Map Implementation
& Evaluation Phase

To implement and summatively evaluate the map, ten (10) randomly selected patrons of the Hamden Public Library participated. Upon entering the library, the patron was given a brochure map and an option to scan a QR code to access the digital map through their phones. They are instructed to use it as a guide while exploring the library. They were also given an evaluation form and asked to complete and return it after finishing their visit. This approach embodies the self-directed learning instructional strategy, which was selected as the primary instructional method for this project.

Once all the evaluation forms were returned and compiled, I tallied and summarized the responses. Overall, the feedback was largely positive. As I went through the feedback from participants, I was really encouraged by how thoughtful their comments were. They shared positive comments, particularly loving the level of detail and usefulness of the map. 

They also shared constructive comments that could inform the final iteration of the map. One person mentioned some confusion around the staircases on the main level. I hadn’t anticipated that, but once I looked at the map again, I could see how it might be unclear. To address this, I added lines to the staircase area to better replicate the appearance of stairs. A couple of participants also pointed out that the map was a bit hard to read. I took that to heart and created an 11×17 version, which will now be printed on larger paper so it's easier for patrons to read without straining. One participant brought up a good point about the non-fiction areas. They felt it would be helpful if those were broken down further. In the end, I didn’t update the map to include that level of detail, because, based on the analysis, library staff tends to rearrange materials fairly often, so including specific information or labels could cause the map to become outdated quickly. Besides, there is a directory and there are posted signages in the library that breaks down what is in each area further (see Appendix C).

From the implementation and evaluation of the wayfinding map, I have gained two (2) key insights.

First, I realized that instructional design is indeed an iterative process. I started with a minimum viable product, developed the initial iteration, moved on to the second iteration informed by formative evaluation, and now created the final iteration informed by this summative evaluation. This made me see that perhaps there is really no "final" iteration of the instructional outputs that we do. Rather, what we have are evolving versions that continuously respond to the changing needs of learners and the learning environment.

Second, I realized how important it is to know the context, to know the existing resources that the organization already has, so that we avoid replicating materials unnecessarily and wasting time producing something that already exists. For instance, with regard to the breakdown of the non-fiction areas, if I didn’t know that there is already a directory and posted signages that provides that information, I might have spent time trying to incorporate all those details into the map, which could have made it cluttered and could have undermined the map's durability. Thankfully, I was able to conduct a context analysis during the analysis phase. This has informed both my design decisions and my ability to defend why certain suggestions, although helpful, may not be necessary at this point.

In this phase, the only issue, as evident in the narration of events, is the feedback about including more detailed breakdowns of the non-fiction areas. While valid, this suggestion goes against one of our original design principles, which is to keep the map durable amid frequent changes in shelving. 

To resolve this, I’ll recommend that existing resources in the library, like the directory and the Dewey decimal system infographic, be displayed as a handout alongside the map so that they can supplement one another. This way, we still respond to the need without sacrificing sustainability.

In retrospect, I'd say that the strength of how the implementation and evaluation phase was conducted is that the learners were not given any kind of pressure to perform or provide the "right" answers. They were free to explore the library at their own pace using the map, and they weren’t asked to share their names in the evaluation form, so there’s anonymity that encourages them to be honest with their responses. Moreover, I also responded to the feedback with revisions while still staying true to the principles established during the analysis phase. 

The weakness, on the other hand, is that the evaluation was limited in scale and duration. Since it was only conducted with ten participants over a short period, there may be other valuable insights or recurring issues that didn’t surface. Additionally, the participants may not represent all types of library users, such as those with visual impairments or non-English speakers, so their unique needs might have been overlooked. 

From the insights gained, I’d recommend that the library set up a feedback system once they start the full-blown implementation of the map so that they can continue to gather input on how the map can be improved. This way, the instructional material can evolve with the needs of its users and remain responsive to any changes in the library’s layout or services. Moreover, to reiterate what was said earlier, I’d recommend that existing resources in the library, like the directory and the Dewey Decimal System infographic, be displayed as a handout alongside the map so that they can supplement one another and provide patrons with a stress-free wayfinding experience.

Moreover, for my future self, I would recommend this: always listen to your target learners, as they are the ones from whom you will get the most valuable suggestions. And one piece of advice, never get tired of iterating because instructional design, as it seems to be, is nothing but an unending cycle of iterations.