewed the entire course and noted no issues with font
colors. The contrast was always a consideration, so that words could easily be read
on each background. In my opinion, it is not overly stimulating. Juanita also
suggests to add discussions at the end of each module and to add a static
presentation instead of rolling. The discussion option seems to be a good idea to
me, if Weebly supports a discussion feature. That might be an option for paid
subscription users only. In addition, Juanita suggests that I only use 3 examples for
each page. I respectfully disagree. Since all of us have different experiences with
apps, we might relate to one that is not listed in the top 3, and I feel that most of
my learners will not explore additional links on their own. Finally, Juanita also
suggested that I divide text up quite a bit so that users are not scrolling up and
down. While that could be an improvement, that would require the addition of
modules, and I would like to only have 5 modules.
In Katies peer evaluation, she offered much positive feedback with one
suggestions. She said that some of my links do not work, but I did not hyperlink the
apps on each page. Actually, I only linked the examples at the bottom of each
module, as that is the information that I wanted the users to explore. Possibly, I can
consider the addition of hyperlinks, but it would also add considerable time to the
overall course, since learners would likely explore each app and spend lots of time
on each site. I wanted to focus on the examples, so I felt justified in only
hyperlinking those sample projects.
I was especially interested in Johns peer evaluation, as he also works in K-12
education. While his review provided much positive support, such as Great tools,

he also offered a valuable suggestion. He said, It would be good if the quizzes

were integrated into the main site. I completely agree! By using Weebly, Im not
sure how to do that, but that is definitely a great suggestion for improvement.
Possibly, I can integrate interactive quizzes prior to the actual implementation of the
course.
In my final peer evaluation, Hunter offered lots of positive feedback. Her one
suggestion is to add some visuals to enhance the lectures. Yes, I agree, but I feel
that either method is valuable. If I add visuals to the lectures, then I will need to
locate relevant graphics and tables that will relate to the information being taught.
That is definitely a possible option for improving this course.
Actions Taken (or to be Taken) Based on the Peer Reviews
While I have already discussed many of the issues in the previous section,
here is a summary of the actions that I will consider to make improvements to my elearning course:

Addition of interactive quizzes incorporated into each module

Addition of graphics and/or video to the audio lectures in each module

Addition of a discussion section at the end of each module

Part 3: E-Learning Principles Evaluation

During the development of this e-learning course, the 13 principles in Clark

and Meyers 2011 textbook E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven
Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning were considered.
While the design principles were closely followed, there are also a few exceptions,
based on knowledge of learners and objectives for the course. The following section
discusses in detail the adherence to the 13 design principles.
Discussion of 13 Principles

Multimedia Principle (Chapter 4)

In this eLearning course, relevant graphics were used throughout the
modules to reinforce the concepts being taught. As each app was introduced, a
relevant graphic provided the learner with an explanatory visual. While few other
visuals were used, additional graphics could certainly enhance the understanding of
the material. For example, additional graphics can be added to the audio lectures in
each module. The designer chose not to include graphics on these lectures for
several reasons: lack of time, few available graphics on the public domain, and few
relevant pictures related to the material on the audio narratives. Possibly, this
would enhance the instructional design, but it will be challenging to find relevant
graphics that are worthy of inclusion. The designer also chose not to include
animations or a series of stills to illustrate processes, mainly because this
instruction was not relevant to the course material.
Contiguity Principle (Chapter 5)
Throughout the course, the contiguity principle was considered. For instance,
the information that needed to be integrated was located near each other, rather
than in separate places. While the designer integrated text nearby the graphic on
the screen, such as the graphic and explanation of various apps, another part of the
principle was violated. Learners were not allowed to play an animation before or
after reviewing a text description, due to the fact that animations were not included.
While there were video links, most of these links included descriptions as well.
When the descriptions were not included, the user could click on the link and read a
brief description, such as on the youtube videos. For the interactive quizzes, space
was designed for feedback to be visible close to the practice answers, which
adheres to the contiguity principle.

