1 / 23

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. EUPEN Working Group

landis
Download Presentation

A Joint MERLOT and European View of Multimedia in Physics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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)

  3. Reviews Are we measuring something? And if so, what?

  4. Comparison... • History • Goals & Methods • Criteria • Results

  5. 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)

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

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

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

  9. 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)

  10. 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)

  11. 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 Criteria (Rubrics)

  12. 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 Review Scales

  13. 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)

  14. 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)

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

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

  17. 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

  18. 2003 Optics • EPS: ~250 items, 5 Recommended • MERLOT: • 5, “4.5” (2), 0 (2) • Paul Falstad Math & Physics Applets • Report & Recommendations

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

More Related