Project Links
Educational Technology Review
Module: Mass Transport
Version: 0.6
Date: May 5, 1999
Reviewers: J. Richardson, E. Christopher
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 6.5 Support for Studio Learning 5 Flexibility 5 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 = 6.5
In keeping with the standard format for all Project Links modules, Mass transport (v.0.6) had two ways of navigating through the content; either using the "prior" and "next" buttons, or by clicking directly on the topics displayed on the left side of the web page. Highlighted Activity links on the top of the page were consistently displayed.
The fundamental mathematical ideas are linked within the module and the concept map demonstrates the module’s connections between mathematical, engineering and science courses; specifically how it links to Biomedical Engineering and Environmental Science. Additionally, the applications sections of the module generally referred to use in the Biomedical Engineering field and/or the Environmental Science field. Moreover, there were intramodule links in place to modules in these related areas. There were also several WWW sites found within the module that provided additional information on related topics. In addition, the nomenclature section of the module provided valuable information related to understanding the module and its applications.
There was some difficulty differentiating between the black font of the text and the blue font of the links; the links were not always easily distinguishable. This problem could be caused in part by the small font size being utilized in the module. Programmers may want to try different colors and font sizes. Finally, the module did not include instructor materials or suggestions for utilizing inter- or intra- module links.
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 are broken up between the various kinds of learning activities (lecture material and activities). The module, however, does not provide students with much opportunity to interact with each other or the instructor. In addition, the module does not provide instructor materials with suggestions for using the lessons in a studio setting.
Flexibility, Score = 5
The module has considerable flexiblity and allows the module to be used beyond studio settings for demonstrations/ lecture, laboratory projects, and study outside of the classroom. Students are able to take different paths within the module which allows them to choose to explore some concepts more in depth than others.
Support for Collaborative Learning, Score = 3
The module does not provide the explicit opportunity for collaborative work. The software does not provide exploration resulting in collaborative decision making nor does it promote the students’ contributing to each other’s learning. Assigned work is not graded collaboratively, is unable able to be assessed by both the instructors and the group members. In addition, the module does not provide an opportunity for students to assess their own strengths and weaknesses. No information is provided for non-developer instructors in support of collaborative use.
Discovery Orientation, Score = 6
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 reflect the problem solving process and also provides solutions to problems. The software encourages students to revisit content from different perspectives. The software is "playful" but does not encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. For example, students are not able to determine their own learning needs through goal setting and questioning. The module not only addresses the concepts but also provides real world applications. It does provide links to WWW sites that explore similar ideas and concepts. The module does not provide non-developer instructor materials indicating best use of discovery applications.
Multi-Modality, Score = 5
Multi-media is incorporated into the module in the forms of graphs, charts, diagrams, and manipulatives. There are also some offline materials associated with the lessons in this module which are referenced in the software. These activities are not graded but do require students to articulate the ideas through a variety of media. Graphical organizers are used to provide alternative representations of the structure of the module.
Consistency, Score = 6
The screens followed the same format used in other Project Links modules. The navigation tools were consistent with other Project Links software; in addition, the nomenclature section was very useful for review of the concepts. The help pages were similar in design and scope with the other modules. The module also provides a representation demonstrating how it fits into the overall scope of Project Links and 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. The fonts, however, were somewhat small, and the external links were not always easily distinguishable. 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 a few bugs in the module. As mentioned previously, not all of the intra-module links connected to other sites yet. 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. It appears, however, that the user can not exit the program or save work. Instructor and student materials were not provided, but there was a help-line offered.
Synopsis, Average Score = 4.6
Many of the criticisms associated with this module refer to the lack of instructor manuals and off-line instructions. Creation of such manuals and/or directions would remedy these deficiencies.