Modality Principle (Chapter 6)

For this course, the modality principle was violated, mainly because the
information presented was an overview of storytelling apps, rather than a series of
instructional steps. While the designer will consider adding graphics to the audio
lectures, the other parts of the modality principle would not improve the instruction
of this course. For example, new terminology or directions to tasks were not
maintained on the screen because these are not relevant to instruction. In addition,
virtual coaches were not included because this would not enhance the instructional
content.
Redundancy Principle (Chapter 7)
Throughout this course, the redundancy principle was closely adhered to, as
words were not presented as both onscreen text and narration when there are
graphics on the screen. In each module, the designer was careful not to repeat
content in various modes of media. Actually, the reason that the designer simply
used audio in the lectures was to carefully avoid the redundancy principle, which
really resonated while reading this section in the text.
Coherence Principle (Chapter 8)
As the designer created these modules, careful attention was paid to
coherence of material throughout the course. While animations and a series of stills
were not used, the designer used simpler visuals to promote understanding. Such
visuals were relevant to the information in the course, such as graphics of
suggested apps. Although these simpler visuals were used to promote
understanding, the designer could have incorporated more graphics that relate to
the instruction.
Personalization Principle (Chapter 9)

Throughout the course design, the designer attempted to write in a

conversational style using first and second person. At times, this did not seem
appropriate, but the designer made all efforts to maintain a personal tone during
the progression of course material. This principle was violated because virtual
coaches were not used to deliver examples or hints, but the inclusion of virtual
coaches would not have enhanced the course instruction.
Segmentation and Pretraining Principles (Chapter 10)
While the segmentation and pretraining principles were followed by the
designer, the peer evaluations noted an important violation of these principles. The
designer planned modules that used chunking methods to break down each
segment into smaller pieces of instruction, allowing the learner to access the
material at his or her own preferred rate. In addition, important concepts and facts
were taught prior to processes, such as development of a lesson plan that
incorporates a digital storytelling app. In addition, the context of the procedure was
maintained prior to the actual implementation of the lesson plan project. Since
animations were not included, there was no need to include a continue and replay
button on animations that are segmented into short logical stopping points.
Unfortunately, a peer reviewer noted that the modules can be further divided into
segments, stating that the chunking needs to be broken down into even smaller
instructional concepts. Since this course was not intended to exceed five modules,
and each module is carefully divided into subsections, the designer rejected this
suggestion.
While the designer did not include prior teaching of important concepts and
facts prior to procedures or processes, the pretraining principle was not applied.
The designers intentions were to create modules that appealed to a variety of iPad

users experienced and inexperienced so that additional time could be spent

when concepts were unfamiliar or new to the learner. In addition, learners could
progress through the modules with a partner, so they could also provide help to
each other throughout the course.
Worked Example Principle (Chapter 11)
For this eLearning course, the learners did not utilize full practice
assignments. The only assessments were interactive quizzes at the end of each
module and the development of a lesson plan at the end of the Module 5. For that
reason, transition from full worked examples to full practice assignments using
fading was not appropriate to the instructional design or intended outcomes for this
eLearning course.
Practice Principle (Chapter 12)
Since the information in this eLearning course did not involve specific
concepts or multiple practice problems, there were only five review questions
provided at the end of each section in Modules 1 4. If more critical skills and
knowledge had been incorporated into instruction, then more practice questions
would have been included. The designer feels that the number and difficulty level
of review problems were appropriate for the course material. In addition, a few of
the review questions were job-related, since the learners are educators (library
media specialists) in K 5 schools. Since each module focused on a different
subtopic, there was no need to follow the distributed practice principle, in which
practice types are mixed throughout the lessons, rather than grouping similar types
together. This principle does not seem logical for this instructional course. On the
other hand, the feedback principle was carefully followed in the interactive quizzes,
as explanatory feedback was provided for correct and incorrect answers. Also,

praise and negative comments in feedback that direct attention to the self rather
than to the task are not used at all.

