Project Links

Educational Technology Review

Module: The Gradient

Version: 0.4

Date: April 27, 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 3
Support for Studio Learning 5
Flexibility 5
Support for Collaborative Learning 5
Discovery Orientation 5.5
Multi-modality 5
Consistency 3
Screen Design 6
Usability 4
Average 4.6

Explicit Linking of Concepts, Score = 3

As with the standard format template for Project Links modules, The Gradient (v.0.4) had two ways of navigating through the content,: using the "prior" and "next" buttons, or by clicking directly on the topics displayed on the left side of the web page. Unlike the standard format template, the activities were included within concept sections and were not highlighted as activity links on the top of the page. The fundamental mathematical ideas were linked in an hierarchical manner by concepts.

There were no intramodule links between mathematical, engineering and science courses nor any reference to useful external information. In addition, there were no links to external websites. Fundamental mathematical ideas were not generalized within the module. No instructor materials or suggestions for utilizing inter or intra module links were included.

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

The module provides multiple ways for students to interact with the concepts demonstrated within the module. Users have the opportunity to integrate direct instruction with the module activities. The lessons were not broken up between the various kinds of learning activities (lecture material and activities), but rather by concepts. The module does not provide specific opportunities for students to interact with each other or with the instructor. The module does not provide non-developer instructor materials with suggestions for using the lessons in a studio setting.

Flexibility, Score = 5

The module has considerable flexibility allowing it to be used beyond studio settings for demonstrations/ lecture, laboratory projects, and study outside of the classroom. The module does provide students with instructions for using the module on their own.

Support for Collaborative Learning, Score = 5

The module provides no specific opportunities for collaborative work or decision making; however, the structure supports collaborative work. Moreover, although students may be assessed (depending upon instructor’s wishes), there is no indication that the work is graded collaboratively. The module does provide an opportunity for students to assess their own strengths and weaknesses but does not provide information for the instructor on how to use lessons in a more collaborative manner.

Discovery Orientation, Score = 5.5

The software involves the students in a number of thought provoking exercises, ranging from various questions and answers to allowing students to manipulate objects on the screen. The software also engages the students in open-ended, complex problem solving. Student activities encourage the use of problem solving processes as well as seeking solutions to in depth problems. The software is playful and encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning. The module not only addresses the concepts but also provides real world applications.

The module is lacking in that students are not able to determine their own learning needs through goal setting and questioning. The lessons only minimally encourage students to explore and experiment by making predictions and forming hypotheses. The software does not encourage students to revisit content from different perspectives. Nor does it appear to provide links to WWW sites that explore the same ideas and concepts. No non-developer information is provided for using the lessons.

Multi-Modality, Score = 5

Multi-media is incorporated into the module in the form of graphs, charts, diagrams, and manipulatives. These activities may be graded and do require students to articulate the ideas through a variety of media. There are graphical organizers used to provide alternative representations of the structure of the module. Instructor materials are not included in the module.

Consistency, Score = 3

The screens did not follow the same format used in other Project Links modules nor were the navigation tools consistent with other Project Links software. The help pages, however, were similar in design and scope with the other modules. The module does not provide representation on how it fits into the overall scope of Project Links nor how it links to other modules.

Screen Design, Score = 6

The screens were simple, balanced and easy to use. The text was visible, legible, and formatted for meaning; however the fonts may have been one size too small in order for all student to be able to view the material well.

Usability, Score = 4

There were a few bugs in the module and not all of the links connected correctly. The software appeared free from blatant spelling and grammar errors. The navigation is sensible and consistent, and the user can easily tell where he/she is in the module with the map that is provided. Users can not exit and save work. Instructor and student materials supporting use of the module were not provided and no help-line was offered.

Synopsis, Average Score = 4.6

Many of the limitations regarding this module can be easily remedied with two actions. First, a manual or instructor’s guidelines should accompany the module to ensure the activities are collaborative in nature, additional (online and offline) references should be listed, and/or a concept map should be provided to illustrate how the concepts of this module link or connect to other areas. Second, conforming to the Project Links standard template will give the module the consistency of the other modules that are at similar levels of completion. Finally, in all fairness, the evaluators noted that the module is listed at the version .4 level.