Civil

Engineering Website Audit

Student A, Student B, & Student C Presented to Dr. Ken Fridley, Department Head of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, and the Faculty

TableofContents
1. Executive Summary....2 2. Introduction.....3 3. Audit Methods.....4 4. Audit Findings.....7 5. Recommendations...9 6. Post Reader Interview Results...11 7. Conclusion.....13 8. Appendix A: Original Website......14 9. Appendix B: Revised Website......19 10. Appendix C: Writer Interview..24 11. Appendix D: Pre Reader Interviews.......25 12. Appendix E: Post Reader Interviews...76

ExecutiveSummary
The Department of Civil Engineering of the College of Engineering at The University of Alabama is interested in developing a better way to recruit students to its graduate program. The area of focus for this report is the Master of Science in Civil Engineering (MSCE) website. Currently the website is most effective for current graduate students. The website allows students to click on the MSCE link and find out which courses are required in order to obtain a degree. We interviewed the writer of the document to learn more about how he thought the website could be more effective and what he would like for the website to accomplish. We then interviewed twelve undergraduate civil engineering students and asked them what they liked and disliked about the website. The methodology we used to rate the document was a plus minus system that indicated positive and negative attributes, respectfully. We also asked interviewees how the website could better attract them as a potential graduate student to the masters program. We analyzed the findings from the reader interviews and then developed a prototype website. Here is an overview of the process we used:

WriterInterview ReaderInterviews AnalyzeFindings Recommendations

During the writer interview we learned that the writer wanted the website to not only inform current and potential students, but he also wanted the website to serve as a recruiting tool for potential students. He wanted the website to answer any questions that the potential student may have, or show the student a way to get her questions answered. During the pre-reader interviews we learned that undergraduate students wanted to know how current masters students felt about the program, names and descriptions of the courses they would be required to take, and information about who to contact and how to apply. After we made these changes, the post reader interviews were conducted and we found that the majority of negative comments were about design rather than content. We also found that there was a significant drop in minuses from the pre-reader interviews to the post reader interviews.

Introduction

The University of Alabama Civil Engineering Department aims to provide innovative and high quality programs that support the many and varied interests of its students. Currently, there are roughly forty individuals enrolled at the University of Alabama as MSCE students. As of today, the program has two tracks: a Professional Masters track and a Research Masters with Thesis track. Dr. Ken Fridley currently heads the Civil Engineering Department and worked closely with us throughout the semester. Dr. Fridleys ultimate goal for the project was to grow enrollment for the MSCE Program, with emphasis on the Professional Masters track. Together, we decided that in order to help achieve this goal, the best document to audit was the graduate website for the Civil Engineering Department (http://cce.eng.ua.edu/graduate). After extensive review of the document, we determined several key areas that needed to be addressed for improvement. Our areas of focus for document revision were: Bring the program to life by adding photos, videos, etc. Add descriptions for courses and program tracks Provide information about the benefit of a Master of Science in Civil Engineering

By focusing on these key areas, we were able to revise the website to appeal to prospective students, while still preserving the more in-depth information that is useful to current students.

AuditMethods

Selecting the Document

Interviewing theWriter

Interviewing aSample Audience

A. Document Selection We selected the Civil Engineering Departments Masters program website for the communication audit project. We chose this document to increase clarity and to maximize the recruiting potential for the Civil Engineering Graduate Program. The original website can be found in Appendix A on page 14. The Civil Engineering Department Head Dr. Ken Fridley was eager to work with our team to develop a better website. Dr. Fridley felt this had the potential to be an important tool for recruiting students to the Masters program and wanted to make sure students found the website easy to navigate and understand. He wanted to make sure the information is concise and pertinent. Presently the website is set up to inform current students of the Masters program course requirements for any of the Civil Engineering disciplines. The only information currently available on the website is a list of required courses and their registration numbers. B. Writer Interview Interviewing Dr. Fridley allowed us to affirm the purpose and intended audience for this document. The purpose of the document is to recruit students to the MSCE program. The intended audience is any potential student regardless of his undergraduate school, age or career path within engineering. 4

Dr. Fridley communicated his desire to restructure the website to act as a recruiting tool instead of just a resource for need-to-know information. He expressed a want for a more prospective student friendly website. Furthermore, Dr. Fridley wanted the website to have a section that is specifically for the recruitment of Naval Officers that are interested in getting their MSCE. The entire writer interview can be found in Appendix C on page 24. C. Reader Interviews Interviewing a sample audience allowed us to gather insight from those that are most likely to use the website to gather information about the MSCE program. The target market for the website is strictly students with a Civil Engineering background because a student cannot get a MSCE without having a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. However, we diversified our audience by choosing students of different year classifications and both males and females. The First Sample Audience for the Pre Reader Interviews: Reader 1: female, junior Reader 2: male, sophomore Reader 3: male, senior Reader 4: male, sophomore Reader 5: female, sophomore Reader 6: female, senior Reader 7: male, freshman Reader 8: female, senior Reader 9: male, freshman Reader 10: female, freshman Reader 11: female, sophomore Reader 12: male, junior The Second Sample Audience for the Post Reader Interviews: Reader 1: female, sophomore Reader 2: female, freshman Reader 3: male, senior Reader 4: female, senior Reader 5: male, freshman Reader 6: female, junior Reader 7: male, freshman Reader 8: male, junior Reader 9: female, junior Reader 10: male, sophomore Reader 11: male, senior Reader 12: female, senior When interviewing our sample audience, we printed snapshots of the website, and we asked our interviewees to put a plus (+) or minus (-) next to the parts of the website they deemed as good or 5