Collaborative Learning (Chapter 13)

For the lesson plan project in Module 5, learners could divide into small
groups of their own choosing in order to create a lesson plan based on a digital
storytelling app. While heterogeneous groups are recommended in this principle,
learners could more effectively be divided according to the types of lessons that
they teach. Since librarians teach different grades and objectives, it is more
meaningful for learners to work with others that teach similar concepts, so that they
can develop lessons that will be application to their own library media instruction.
Through independent research, the learners can devise a lesson plan that best
meets the needs of their own students and meets the curricular objectives. This
learning activity promotes deeper processing, as each participant follows a role in
the development of a lesson plan. In addition, Module 5 provides a sample format
for a lesson plan, so that additional details are not included, which minimizes
extraneous cognitive loads. Finally, if the lesson plan meets all intended outcomes,
then each of the learners will receive their reward, which is professional
development credit.
Learner Control Principle (Chapter 14)
For this eLearning course, the learners have various levels of prior knowledge
regarding iPad apps, but they all have a strong foundation in library media and
information literacy skills and curriculum objectives. In addition, all learners likely
have good self-regulatory learning skills, so learners have decisions over topics and

instructional methods. This course is designed to be informational rather than skillbuilding, so that learners can explore various apps at their own pace. This course is
also advance and provides content topics that are not logically interdependent.
Although the modules progress from 1 5, the learner can review information from
any module. Finally, the learners are provided with review practice questions and a
final project that culminates in the learning of all information involved in the course.

Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills Principle (Chapter 15)

While this eLearning course provides little opportunity for advanced thinking
skills, the learner can use realistic job tools (lesson plans and objectives) to teach
job-specific problem-solving processes. Since library media specialists must
integrate technology into instruction, and many schools now own one or multiple
iPads, these apps can be useful tools to teach digital storytelling techniques. By
applying such knowledge, learners can progress through the modules,
brainstorming ways that they can devise lesson plans that best meet the needs of
his or her teachers and students in the school. While learners are not guided in a
step-by-step process, they have this prior knowledge and can develop their own
unique lessons that meet all of the curricular, technology, and student needs. In
addition, learners can share and discuss ways that they apply these lessons, which
provide opportunities for feedback, reflection, and revisions.
Games and Simulations Principle (Chapter 16)
For this eLearning course, games and simulations were not incorporated due
to the nature of the content and the intended learning goals. While there are many
benefits of using games and simulations, including providing structure and guidance
to reach learning goals and making the relevance of the activity salient to learning,

this professional course did not incorporate such instructional methods. First, the
learners are adults that would not necessarily find games an appealing method of
learning. Next, the content of the course does not provide specific practice
activities that must be mastered before moving on to the next activity. Finally, this
type of instruction requires more advanced technology and programming skills,
which the programmer lacks. While games and simulations can certainly enhance
some classes, the designer did not feel that these methods of learning would be
valuable to this eLearning course.

Overall Impression of the Principles

While I certainly agree with the much of the information presented in the
text, I found that my instruction often violated these principles. Although I provided
justifications for these obvious violations, I still feel guilty for not incorporating all
(or, at least, more) of these principles into my course design. Some reasons
included my lack of expertise or knowledge of programming and interactive tools
that might enhance the instruction, but most reasons involved my resistance to the
rules. For instance, I prefer using bright colors and attractive design elements.
While most peer reviewers provided positive feedback regarding my personal
choices of design elements, one reviewer hated it. She provided multiple reasons
and mentioned that some fonts cannot be read, even though I question that
comment. While I tried to avoid cognitive overload for my learners, apparently my
course design was not appropriate for all learners. Reflecting on the extra hours
and patience that it took to add colors and other design elements to my pages, I
wonder if I would be as proud of my final product if it was more simple and bland.

Possibly, it is the K-12 educator in me that realizes that some learners require a
hook in order to grasp and hold their attention. Not all learners are adults that
are ready to learn, but I also need to create course material that adheres to
research-based design principles.
Overall, I agree with the design principles that we have learned throughout
this course. By sharing and evaluating other courses, I can certainly see the value
in applying particular principles according to the instructional method and desired
learning outcome. For instance, an interactive math course would require multiple
practice problems and mastery of specific concepts before progressing on to the
next learning goal.
I feel that I have learned so much in this course about design principles for
eLearning instruction. While this has been a challenging course that took many,
many hours, I have learned vast amounts of information that will be relevant to my
professional goals. I am thankful for the opportunity to have learned so much about
effective instructional design methods, through a combination of teacher-provided
information, course textbook, class discussions, and peer reviews. This has been a
wonderful learning experience!

