Project Links
Educational Technology Review
Module: Electrostatic Field and Potential Module
Version: 1.0
September 14, 1998
Reviewers: Jennifer Richardson, Leslie Bliss, Karen Powell, Jeff Baker
Four 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 "Drag Forces," but also provides formative feedback for all Project Links modules, regardless of stag 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 5.5 Support for Studio Learning 5 Flexibility 6 Support for Collaborative Learning 2.5 Discovery Orientation 6 Multi-modality 6 Consistency 5.5 Screen Design 6 Usability 4.5 Average 5.2 ![]()
Explicit Linking of Concepts, Score = 5.5
The module had two separate sets of links for the purpose of navigating quickly and easily around the module. For example, links for the table of contents allow participants access the different concept areas of the module without having to navigate through the entire module. The consistent display of the activities links at the top of the concept pages allows participants to easily navigate around the theory, experiments, applications and discussion (actually practice section) function areas of a particular concept. Participants can easily move forward and backward along their module path by using the back and forward buttons provided by the browser.
The fundamental mathematical ideas covered in this module involve calculus and the module is linked to the appropriate Project Links Calculus module so that students may review the concepts and or theories. The module also includes many links to external WWW sites dealing with similar ideas and /or concepts. In practice, however, many of the links were not found, resulting in a "script error" reading.
Support for Studio-Type Teaching and Learning, Score = 5
The module provides multiple opportunities for students to interact with the software in a meaningful way. Each concept has an exercise section, an experiment section, an applications sections, and a theory section, thus explicitly integrating lab exercises and other activities into the module. The software does not explicitly integrate direct instruction and inter-student discussion, nor are opportunities for students to interact with the instructor explicitly built into the lessons.
The lessons are not necessarily broken-up between the various kinds of learning activities (i.e. some lecture, then inter-student discussion, then an experiment, etc.) as they appear in the module; however, this possibility could exist depending upon how the instructor facilitates use of the module in the classroom setting. The module does not include instructor materials which provide suggestions for using the lessons in a studiosetting; preparation of this material would facilitate use by multiple instructors.
Flexibility, Score = 6
The flexibility of the module is considerable; it can be used beyond studio settings for demonstrations/lecture, laboratory projects, a motivational tool in math courses, a review tool in engineering and science courses, outside study or extra assignments, self-study, and distance learning. There are also multiple paths through the materials which allows students to modify the lessons for their own purposes. If instructor materials are developed, the module would also allow the instructor to modify the module for his/her purposes. An instructor manual or materials might also provide some suggestions for using the lessons in a non-studio setting.
Support for Collaborative Learning, Score = 2.5
The software did not demand collaborative work nor did it demand discussion/exploration/experimentation resulting in collaborative decision-making. At several points there was a notice at the bottom of the screen encouraging students to 'discuss with a classmate." Nevertheless, the activities could be used in a collaborative work environment if the students were instructed to do. The lack of instructions promoting collaborative learning as well as the lack of instructor materials which should provide suggestions for using the lessons collaboratively left the reviewers unaware of any possible attempts to include collaborative learning in the module lessons.
Discovery Orientation, Score = 6
The software engages students in complex, open-ended problem solving activities that require creativity and flexibility. The software also provides many opportunities for students to directly manipulate variables, although not all of them provide corresponding experiential feedback. The aforementioned opportunities encourage students to revisit content and problems from different perspectives, such as the experiment function versus the application function of the concepts. Likewise, the lessons also encourage students to explore and experiment by having them make predictions and form hypothesis. The software also appropriately allows participants to determine what they need to learn through questioning and goal-setting.
Multi-Modality, Score = 6
There are multiple media incorporated into the module in the form of graphs, images, animation, and text which carry supportive or illustrative information concerning the theory and concepts of the module. In addition, the non-print media was used intrinsically and the differing types of information carried by the various media were appropriate to them. Moreover, there were references and hyperlinks to outside materials that students could link to or reference for further information or examples, although these materials were not required by the lessons. Aside from the inclusion of the references within the module, there were no instructor materials to provide suggestions for using a variety of media (both on and off-line) to explore major concepts and ideas.
The only graphical organizer included in the module was the table of contents, although there was the possibility of including a module map to show an alternative graphical representation of the module. The organization of the module could be clearly established by using the table of contents, making a second representation unnecessary.
Consistency, Score = 5.5
The organization of the module appeared to be consistent with the others in Project Links with the exception of the discussion section. The discussion section actually represented the exercise (question and answer) section of the module and offered little opportunity for students to discuss, unless they discussed the questions appearing in that section. In addition, the Library link did not have a listing of the major concept pages as the definition of "library" stated in the Help section. Aside from the above factors, the navigational tools were consistent as was the Help link and the link to the Calculus module of Project Links.
Screen Design, Score = 6
The screens were simple, harmonious and well-balanced, allowing the design of the display to reflect the substance and organization of the subject area. The text was visible, legible, and formatted for meaning, the fonts and type sizes were appropriate to the subject area, the audience and the task. Functional and content areas were kept separate, with the functional areas being accessed either through the "Cribsheet" link, the two "Review" sections, or linking to the Calculus Module of Project Links. The differing kinds of content and/or activities were distinguished from each other in a consistent fashion, either by consulting the table of contents or the activities links at the top of each page (experiments, theory, applications, discussion).
Usability, Score = 4.5
At this point, the program still has some bugs in it (e.g. the unavailability to link to some of the external links on the WWW and the occurrence of "script error" readings when the reviewers tried to access most of the "remember how" buttons embedded within particular pages). The program is free of blatant errors in spelling and grammar and the navigation is sensible and consistent. The table of contents is accessible from all points within the program except when a participant is viewing "Help" or "Library," in which case the page must be closed out to return to the module.
Furthermore, the program can be entered lesson by lesson, as the table of contents allows. The only other usability problems that existed concerned the "Cribsheet" function. Within the module the explanation of the purpose of the "Cribsheet" function was not definitive, nor was any instructions related to this function located within the module. It would also be beneficial to module participants if the "Cribsheet" links were two-way. For example, within the "Cribsheet" function students can link from the formula to-the area of the module that utilizes that formula, however, it might also be helpful if the participants could link from the area of module utilizing the formula to the "Cribsheet".
Synopsis, Average Score = 5.2
Participants were informed that an instructors manual was currently being developed but not yet ready for distribution. Due to this factor, several criticisms in the above evaluation may in fact be resolved. For example, several comments focus on the lack of an instructors manual to provide suggestions for teaching the module in a non studiosetting as well as in a collaborative setting. The reviewers would like to have it duly noted that we have taken this possibility into consideration.