Project Links
Educational Technology Review
Module: Means and Variances
Version: 0.8
Date: February 12, 1998
Reviewers: Tricia R. Meyer, Juan Vargas, Kim Kenyon
Three Instructional Technology reviewers from the University at Albany reviewed the module at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The developer was present and available to answer questions throughout the review. Pam Kott, Technical Manager for Project Links, was also present for a portion of the review session. This summary includes comments and questions where consensus and/or convergence was noted. Because 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 "Means and Variances," but also provides formative feedback for all Project Links modules, regardless of stage of development.
This report is divided into two sections. Part I addresses the technical aspects of the module. Part II addresses the pedagogical aspects of the module.
Part I. The following comments relate to the technical aspects of the module:
Links in and out
- The reviewers noted positively that there were links from the module to other Project Links modules (at least planned, if not functional); however, there were no links within the module to the WWW. The literature on instructional technology is divided on the extent to which learners should be free to explore (e.g., some think novices should have limited freedom to explore, others disagree). Some instructional technology "experts" would suggest this limited access represents underutilization of web-based instruction.
- Some links and applets within the module were not connected/functional at the time the instructional technology review was conducted; the reviewers noted that the module is still "under construction."
Navigation
- The reviewers were unclear as the function of the "?" button on the navigational tool bar. This should be reviewed by the technical support staff.
- All three reviewers commented on the need for scrolling when using the module. The developers should make use of within-module "NEXT" and "BACK" buttons, in lieu of scrolling.
- The reviewers stated that there should always be a "way out" of (i.e., a simple way to quit) the module wherever one is within the module; the reviewers noted there was no easy exit from this module.
Visual/Aesthetics
- The reviewers noted that when the applets and links pop-up, instructions, questions, etc. are partially or fully hidden; this should be redesigned.
Part II. The Module also was examined from a pedagogical perspective; that is, reviewers evaluated the extent to which the module is consistent with instructional/learning principles. The following comments relate to the pedagogical aspects of the module:
Orientation
- The reviewers noted positively the inclusion of "Objectives" as advance organizers for users. Use of advance organizers should be continued.
- The reviewers had many questions about the underlying assumptions of the module; for example, what are the assumed learning conditions (e.g., individual, cooperative, independent, with instructor present, etc.). They found no relevant documentation within the module; no external documentation was available for review. Information concerning underlying assumptions should be included in supporting documentation.
- The length of time recommended/required for module use was not specified. This should be addressed in the external documentation and, possibly, within the module as well.
- Assumptions regarding hardware were not explicit; these should be identified in the external documentation so that instructors/learners can identify the range of appropriate instructional/learning settings.
Content Linkages
- The related topics link at the end of the module was noted as a positive feature; however, the reviewers suggested the developers reconsider its singular placement at the very end where it may be underutilized.
- There were very few "Hot Links" within the module; the reviewers suggested additional hot links be included in the final version.
Motivation
- The reviewers remarked that the module seemed limited in terms of intrinsic motivation. Though the content may be intrinsically motivating to some students, the presentation—including diagrams and text—may not be considered stimulating to content-novices.
Questions/Input
- Although the reviewers acknowledged their lack of domain-specific knowledge, they questioned whether the module truly provides real-life applications that will help users/learners identify the relevance of the content.
- Reviewers were unclear regarding the relationship between "noise" and the two central concepts: mean and variance. This relationship may deserve some clarification within the module, particularly if intended users represent diverse academic backgrounds. Usability Testing and Content Review would provide additional data relevant to this point.