References
Clark, R.C. & Meyer, R.E. (2011). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3 rd edition). San Francisco:
John Wiley & Sons.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective
instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Appendix A
Peer Review from Rebecca Johnson
Evaluation Instrument
Part 1:
Questions
1. Does the course home page clearly state
the objectives?
2. Is there a clear connection between the
course material and the objectives?
3. Is the sequence of the instructional
activities logical?
4. Is the content of the instruction up to
date?
5. Is the instruction presented in a clear and
coherent manner?

Yes
X
X
X
X
X

No

N/A

Comments

6. Are learners given adequate

opportunities to practice or apply what
they learn?
7. Are the instructional strategies
appropriate for the targeted learners?
8. Is the online course navigation easy to
operate?
9. Did the user applications work properly?
10.Are there other issues that you noticed
that could improve the instruction? If
yes, please describe.
11.Comments:
I will save my comments here for below.

X
X
X
X
X

Part 2:
1. What overall rating would you give this course?
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor

2. What are the major strengths of this course?

__Im so impressed by not only the resources that youve gathered up, but also by
how youve grouped them into types according to how theyd be used in instruction.
Really impressive.

3. What are some things that could be improved in this course?

_I like the way the modules have been organized. I might reorganize and beef up
the 4th module to bring the discussion of different disciplines into play earlier. Rather
than focusing on a single example in each discipline, I wonder if you could focus on
a particular skill, such as synthesis or summarizing or something and show how
those can be enacted in particular disciplines? I think the sciences often get short
shrift for creative thinking and synthesis, for example.
Id also suggest that you chunk the summative assignment youve given teachers.
Rather than having one big assignment from them due at the end, perhaps you
could ask them to create sample assignments in each module, or connect a learning
objective with an element of digital storytelling. Some formative task so that once
they get to the lesson plan at the very end, theyll be confident that they know what
they are doing. Great work, Tracy.
Part 3:

Overall, please rate the instructional design and online learning experience by
placing an (X) in the appropriate column.
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
Accessibilit
X
y
Content
X
Presentatio X
n

Appendix B
Peer Review from Juanita McMath
Evaluation Instrument
Part 1:
Questions
12.Does the course home page clearly state
the objectives?

Yes

No

N/A

Comments
Goals, target
audience and
design

metaphor are
noted.
13.Is there a clear connection between the
course material and the objectives?

14.Is the sequence of the instructional

activities logical?

15.Is the content of the instruction up to

date?
16.Is the instruction presented in a clear and
coherent manner?

Materials
related to the
web site goals.

The sequence
is logical with
lectures first,
apps,
examples,
review
questions then
quiz.

Instructional
items yes.
The visuals,
no.
The
presentation is
visually
challenging
due to all the
different font
colors. I am
having a hard
time seeing
some colors.
Would suggest
reconsider
artful license
for
accommodatio
n of visually
challenged
learners.
Orange,
green, fuchsia,
red, blue it is
a lot of
different

colors.
17.Are learners given adequate
opportunities to practice or apply what
they learn?

18.Are the instructional strategies

appropriate for the targeted learners?
19.Is the online course navigation easy to
operate?

20.Did the user applications work properly?

21.Are there other issues that you noticed
that could improve the instruction? If
yes, please describe.
22.Comments:

Part 2:
1. What overall rating would you give this course?
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor

4.5/5

2. What are the major strengths of this course?

Maybe add
some
discussions at
the end of
each module
as teachers
like to discuss
new tools.

The open
scrolling menu
tabs are
somewhat an
issue if one
rolls over too
far. Would
suggest a
static
presentation
instead of
rolling.

Because teachers are sometimes reluctant to try new technology, you friendly
approach creates a comfortable climate for them to explore technology. Example
are always good items to have, but maybe use just your favorite three and then put
all the others in a linked page. I really liked the creativity of the infographic and
design metaphor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. What are some things that could be improved in this course?

