Good day everyone. I have completed processing all the resources we have had at least two evaluators work on. You can find a link to that document here.
I thought that it would be good to make this data available in the final reporting, but I think there needs to be more of a written summary of the findings for each of these resources. Something like, "Here is what the resource is, here are some of the uses people shared, and here are a few challenges and finally here is how likely the evaluators felt they would suggest using this resource". Would something like this work? Is it worth doing?
If everything is ok with everyone, I can start moving the processed raw data over to the website and start adding in the short summaries.
Please share your thoughts, ideas and suggestions as I continue to try to tie up our findings.
Hi Ed, and others,
I think these are easy to read and informative, as they are. The only thing I would add, for each one, is a concise one- or two-line description of the tool or resource that would make it easier for a teacher to decide to read or skip the evaluation.
What do others think?
David J. Rosen
David, I like the idea of a simple one or two line description of each tool. I was planning on putting that to the right of each resource listed on the website with all the resources listed. As I sat to formulate some of these descriptions, I wondered if we should be including any subjective results (very likely to recommend, likely to recommend, not likely to recommend) within that description. I also wondered if we should just go to the sites where a resource is hosted to grab the descriptions there? If we are going to make up our own one or two line descriptions, I would welcome any help people could offer in our document, perhaps right there on the table of contents page after each resource name? I can then port things over to the website.
For me, the evals are brief enough to skim that the 2-liner wouldn't be necessary.
First of all nice work.
I am probably late to this or missed something but is there a reason the list is in the order it is?
If we need the TOC at all, is there middle ground to keep it simple and just use the category or categories under which they fit? e.g, Blendspace - Presentation
Steve, I agree that there is no order at all for how these resources are listed. My intent was simply to get them all processed first and then put them in some order. My thought was alphabetically in this document. The goal of the document is to have a staging area where data can be housed and tweaked or updated.
You might remember all the time and energy we put into developing categories. There were a few reasons for those efforts, but the primary reason was to use those categories as a primary way to organize our finished evaluations. I have created a website with categories all set up. Simply hit the categories tab in the top center of the screen.
To show you an illustration of how it might look or feel. I have a link here to the Communication category. I encourage you to try to click any of the presentation tools listed to see how the linking will work. Those resources that appear on the site are currently not evaluated and the hope was to create a means so that when one clicks on those names it will share that the tool is not evaluated, invite the viewer to evaluate that tool, and will bring them to our instructions page with clear guides of how to complete an evaluation. I am not sure we will have all that set up, but that is the intent.
As one of my many roles in education, I offer professional development to education systems all over the place. This month is packed with engagements (which is fun and very welcomed) which has derived me of the time I need to complete all the work I had hoped to have mostly done at this point. I still think we will be in good shape by the end of the month with much of this all in place.
Does this clarification help at all? I know that document is not a work of art by itself. It was not intended to be.