Formative Evaluation

I. Purpose of the Evaluation Session

The web-based instructional training which was evaluated for this document, is located at
http://meoeportfolio.weebly.com.
The purpose of the evaluation session was to determine the effectiveness of the design of the instructional
unit. The evaluation checked the completion of instructional unit objectives, aesthetics and ease of site
navigation, quality of instructional videos, and user perception.
II. Evaluation Session User Profiles
Two individuals were invited to volunteer to test the web-based instructional unit. Both completed
the instructional unit, deliverables, and website framework survey.
The volunteers were two of the migrant education options teachers that are located at the migrant
education options classroom at Donna High School. The female volunteer has proficient skills in that she
is able to open browsers, uses social media, uses the different software programs provided by the district
which includes Edmentum, Teams gradebook, Eduphoria lesson plans, Aware for student data analysis,
some components of Office 365 including drive, and email and can navigate through a classroom wiki
created by another Meo teacher. The male volunteer has basic skills. He is able to use only the software
programs that are required by the district to use such as Edmentum, Teams gradebook, Eduphoria, and
Aware. He uses Office 365 email but avoids using drive and is not able to share a document through
drive or edit a shared document. He struggles with most of these programs and requires the occasional
assistance. He does not use a class wiki or likes to navigate through the class wiki created by another Meo
teacher.
III. Evaluation Session Location
Each volunteer participant was able to access the instructional unit online. Both the participants
completed the instructional unit at Donna High School. Although they both started at the same time, the

male participant worked through it throughout his work day and took most of the work day to complete
the evaluation.
IV. Evaluation Methods
The submission of the address of their newly created account was considered as a success of the
instructional unit objective. A separate survey with the objective to determine the instructional unit
website framework aesthetics, ease of site navigation, quality of instructional videos, and user perception
was created and due to time constraints the questions were orally asked and manually documented.
V. Evaluation Results:
Instructional Goal Objective
Both volunteer participants were able to create an electronic portfolio = 100% success rate
Below are the results for the heuristics that have prompted revisions.
Visibility
100% very likely to explore
Engaging design
100 % very engaging
Ease of navigation
50% moderately easy
50% extremely easy
Improvement suggestions
Explain that I should create the portfolio as I am watching the video.
Objective communication
100% clear
Website recommendation
100% would recommend
Videos instructions clear and easy to follow

50% very clear

50% recommended that pointers be added to some parts of the videos
Video quality good
100% good
Areas of difficulty
50% remembering to save when editing
50% no difficulties
Suggestions for improvement
50% Have an outline to follow
50% no suggestions

VI. Reaction to Evaluation Results

Completion of the evaluation was initially slated for a particular date but was changed due to the absence
of both volunteers on day of evaluation. The male volunteer was able to complete the training but
required more time which was not surprising. His suggestion of having an outline was noted and an
instructional manual was produced for the training. The female volunteer reported not being able to take
the module 3 assessment.
VII. Action Response and Revisions
After collecting and reviewing all the recommendations for improvement to the website, changes
were made to the Start Here page of the training. Instructions to open a second window as the learner
watches the videos so that they can create their e-portfolio were added. The module 2 and module 3
videos had callouts added to them as suggested by the volunteer. The module 3 assessment code was
corrected.