Project Links

Educational Technology Review

Module: Vibrating Strings

Version: 0.8

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 5.5
Support for Studio Learning 5
Flexibility 6
Support for Collaborative Learning 5
Discovery Orientation 6
Multi-modality 7
Consistency 7
Screen Design 6
Usability 6
Average 5.9

Explicit Linking of Concepts, Score = 5.5

The module has a number of internal and external links, including links to other institutions. The additional sites provide both real-world examples as well as additional information.

One aspects of the module, which may need to be reexamined is the format of hypertext links. The color of the hypertext links varied at times, which can be confusing since students may assume only one color represents hypertext links. It would be best to standardize the hypertext links in color as well as other characteristics (e.g. size, underlined, italicized, etc.). Similarly, the links were not always readily visible because they were blue while the print was black. This made it difficult to differentiate between the colors with the font size being used. Finally, when linking to external sites the browser created a second window which did not allow for the reviewers to use the "back" button to return to the original module. This in itself is not a real problem, but perhaps a note should be included that explains to students how to exit such sites.

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

The lessons are broken up between the various kinds of activities, providing multiple opportunities for students to interact with the module in meaningful ways, but ultimately the instructor’s use of the model (i.e. when to lecture versus when to do applications, etc.) will provide for the ultimate interaction of studio-teaching and learning. The developer’s intentions should become more apparent when an instructor’s manual or guidelines are included with the module. For example, the reviewer’s were unclear when students should interact with each other, interact with the instructor, and/or work on their own.

Flexibility, Score = 6

The flexibility of the module is considerable allowing it to be used beyond the studio setting for demonstrations/lecture, laboratory projects, self-study, distance learning, review sessions, and extra assignments. There are also multiple paths through the materials that allow students to modify the lesson for their own purposes. With appropriate instructor materials, the module could be adapted easily to varied curriculum needs. An instructor manual or materials should also provide some suggestions for using the lessons in a non-studio setting.

Support for Collaborative Learning, Score = 5

The software did not demand collaborative work nor did it demand discussions/exploration/experimentation resulting in collaborative decision-making. Nevertheless, the activities could be used in a collaborative work environment provided the students and were instructed to do so. For example, there is a section entitled "collaborate", yet the lack of instructions promoting collaborative learning as well as the lack of instructor materials providing suggestions for using the lessons collaboratively, left the reviewers feeling that it was not necessarily a collaborative exercise.

Discovery Orientation, Score = 6

The software engages students in complex, open-ended problem-solving activities that require creativity and flexibility. The software also contains many applets, which provide opportunities for students to directly manipulate variables, make predictions, and form hypotheses. Furthermore, students are encouraged to revisit content and problems from different perspectives, especially via the external links. The module also suggests ways of exploring ideas and concepts further beyond the content.

There is, however, no indication that students are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. This could be resolved with the addition of instructions or an instructor’s manual which suggests multiple ways in which the module can be used in the classroom (i.e. he material is covered through exams, etc.).

Multi-Modality, Score = 7

There are a number of different media types offered throughout the module including graphs, images, animation, and sounds. The different media weave themselves essentially and seamlessly into the context of the module, providing students with other ways of learning the information. Some of the media are used intrinsically and are supportive or illustrative of the concepts included in the module.

Consistency, Score = 7

The organization of the module is consistent with the other modules in Project Links. There was consistency throughout the Vibrating Strings module such that once reviewers became familiarized with the navigational tools no difficulties arose. Moreover, the module included links to graphical organizers (the module map), help pages, and a "cribsheet" page to assist students using the module.

Screen Design, Score = 6

As previously mentioned, the only problem encountered in the domain of screen design was the inconsistency of hypertext color. Otherwise, the screen design conformed to the Project Links template.

Usability, Score = 6

The reviewers did not encounter any system "bugs" or spelling/grammar errors in the module. Moreover, the module map presented a nice overview as to the layout of the module. The module tended to become very slow at times, especially when bringing up equations, graphs, and other media. Users of this module need to be aware of the time needed to load the pages so as to avoid frustration as much as possible.

Synopsis, Average Score = 5.9

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