Project Links

Educational Technology Review

Module: Electric Field

Version: 0.6

Date: April 29, 1999

Reviewers: J. Richardson, J. Baker

Reviewers from the Evaluation Consortium at the University at Albany reviewed the module at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This summary includes comments and questions where consensus and/or convergence was noted. Since Project Links modules have many common elements (e.g. navigation, formatting, etc.) this report not only provides formative feedback concerning the instructional technology aspects of the module but also provides formative feedback for all Project Links modules, regardless of the stage of development. Please note that following the title of each section of evaluation criteria is the rating the module received concerning that area.

The scores range from 1 to 7, with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the highest possible score.

Summary

Category Score
Explicit Linking of Concepts 6
Support for Studio Learning 5
Flexibility 6
Support for Collaborative Learning 3
Discovery Orientation 6
Multi-modality 5
Consistency 6
Screen Design 6
Usability 5
Average 5.3

Explicit Linking of Concepts, Score = 6

In keeping with the standard format for all Project Links modules, this module had two ways of navigating through the module content, either by using the "Prior" and "Next" buttons, or by clicking directly on the topics displayed on the left side of the web page. Depending on the content area, there are also highlighted activities links on the top of the page. These links are consistently displayed.

The fundamental mathematical ideas are adequately linked within the module, allowing the user to move between some of the different concepts within the module. Links are consistently displayed, though not always reversible. On occasion some of these links will open in another browser window, not allowing the user to go back to the point of origin. Two hypertext links (both on the "Prerequisite" page) are not linked properly. There are a number of links to external WWW sites, many of which are interesting and relevant to the material.

There are no instructor materials provided with the module. There are instructions for the module in general, but nothing that specifically pertains to exploiting the inter- and intra- module links.

Support for Studio-Type Teaching and Learning, Score = 5

There are multiple ways for students to interact with the concepts demonstrated within the module. Users have the opportunity to answer questions and to plot points on various graphs. These graphs also serve to illustrate the concepts presented.

The module provides no explicit opportunities to interact with the instructor; there are no materials provided with the module that assist the instructor in designing and tailoring or promoting student-instructor interaction.

Flexibility, Score = 6

The module has considerable flexibility allowing it to be used beyond studio settings for demonstrations/lecture, lab projects, and study outside of the classroom. Students are also able to take different paths within the module, allowing them to explore some concepts more than others. It does not appear, though, that the module can be modified by either the students or the instructors, with the exception of the various practice exercises. This might be possible with the addition of either instructor materials or student instructions, or both.

Support for Collaborative Learning, Score = 3

The module does not explicitly support the need for collaborative work or any sort of collaborative decision-making. Nonetheless, it would be possibleo use the software in a collaborative manner, if instructed to do so. The lack of instructions in this area is very clearly felt.

Discovery Orientation, Score = 6

The software involves the students in a number of thought-provoking exercises, ranging from various question and answers to allowing students to manipulate graphs. The module addresses not only the concepts but also often provides ‘real-world’ applications and links to external web sites which deal with the concepts at hand. As above, though, there is no instructor information provided.

Multi-Modality, Score = 5

Multi-media is incorporated into the module, and with good use. There is an active picture displaying lightning on the title page, and a number of graphs and other applets used to illustrate various concepts. These applets (e.g., showing the moving of energy from one area of potential to another) are used to good effect. A number of the external web sites that are linked from this module contain a variety of multi-media displays. Unfortunately there was no graphical map of the module itself. No information was provided concerning off-line material used with this software.

Consistency, Score = 6

The screens followed the same format as used in other Project Links modules. The navigation tools were consistent with other Project Links software. The help pages were similar in design and scope with the other modules. The link to the Library also appeared in good working order.

Screen Design, Score = 6

The screens were simple, balanced, and easy-to-use. The text was visible, legible, and formatted for meaning while the fonts and type sizes were appropriate to the material. Functional and content areas were kept separate, with the functional areas being accessed through a variety of options. The differing kinds of content and activities were distinguished from each other in a consistent fashion.

Usability, Score = 5

There were few bugs with the module. The two links on the Prerequisite page did not work, and there were a few icons that were supposed to serve as links, but instead were displayed only with a question mark. The software appeared free from any blatant spelling or grammar errors. A horizontal scroll bar occurred on a number of pages, which should be unnecessary.

Synopsis, Average Score = 5.3

Many of the limitations associated with this module refer to the lack of instructor manuals and off-line instructions. Once these instructions are created, much of these comments will be irrelevant.