WizIQ helps you learn and teach online - any subject you can think of!
Join for FREE

A Joint MERLOT and European View of Multimedia in

Add to Favourites
Post to:

Description
A Joint MERLOT and European View of Multimedia in Physics EPS Multimedia Working Group MERLOT/Physics

Comments
Presentation Transcript Presentation Transcript

A Joint MERLOT and European View of Multimedia in Physics : A Joint MERLOT and European View of Multimedia in Physics EPS Multimedia Working Group MERLOT/Physics MERLOT International Conference 2006 Ottawa Canada, 8/10/2006

Participants : Participants EUPEN Working Group M. Benedict (Hun), E. Debowska (Pol), B. Eckert (Ger), S. Geiner-Valkier (Neth), H.J. Jodl (Ger), L. Mathelitsch (Aus), I Ruddock (UK), E. Sassi (It), R. Sporken (Bel), MERLOT T. Bradfield (OK), T. Colbert (GA), L. Keiner (SC), B. Mason (OK), T. Meldor (LA), J. Rauber (SD), S. Sen (NY), P. Sheldon (VA)

Reviews : Reviews Are we measuring something? And if so, what?

Comparison... : Comparison... History Goals & Methods Criteria Results

EPS History : EPS History 2002: EUPEN Working Group to Define Quality Standards. Example: Quantum Mechanics (MPTL-7, Parma) 2003: Apply Review Process. Example: Optics (MPTL-8, Prague) 2004: Classical Mechanics (MPTL-9, Graz) 2005: Thermal Physics (MPTL-10, Berlin) 2006: Electricity & Magnetism (MPTL-11, Szeged)

MERLOT Review History : MERLOT Review History In 1996/7 the California State University embarked on a...

Goals & Methods : Goals & Methods Present the high quality stuff, Recognize authors, Identify gaps EPS – Work within one topic Collect many resources Select the best Apply criteria for full review of best Write up results MERLOT – Search & submissions Rank materials for review Apply criteria for full review of best Review and publish

Review Criteria (Rubrics) : Review Criteria (Rubrics) EPS – Motivation Content Method MERLOT – Quality of Content Effectiveness as a Learning Tool Usability

Review Criteria (Rubrics) : Review Criteria (Rubrics) EPS – Motivation User Friendly: Easy to start, understand, control, and is documented Attractive: Appealing, interactive, and interesting Clear Description and Context Content Method MERLOT – Quality Effectiveness Usability Understandable: Runs easily Intuitive: Attractive, controlled, input/output Feedback: Clear communication Documented

Review Criteria (Rubrics) : Review Criteria (Rubrics) EPS – Motivation Content Relevant: Important topic and media use Scope: Broad and “Profound” topic Correct: Content accurate and models indicated Method MERLOT – Quality Correct Models: Numerical, textual, notation Important Topics: Standard or unique Conceptual: Understand parameters Effective Graphics Flexible: Multiple uses Effectiveness Usability

Review Criteria (Rubrics) : Review Criteria (Rubrics) EPS – Motivation Content Method Flexible: Broad audience and topics Matching Target: Correct level, background, objectives Realization: Media is well used Documentation: Operation, references, teaching process MERLOT – Quality Effectiveness Learner: Level, challenge, control Relevant Knowledge: Learning goals, application Experience: Dynamic, flexible, interactive, progress Feedback: Clear, immediate, positive Usability

Review Scales : Review Scales EPS – +2 to -2 Indicated for each sub-question Averaged MERLOT – 1 – Major Problems 2 – Works, but has errors 3 – Works well, useful 4 – Excellent, notable features 5 – Outstanding and unique

Agreement? : Agreement? MERLOT Reviewers: Average Absolute Value of Difference between Reviewers (Scale of 1 – 5, Reviews 3 – 5, 135 items) Quality: 0.56 (3.8) Effectiveness: 0.60 (3.65) Usability: 0.69 (3.9) Total: 0.57 (3.72)

Agreement? : Agreement? MERLOT Reviewers: Average Difference between Reviewers, Time Dependence Quality: 0.57 (00 – 03), 0.55 (04 – 06) Effectiveness: 0.7 (00 – 03), 0.5 (04 – 06) Usability: 0.7 (00 – 03), 0.69 (04 – 06) Total: 0.6 (00 – 03), 0.53 (04 – 06)

Agreement? : Agreement? MERLOT Reviewers: Average Difference between Reviewers, Score Dependence (N5 = 20, N4 = 61, N3 = 39)

Agreement? : Agreement? For MERLOT Reviewers Average Difference in Total Scores: 0.4 – 0.5

2002 Quantum Mech : 2002 Quantum Mech EPS: ~30 items, 7 recommended MERLOT: 2 award winners, 5, 4 (2), 2 not reviewed = 0 (1 in German Joffre QM (2003 MERLOT Classic) de Raedt QM (No MERLOT Review) General Recommendations Results from Workshop

2003 Optics : 2003 Optics EPS: ~250 items, 5 Recommended MERLOT: 5, “4.5” (2), 0 (2) Paul Falstad Math & Physics Applets Report & Recommendations

2004 Mechanics, Different Lists : 2004 Mechanics, Different Lists EPS: ~250 items 7 Recommended Merlot: 5 (2), “4.5” (2), 4, 3, 0 (German) MERLOT: ~700 items 4 Other Recommendations EPS: Rec (not listed), High quality, 0 (2) Chaos Collection Report & Recommendations

2005 Thermal Physics, Joint : 2005 Thermal Physics, Joint ~150 items, 55 Reviewed 1 Highly Recommended EPS & MERLOT (Engineering) 7 Recommended 1 Disagreement Expert System for Thermodynamics Stat Mech in Intro Physics Report & Recommendations

2006 Elect & Magn, Joint : 2006 Elect & Magn, Joint 950 items, 200 Reviewed 6 Highly Recommended EPS & MERLOT 6 Recommended by both 5 Disagreements (Some may not have been reviewed) MIT “TEAL” (OCW) Physlet Tutorial Pages

Comments & Conclusions : Comments & Conclusions Good agreement w/ independent reviews Quality rating for larger collections Many topics repeated Many Simulations, not video experiments Instructional aspects rare How to put into a class rarer

References : References http://physik.uni-graz.at/MPTL9/proceedings/ProcSporkenMason.pdf http://pen.physik.uni-kl.de/w_jodl/MPTL/MPTL10/contributions/mathelitsch/Rep_Recom_Thermodyn_2005.pdf

Want to learn?

Sign up and browse through relevant courses.

Name:
Your Email:
Password:
Country:
Contact no.:


Area code Number
Subject you are interested in:
Word verification: (Enter the text as in image)


Sign Up Already a member? Sign In
I agree to WizIQ's User Agreement & Privacy Policy
8 Followers

Your Facebook Friends on WizIQ