» Anecdotal
evidence » Introduction
So far I've mainly discussed tools for generating statistical
assessments of writing program web sites. But, as writing instructors,
I think it's safe to say we value not just writing but written assessment.
After all, I'd like to think that's why I spend so much time commenting
on student work. Thus, one useful (if informal) kind of assessment
for a writing program web site is anecdotal evidence and feedback.
We've received a small number of such anecdotal assessments since
launching the redesigned Rutgers Writing Program web site in fall
2000, and from a variety of populations: students, teachers, university
administrators, tutors in our writing centers, and professionals in
the field. The web site has also been somewhat more formally evaluated
in this way by incorporating it into our writing center internship
course for undergraduate tutors (see sidebar), asking tutors to comment
on the web site in the online forum for the class.
But as my descriptions perhaps already make clear, anecdotal evidence
is at best a minor tool for assessment. Though it remains valuable
for our internal audience, and has some value when included in requests
for funding, it cannot paint a full picture of a web site's success.
For one thing, anecdotal evidence is, well, anecdotal--it provides
assessment from individual visitors without indicating overall success.
Indeed, one might argue that the lack of anecdotal evidence
is equally a sign of a program web site's success: users, after
all, rarely write when things work well; they most often write when
there are problems. Just as true, though, users who have unsatisfactory
experiences at a web site leave without saying anything and never
return.
summary »
|