bad, respectively. The plus-minus analysis allows the reader to highlight parts of the document that cause a positive response and parts that cause a negative response. We asked the interviewees to explain each of their pluses and minuses. After the interviewee graded the document, we asked some follow-up questions (listed below) to get a better understanding of their overall opinion of the document. We also allowed for the interviewee to share anything else he felt was good or bad about the document. Follow Up Questions: If you were pursuing a MSCE, how well would you say this website sold you on attending the University of Alabama? After reviewing the website, what would your next step be in selecting a program to attend for getting a Masters degree? How do you feel about the overall content of the website? You mentioned the website didnt sell you, what type of information would sell you? We felt these follow up questions would give us a better understanding of what students are looking for when they view a graduate programs website. Knowing the answers to these questions would help us redesign the website to better fit students needs and to be a better recruiting tool for Dr. Fridley and his staff. The pre-reader interviews can be found in Appendix D starting on page 25.

AuditFindings
After completing our reader interviews, we analyzed how each interviewee evaluated the document. Understanding what the writer intends for the document to accomplish and what the reader needs from the document are very important in developing effective communication. By analyzing the interviewees responses, we were able to make the document more effective for both the writer and the reader. A. Writers Intent The writers current intent for this document is to inform current and prospective students the course requirements for a MSCE. The main page lists the different kinds of MSCEs that the University of Alabama offers including dual programs. From there the reader can click on the masters program he is interested in, which will then take him to a page that lists all the course requirements in order to obtain that degree. B. Readers Perceptions After gathering the reader interviewees responses using the plus minus system (see Appendix D on page 25), we discovered that the writers intent and the readers expectations of the document did not align. The evaluations of the first page were essentially all positive. The readers liked the picture and the statement of the goal. They also like that all the different graduate degrees were listed. The only question one of the readers had pertained to the statement While most graduate studies are focused on one of these four focus areas, many student plans of study involve two or more of the above areas. The readers question was Which is better? Is it beneficial to do more than one? The next page is the list of requirements for both the Thesis Option (Plan I) and the Non-Thesis Option (Plan II) of study for the MSCE. Below are the pluses and minuses for this page: Pluses Easy to understand Time to complete requirements Describes the custom options Shows what carries over from undergraduate Explains what counts where Allocation of hours explained Listing of classes required Minuses Needs class names & descriptions What are the pros/cons for the Plan 1 v. Plan 2 Do not understand all of the terminology Is there a list of approved 400-level courses? Seems confined & like options are not available What transfer credit is approved? What forms need to be filled out for graduate school?

Several readers had similar pluses and minuses for this page. The most frequently stated minus was the absences of course names and descriptions or a link to the names and descriptions.

We also asked a few additional questions regarding the web page: Does this web page sell you on the graduate program? What would you like on the web page to sell you to the graduate program? How would you use this web page the way it is set up now?

The following are some of the comments from those questions:

Based on the reader interviews, none of the readers thought that anything on the page should be deleted; however, most were in agreement that the website is missing a lot of important information. The reader interviews were very insightful to help us come up with recommendations for an improved web page.

Recommendations
The website evaluations have an almost equal amount of pluses and minuses. We plan to make the website more effective by eliminating the minuses the readers identified. To eliminate these minuses we have proposed changes that will make the document more effective for both the writer and the reader. First Goal: Inform Current & Prospective Students of the Course Requirements Looking at the first goal of informing current and prospective students the course requirement for MSCE we found several problems. Most of these problems occur on the second page of the website due to the fact that the website does not give class names or descriptions of coursework. The target readers of the website do not understand some of the terminology used. The website does not give advantages of Plan 1 v. Plan 2, thesis option v. non-thesis option. The readers would like to see a list of approved 400-level courses. The website does not explain what transfer credits are approved. The readers do not know what forms need to be filled out for graduate school. Addressing these minuses will make the website a more effective and informative tool for the graduate students and prospective graduate students. The following are the changes that our team recommends to achieve the writers first goal: Add the name and description to the Core Coursework Requirements Add a description including pros and cons of Plan 1 and Plan 2, thesis and non-thesis options Clarify the terminology Look at the possibility of adding a list of the approved 400-level courses Clarify what transfer credits are approved Supply a link to the forms needed for graduate school and the steps to apply

