ARTEFACT 4

EVALUATION
For artefact 4 I developed a flash based instruction manual. This manual was a revised version of the instructions I created for artefact 3and taught the users how to create a webpage layout.
The aim for artefact 4 was to improve artefact 3, using the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation) model. As this is the most commonly used instructional design process used.
I began by analysing the feedback from artefact 3 and finding the steps users struggled with I then reworked these steps using
• Help boxes containing more detailed instruction
• Screenshots
• Illustrations
I then designed a new instruction manual and resolved the issues from the previous instruction manual.
After carrying out this test I compared the results from this artefact and the previous artefact.
The first comparison was the time taken to complete the tutorials. I found that-
• Artefact 3 took 4minutes 45seconds (on average)
• Artefact 4 took 3minutes 48seconds (on average)
The second comparison was the how well the users understood the tutorials. I found that-
• 73% of the participants found Artefact 3 easy to follow
• 83% of the participants found Artefact 4 easy to follow

These comparisons show that the developed instruction manual for this artefact improved users learning. I found that the following factors help produce good instructional design-
• Easy to read font. So that the instructions are easy to follow
• Use only the necessary amount of text and images to complete the task successfully.
• Help boxes with extra instructions. To support users of all abilities to complete the task.
For the next artefact I will use these finding on instructional design, and test them on a different type of task. This will show me whether these findings work on all types of tasks.