<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MERLOT Search - category=622552&amp;sort.property=overallRating</title>
        <link>http://www.merlot.org:80/merlot/</link>
        <description>A search of MERLOT materials</description>
        <copyright>Copyright 1997-2013 MERLOT. All rights reserved.</copyright>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:42 PDT</pubDate>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 06:32:42 PDT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <item>
            <title>Content Analysis of MERLOT&apos;s Peer Review Reports</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623493</link>
            <description>The purpose of this research is to examine the consistency in the quality and content of the Peer Reviews. By examining the content of the existing peer reviews, MERLOT and its Editorial Boards can decide on more specific guidelines for writing highly valuable peer reviews. Improvements in the MERLOT standards, training, and review process can also be produced. It was requested that The Center for Usability in Design and Assessment (CUDA) at CSU, Long Beach (1) assess the completeness of the Peer Reviews, and (2) perform a content analysis of the last approximately 100 Peer Reviews posted by the 13 MERLOT Editorial Review Boards. Content analysis began with an iterative process of developing categories of content embedded in the Peer Reviews. Upon categorizing the content, the frequencies in which different categories of content occurred was evaluated. For example, there may be multiple ways to describe the Quality of Content of learning materials. The content analysis defines the different types of descriptions of Quality and how often each type of description occurs in the collection of Peer Reviews.</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federated Search Community Document</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623478</link>
            <description>This document describes Federated Search from a technical perspective to help developers be able to create clients for the MERLOT web service and create their own web service that can be used by MERLOT&apos;s Federated Search technology</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federated Search Partner Document</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623472</link>
            <description>This document describes the requirements that a prospective Federated Search Partner must meet in order for their site to be able to be part of the MERLOT Federated Search.</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Format for Use Cases</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623489</link>
            <description>The planning document describes MERLOT/CUDA?s template for defining use cases is used as planning tools for developing demonstrations of and testing products and services. The framework for a use case has 2 parts. It begins with the definition of the current state of the users and the users? environment and the definition of the goal state for the users and their environment. The differences between current and goal states describe the problem that needs to be addressed. The second part of a use case is the definition of the strategy and tactics for the users achieving their goal state using the targeted products and services, the supporting infrastructure, and the user?s individual and organizational capabilities. Distributed February 2003</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Recognizing Value of Academic Technology Through Usability Evaluation</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623487</link>
            <description>The document provides an overview of usability and the variety of methods that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness, ease of using, ease of learning, and preferences of users in using technologies. Topics include: heuristics, walk through, lab test, field test, knowledge engineering, user needs assessment. Distributed in November 2000</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>RSS Request Instructions</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623474</link>
            <description>This document describes the procedure for partners to request specific new RSS feeds. As a benefit to partners, if they find a need for an RSS feed that does not yet exist, they may request that such a feed be created.</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>System Down Procedure</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623480</link>
            <description>Step-by-step procedures for MERLOT staff, outlining what to do in the event that the MERLOT website is down.</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Usability Evaluation of MERLOT v 1.5</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623485</link>
            <description>The Center for Usability in Design and Assessment (CUDA) conducted a usability lab evaluation of the OCSK 1.5 version of MERLOT?s system requirements Testing scenarios were developed to have participants evaluate selected critical aspects of the OCSK 1.5 site. Using modified lab evaluation methods, participants assessed the usability of the new MERLOT Home Page, Login, Become a Member, and Create a Profile, Browse Material and Contribute Material, finding peer-reviewed material in their discipline and in other disciplines, Advanced Search, especially the use of subject categories, differentiating between the kinds of materials (assignment, etc.) and type of materials (simulation, etc.), Adding User Comments and MERLOT members.</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Usability Evaluation of MERLOT v 2.5</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623482</link>
            <description>The Center for Usability in Design and Assessment (CUDA) conducted a usability evaluation of the OCSK 2.5 version of MERLOT&apos;s system This report details the usability services, including findings, results, and recommendations performed by the Center for Usability in Design and Assessment (CUDA) for the MERLOT Advisory team. The usability evaluation was conducted as a qualitative assessment of critical aspect of MERLOT&apos;s OCSK 2.5 version requirements. For this usability evaluation, developers&apos; specific interests focused on the impressions the MERLOT Home page, Peer Review page, and Peer Review Hit-List page would have on targeted users. The scope of the evaluation was intended to provide feasible design recommendations to be included in the current software development cycle. Report distributed in November 2001.</description>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Usability Evaluation of MERLOT&apos;s Peer Review Reports</title>
            <link>http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=623491</link>
            <description>The usability lab evaluation of MERLOT&apos;s Peer Reviews was conducted between February 2nd and March 21st, 2001. Five faculty members from Cal State Long Beach participated: two from Physics, two from Biology, and one from the Business department. CUDA evaluated the quality of the content, effectiveness as a learning resource evaluation tool, and ease of use of MERLOT&apos;s Peer Reviews using modified lab evaluation methods that included having participants from the target user population (1) Perform their own assessment of an online learning resource from MERLOT and then compare it to the Peer Review attached to that resource, (2) Read a Peer Review from MERLOT before comparing it to their own assessment of the online learning resource to which it is attached (time permitting) and (3) Compare formats of Peer Review reports across disciplines (time permitting). A complete description of the laboratory user testing methodology applied in this evaluation of MERLOT&apos;s Peer Reviews is contained in part III of this report entitled Method of Assessment. Report distributed April 2001</description>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