Second Goal: Use the Website as a Recruiting Tool for Prospective Students Looking at the second goal of the website, being a recruiting tool for perspective graduate students from the University of Alabama and other universities, we asked the readers a couple of questions about the website. The first question asked the reader if this website sold them on the MSCE at the University of Alabama. The second question asked the reader what they would like to see on the website that might sell them on the graduate program. The readers gave us many ideas on what was needed on this website in order for it to be an effective tool in recruiting prospective students to graduate school in Civil Engineering at the University of Alabama. The following are the changes that our team recommends to achieve the writers second goal: List some benefits of getting a MSCE Provide some testimonials Describe research done by students Provide pictures of projects 9

The readers liked that all the information for getting a MSCE degree was on one page. They also felt that nothing on the page should be deleted; however, more detail was needed to the information that was already on the page. The ideas the readers had to make the website more effective recruiting tool were very valuable. With the changes listed above, this website will meet the two goals of the writer. Finally, several students showed interest in seeing a video on the website, and that would be a good way to inform potential students about any of the recommendations above. Joshua Perry, a telecommunications and film student that specializes in video and photo, said that he would be willing to do the video for engineering. This would benefit the civil engineering department and Mr. Perry because the engineering department would not incur a cost and Mr. Perry would have something to add to his resume.

10

PostReaderInterview Results
We adapted the website to reflect the recommendations based on the pre reader interviews. The revised version of the website can be found in Appendix B on page 19. Then we interviewed twelve new readers and asked them to use the plus minus system to rate what they liked and disliked about the new website. We did not tell them that this was the revised website in order to make sure they were not biased with their responses. There was a significant different between the results of the pre reader interviews and the post reader interviews. There were a lot more pluses and fewer minuses on the post reader interviews compared to the pre reader interviews. Also, most of the minuses on the post reader interviews were related to design, whereas most of the minuses on the pre reader interviews were related to content. Here is a comparison of the pluses and minuses by our twenty-four readers: Pre Reader Interviews Reader 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Pluses 3 5 7 0 3 3 1 2 5 2 14 Minuses 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 4 2 7 2 Post Reader Interviews Reader 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Pluses 3 3 5 2 5 4 11 6 0 1 6 Minuses 2 2 4 0 4 4 3 6 0 1 0

11

12 Total:

2 47

7 40

12 Total:

3 49

1 27

Even though the pluses did not significantly increase, there was significant decrease in the number of minuses that were used. The complete post reader interviews can be found in Appendix E starting on page 76.

Some of the comments from the minuses include: I dont really like the color scheme. There is a lot of text. Should be more design & color. More interesting pictures. Brighter colors to pull in your focus & interest. Add some pictures. Add some color. I wish there were more pictures on the website. Make the class listings into a graph/table to make it easier to read. Most of these comments reflect personal tastes instead of general opinions about what kinds of information are most important. However, several people commented that there should be more pictures to break up all the text a little bit. Adding more pictures should be considered when moving forward with this project.

12

Conclusion
The original website did a great job of informing current students what their course requirements were and what program tracts were available. However, since the desired purpose of the website was to recruit new students to the MSCE program, we felt that the website should provide more detailed information. The changes that we have recommended will give prospective students the information they need to make an informed decision about getting their MSCE at the University of Alabama. We hope that the Department of Civil Engineering will consider our changes. Our team would like to thank Dr. Ken Fridley and the entire civil engineering department for their patience and help while we conducted our research. Dr. Fridley was available to answer all of our questions and gave us a better understanding of what he wanted the website to say about the civil engineering program at the University of Alabama.

13

OriginalWebsite

RevisedWebsite

WriterInterview
Describe the writer(s) of the document you are auditing. What is his/her position? There is no specific writer for this document. The faculty of the Civil Engineering Department made the decision to use only the program curriculum on the website. Dr. Fridley is the department head for the Civil Engineering Department. What is the process by which this document was created? The civil engineering faculty decided that the best approach for the civil engineering website was to simply put the curriculum, essentially the course catalog on the webpage. The number one goal was to let current and prospective students know what was required of their program. All of the potential readers of the webpage were not taken into consideration when the website was being created. Did the writer intend to use this document to inform, to direct, to consult, or to value the audience? The intent of the website is to inform its readers. The goal of the websites content is to keep current students on track with their requirements and to inform prospective students of the curriculum in the program. What, in a single sentence, is the writers bottom line? Here are the courses required to be completed in order to earn a Master of Science in Civil Engineering. Describe the actual audience of the document in terms of their relationship to the writers message (their knowledge level and their sensitivity level) and in terms of their relationship with the writer (any power difference, value difference, and degree of social distance). Why would they read this document? The audience encompasses both current students and prospective students. Right now the message on the webpage is insensitive. While there are power, social, and value differences between the reader and the writer, they are nonthreatening because they writer and reader are dependent on one another to achieve their respective goals of providing and receiving education. Additional Questions How do you feel about the document as it stands? Providing the course curriculum on the webpage is good information to students and non-students alike; however, prospective students are not going to be wowed by our program because of the degree requirements. The site lacks the appeal we need to recruit students and promote our program. What would you like the website to show? More information for prospective students essentially to be used to help recruit new students. Also, a section for navy officers interested in getting their MSCE.

AppendixD: PreReaderInterviews

AppendixE: PostReaderInterviews