How We Evaluated the OWLs

Our class decided that the best way to tackle this project was to divide into groups with each group looking at a particular aspect of the OWLs. Every group looked at all ten OWLs and established their own set of criteria on which to evaluate. Below is a description from each group of the rubric they used.

Note: Because of the nature of their task, the group looking at Other Resources did not feel that they needed to evaluate the OWLs. Their task also included the compliation and overall rating of all of the OWLs.

Ease of Navigation/Layout

Our group was interested in how easy the OWL was to navigate and well the layout worked. We looked at it both from a "techie" perspective as well as from a novice computer user's perspective. Each site was rated on the following criteria and given the corresponding rating:

Five Hoots:

Good design elements--visually appealing
Graphics are good quality and enhance the overall feel of the site
Layout is very logical and easy to follow--"back" buttons on pages
Links are clearly marked, easy to understand, embedded or listed as appropriate, and the link text makes sense
Adequate amount of information per page--not too much text without graphics and not too many graphics with not enough text
Loads quickly, graphics load fast, links connect fast
Technically correct, no typographical errors

Four Hoots:

Fair design elements, visually appealing
Graphics are fair quality
Layout is okay, easy to follow
Links are clearly marked--text may or may not make sense but placement is logical
Information per page is good, balance of graphics to text is good
Loads in a good amount of time and graphics load easily
Technically OK--might have a few minor errors

Three Hoots:

Has some design elements, visually not offensive
Graphics are present and recognizeable
Layout is borderline--much room for improvement
Links are present but not necessarily recognizeable--may be embedded but not logical or may be broken or inactive
Information per page is acceptable, balance of graphics to text is skewed but both are present
Loads OK but not fast, graphics might not load or might take a long time loading
Technically needs work--might be typographical errors or coding problems

Two Hoots:

Design elements are virtually nonexistent, visually unappealing
Graphics are poor or not present
Layout is not logical and is hard to use
Links may be broken, outdated, not easy to recognize, or not easy to use
Information per page is not good--heavy imbalance of either text or graphics
Loads slowly, leaves user waiting for long periods of time
Technically has problems--page still functions but not by much

One Hoot:

No design elements to speak of, visually offensive
Graphics not present or extremely poor quality
Layout is nonexistent, very difficult to navigate
Links broken, outdated, not easy to recognize
Information per page is not acceptable--extreme lack of balance, many pages all text with no graphics or many graphics with very little text
Technically a mess--probably not updated recently--minimum functionality

Feedback on a Submitted Paper

For our group's part on the OWL project, we submitted one paper to eight of the ten OWL sites the class, as a whole, chose to evaluate. (Two of the sites did not accept papers from students at other universities.) The three of us decided on one paper to submit for review by the OWLs. The paper was one that had been used previously for another English class. The paper, on Hamlet, was doctored a bit to contain errors such as run-on sentences, fragments, and missing punctuation marks.

We divided up the work by each taking a portion of the eight OWL sites and submitting the paper to those two or three sites for some on-line tutoring. We asked the tutors for feedback on our sentence structure and syntax (i.e., run-ons, fragments, etc.).

Our group's goal was to evaluate each of the sites on how quickly and effectively a paper was revised. Some of the things we looked for included: response time versus the promised turnaround time, quality of the feedback (Were most of the errors caught?), quantity of feedback (Did the tutor take sufficient time to respond to the paper?), and tutor qualifications.

After receiving responses from each of the OWL sites, we assigned an overall rating of one to five hoots. Our hoot system was based on the rubric which follows.

5 Hoots:

Response time is as promised or quicker
Format for submitting paper is user-friendly
Majority of "errors" are caught
Major problem of run-on sentences was addressed
Quantity of feedback is above average
Quality of feedback is above average
Feedback is personalized
Cybertutor is knowledgeable/well qualified

4 Hoots:

Response time is near as promised
Format for submitting paper is adequate
Most "errors" are caught
Major problem of run-on sentences was addressed
Quantity of feedback is average
Quality of feedback is average
Feedback is personalized
Cybertutor is knowledgeable/well qualified

3 Hoots:

Response time is slower than promised
Format for submitting paper is somewhat awkward
Some "errors" are caught
Major problem of run-on sentences is mentioned
Quantity of feedback is minimal
Quality of feedback is minimal
Feedback is not personalized
Cybertutor is qualified

2 Hoots:

Response time is much slower than promised
Format for submitting paper is lacking
Few "errors" are caught
Major problem of run-on sentences is not addressed
Quantity of feedback is below average
Quality of feedback is below average
Cybertutor does not seem qualified

1 Hoot*:

Paper must be re-submitted or response is very slow
No form for submitting paper
"Errors" are not caught
Major problem of run-on sentences is not addressed
Quantity of feedback is far below average
Quality of feedback is far below average
Cybertutor is not qualified

*Or 1 Hoot: If OWL is not full-fledged and does not accept papers by email.

Handouts

5 hoots:
A perfect OWL. Many organized and useful handouts pertaining to grammar and the writing process. User is able to move from page to page without getting lost within the handouts. There is no need to scroll down the pages to find information. These OWLs should have hot spots to important and useful information.

4 hoots:
Just as above but the user is forced to scroll up and down the pages. These OWLs are also not as organized and helpful as a 5 hooter, but they are close!

3 hoots:
Does not have a variety of handouts but still has important information on grammar and writing. These handouts have some problems with navigation and organization. Also an OWL may score a 3 if it does not have handouts but has a variety of helpful links.

2 hoots:
Has handouts but has many problems in this area. Also, this OWL may not have handouts but does provide links to other useful sites; however these links are sparse and confusing.

1 hoot:
Does not offer handouts or links to other sites with handouts.

Back to the OWL Main Page