Maybe divide the page content up a bit with sections that are not straight text.
Rebecca noted this in my review that there was too much scrolling up and down. I
also thought for the detailed listing in Module 3, you could perhaps create a
diagram, map or graphic. Module 2 has a web page inserted into a web page with
large amount of information to scroll through. I must admit I got lost between the
two pages for a brief moment -- maybe hyperlink this item.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Part 3:
Overall, please rate the instructional design and online learning experience by
placing an (X) in the appropriate column.
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
Accessibilit
X (all
X (visually
y
others)
challenged)
Content
X
Presentatio X
n

Appendix C
Peer Review from Katie Johnson
Evaluation Instrument
Part 1:
Questions
1. Does the course home page clearly state
the objectives?
2. Is there a clear connection between the
course material and the objectives?
3. Is the sequence of the instructional
activities logical?
4. Is the content of the instruction up to
date?
5. Is the instruction presented in a clear and
coherent manner?
6. Are learners given adequate
opportunities to practice or apply what
they learn?
7. Are the instructional strategies
appropriate for the targeted learners?
8. Is the online course navigation easy to
operate?
9. Did the user applications work properly?

Yes
X

No

N/A

Comments

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Tracy, on
Module two
your Part C,
Storykit was
the only item
with a link that
worked in the
description. I
noticed you

listed the links

below, maybe
not have
storykit as a
link in part C
and just part
of this list
below. (??)
10.Are there other issues that you noticed
that could improve the instruction? If
yes, please describe.
11.Comments:

X
You did a great
job! It is
obvious you
put a lot of
work in this!

Part 2:
1. What overall rating would you give this course?
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor

2. What are the major strengths of this course?

I thought the layout was appropriate and the design perfect for the audience you
are dressing. I like that your provided outside links for whole group instruction.
Overall, I think you did a great job!
3. What are some things that could be improved in this course?
I am not in the K-12 system, but I dont think I would change anything.
Part 3:
Overall, please rate the instructional design and online learning experience by
placing an (X) in the appropriate column.
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
Accessibilit
X
y
Content
X
Presentatio X
n

Appendix D
Peer Review from John Finley
Evaluation Instrument
Part 1:
Questions
1. Does the course home page clearly state
the objectives?
2. Is there a clear connection between the
course material and the objectives?
3. Is the sequence of the instructional
activities logical?
4. Is the content of the instruction up to
date?
5. Is the instruction presented in a clear and
coherent manner?
6. Are learners given adequate
opportunities to practice or apply what
they learn?
7. Are the instructional strategies
appropriate for the targeted learners?
8. Is the online course navigation easy to
operate?
9. Did the user applications work properly?

Yes
X

No

N/A

Comments

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Great tools

10.Are there other issues that you noticed

that could improve the instruction? If
yes, please describe.
11.Comments:
This was a very complete project. I am looking
forward to going back and taking time to further
explores the resources from the lesson.

xx

Part 2:
1. What overall rating would you give this course?
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor

2. What are the major strengths of this course?

___ Choices to appeal to nay grade level.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
3. What are some things that could be improved in this course?
___It would be good if the quizzes were integrated into the main
site.________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__
Part 3:
Overall, please rate the instructional design and online learning experience by
placing an (X) in the appropriate column.
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
Accessibilit
x
y
Content
x
Presentatio x
n

Appendix E
Peer Review from Hunter Galloway
Evaluation Instrument
Part 1:
Questions
1. Does the course home page clearly state
the objectives?
2. Is there a clear connection between the
course material and the objectives?
3. Is the sequence of the instructional
activities logical?
4. Is the content of the instruction up to
date?
5. Is the instruction presented in a clear and
coherent manner?
6. Are learners given adequate
opportunities to practice or apply what
they learn?
7. Are the instructional strategies

Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

No

N/A

Comments

appropriate for the targeted learners?

8. Is the online course navigation easy to
operate?
9. Did the user applications work properly?
10.Are there other issues that you noticed
that could improve the instruction? If
yes, please describe.
11.Comments:

X
X
X

Part 2:
1. What overall rating would you give this course?
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor

2. What are the major strengths of this course?

____This is really nicely done. Great and abundant information! Wow.
3. What are some things that could be improved in this course?
____When I started module one it was audio only. I think some visuals could enhance
this lecture.
Part 3:
Overall, please rate the instructional design and online learning experience by
placing an (X) in the appropriate column.
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
Accessibilit
x
y
Content
X
Presentatio x
n

Appendix F
Additional Comment from V Dozier

Traci, how great is your project?!! All the work I know you put into it shines through.
The modules are clear & I love the separate assessment piece. Consider adding this
to your presentation rotation.