AL, AQ, VO
You should be more specific about how you came to the conclusion that home page got the site's purpose across. A description of the methodoogy and more details about the results should have been included. Do the data on confidence support your claim that students understood the site's purpose? It seems that students were not sure what the site was about. You conclude that the site does not get across its value to students. I think that claim is well founded. However, that may be, in part, because they don't understand what it is about. I agree with you that it is not sufficiently "student oriented." Later we will discuss possible changes that should be made. This assignment was more to assess the effectiveness of the page then to redesign it. I think your suggestions are good and we will take them up at a later time.

DP, KS, JP
Good description of methodology and results for each type of potential user. Perhaps more details about the data would have been helpful. You didn't mention the confidence ratings which I think are pretty revealing. Interesting suggestions about redesign, although now we are focusing on assessment.

JH, AN, MY
Good description of methodology and results. Your going beyond the means and standard deviations and citing facts such as " ...three participants had no confidence about the purpose of the site at all" makes it clear that there are some problems. Everyone should have at least a little confidence they know the purpose. Also good use of subjects' verbal descriptions to illustrate misconceptions.

RM, DK, VN, FT
Good idea to do a quantitative analysis of the written questions, and the analysis is revealing. The raw data should probably be in an appendix and some summary statistics in the main body of the report. I don't think you should have left out the participants with low ratings on interest. First, it is always suspect to leave out data. Second, some may have little interest because they misunderstood the purpose of the site. It might have been interesting to correlate your rating of written responses with confidence. I think an analysis of the confidence ratings themselves should have gotten more attention.

For revision:

In the method, I would mention the full design but that it became obvious that order was very important so we considered only sites that were seen first. Since the focus is on the Connexions site, only the confidence of Merlot will be discussed for comparison. Also, let's focus for this report just on how well subjects understood the purpose. The other questions will be of interest later.

Ideally, the ratings of the written descriptions should be done separately on each of the three dimensions. Also, they should be done for all 13 subjects in the Connexions first.

The variability in responses should be noted.

We should leave off all design recommendations.

A key finding is that many subjects didn't understand that the site was valuable for and primarily aimed at students. This is supported by the ratings and the written descriptions.

A graph (edited) such as the below on confidence makes the point pretty well.