Evaluate a technology for learning or teaching a science concept.
Present and critically analyze a tool for learning a PHYS 1090 objective.
You will present a “tool” designed to communicate one of the PHYS 1090 content objectives. The tool is anything that could assist a learner to master the objective. It could be an inquiry lab, a board game, a demonstration, a Java applet, a web investigation, a guided reading sheet, a song, a formal lesson plan, a museum exhibit, or anything else that your imagination can conceive.
The labor consists of a written report and a live presentation before the class The report is submitted as an HTML file for posting to the class web site. It contains a description and, more importantly, an evaluation of the tool. (Supplementary materials may be included in other formats if appropriate.) It should follow the format described below. The live presentation briefly recapitulates the report to the class.
The tool presentation is a mechanism for you to demonstrate your mastery of the content objective and your understanding of the learning process. The tool itself does not need to be perfect, and it does not need to be original. (Good teachers are good thieves!) Your evaluation of the tool is the critical aspect of this labor.
Submission of the labor denotes your permission for me to publish it on the web and to reproduce it on other media. You will be credited as author on all copies.
Feedback: Your reviews of your group members’ reports. You will help your group mates craft evaluative reports that are clear, complete, and thoughtful.
Written report: This contains the tool itself, your recommendation of how the tool should be used, and an evaluation of the tool’s potential to teach the objective.
Oral presentation: Describe the tool and its implementation to your classmates.
Choose the objective you will examine. You have some freedom in this regard; all students must address different objectives. Find a tool that communicates the objective, or create one yourself. Let me know what you have in mind. Analyze the tool according to the criteria given below. Write up your analysis in a rough draft. Submit your draft to your group mates and obtain drafts from your group mates. Evaluate your group mates’ drafts. Discuss your draft with your group. Make any appropriate revisions and submit the final report. Finally, summarize your tool and report orally before the class.
| Nov 4 | Labor introduced |
| Nov 18 | Rough draft submitted to group members |
| Nov 21 | Group reviews of drafts |
| Nov 30 | Feedback reports and HTML-page report due |
| Dec 5 | Oral Presentation (Final Exam) |
The focus of your feedback to your group mates’ rough drafts should be content and organization, NOT mechanics. Does the tool actually relate to the objective? Would the proposed implementation help to teach the objective? Is the evaluation of the tool valid? Are any parts of the draft especially effective or admirable? Constructive comments should clearly identify the parts discussed, specifically describe what is effective or ineffective and why, and suggest specific improvements if appropriate.
Write in paragraph form the comments and suggestions you made for each of your group mates’ drafts. Discuss each draft individually, not concurrently.
| +6 | Identifies all errors and omissions of content. |
| +6 | Identifies deficiencies in organization and presentation. |
| +8 | Offers constructive suggestions for all problems identified. |
Since each student comments on several drafts, the score received is the average of the scores for the separate drafts.
This is the actual product. Its three parts—description, implementation, and evaluation—should be separate and clearly labeled. The report must be submitted as an HTML file.
The score for the report is adjusted by its ESWE multiplier.
State the PHYS 1090 objective the tool addresses, with the number and title of the unit that contains the objective.
Note extremely well: The objective must be your previously agreed-upon objective for the report to receive any points at all.
This tells the reader what the tool is. It must be detailed enough for a reader to implement the tool. In many cases, the description may simply be a verbatim copy of the tool, such as for a tool that is a lesson plan, web site, or song. Whether or not the tool is copied from another source, the description must be clear, legible (or audible, or otherwise intelligible), and organized.
If the tool is entirely your creation, say so. If it is even partially from another source, completely cite the source and clearly identify your changes to the tool. In your citation, include the name of the creator and where the tool was found (book, journal article, web site, other class). Use these citation formats:
Book: Author, Title. City: Publisher, year, pp. pages.
Example: Robertson, W. C., Electricity and Magnetism: Stop Faking It!
Finally Understand Science So You Can Teach It. Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association, 2005, pp. 2–3.
Journal Article: Author, “Title,” Journal,
year, volume, pages.
Example: Baker, B. “Using an Expandable Toy in Discussing Rotational Motion,”
The Physics Teacher, 2005,
43, 247.
Web site: “Title,” retrieved month day, year from
URL.
Example: “Parts and Sizes of Waves,” retrieved October 31, 2011 from
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/activity/parts-and-sizes-of-waves/.
Since the report is an HTML document, the URL should be a working link to the
site if it is still accessible.
| +5 | Tool is properly attributed in the specified format. |
| +10 | Tool is described completely and intelligibly. |
| +5 | Description of tool is concise and readable. |
Describe how the tool could be used to learn the objective. Is it appropriate as a formal lesson, reinforcement, self-assessment, etc.? In this section, you must
| +2 | Identifies tools’ learners. |
| +3 | Identifies all prior knowledge needed for tool to be effective. |
| +3 | Identifies appropriate learner activities preceding and following use of the tool. |
| +2 | If tool used in a class context, identifies the containing unit. If used independently of course work, identifies the general topic area. |
| +6 | Identifies materials and prior preparation to implement tool. |
| +6 | Includes complete tool use procedure. |
| +3 | Addresses all safety, legal, and ethical issues involved. |
Here, you evaluate the tool according to criteria that might be considered in selecting a tool for use: completeness, effectiveness, and cost.
How completely does the tool address all aspects of the objective? Specifically identify the aspects that it does and does not address. If it does not cover the entire objective, what additional tools should accompany it?
| +2 | Addresses all aspects of the PHYS 1090 course objective. |
| +3 | Assesses how well the tool addresses each aspect. |
| +5 | Specifies supplements sufficient to cover the entire objective. |
If the tool is implemented as suggested, how effectively will it help the learner master the objective? Here, the concern is with the aspect(s) of the objective that the tool addresses well. How will targeted learners of different abilities and interests experience the tool cognitively and emotionally? What misconceptions about the objective will learners likely bring with them, and how will the tool spark conceptual change?
| +2 | Identifies how different learners will cognitively experience the tool. |
| +2 | Identifies how different learners will emotionally experience the tool. |
| +3 | Identifies likely misconceptions about the targeted aspects of the objective. |
| +3 | Describes how the tool confronts each misconception. |
What costs are involved with using the tool? In the implementation section, you identified materials and preparation. Here, examine what this means. Preparation takes time, obtaining supplies costs time and money, and simply using the tool takes time that could be applied toward something else. What are these costs? Compared to other ways the objective could be communicated, are this tool’s costs justified?
| +5 | Identifies all costs of time, money, and other resources. |
| +3 | Compares tool’s costs to costs of alternative tools. |
| +2 | Explicitly states conclusion if tool’s costs are justified. |
There are no points explicitly assigned to the HTML code, appearance, or format of the report. However, the report should be clear, clean, and professional in appearance. HTML code should be functional and compact. Barring a compelling reason for a different appearance, the report should match the format of other barransclass.com site pages. Please use the ClassStyle.css external style sheet and minimize departures from its conventions.
Distracting appearance of the web page or improper HTML code will necessitate reductions to the overall labor score. Reports not in the form of functioning HTML pages will not be accepted.
Orally share your tool with the class. Identify the unit, state the objective, and describe the tool. Your description should be correct, complete, and clear. Speak audibly and with animation, and maintain eye contact with your audience.
| +4 | Identifies unit and objective. |
| +5 | Fully describes tool. |
| +5 | Tool description is clear, organized and concise. |
| +2 | Speaks clearly and audibly. |
| +2 | Maintains eye contact with class. |
| +2 | Conveys enthusiasm. |
Click here for a printer-friendly PDF version of this document.
Copyright © 2005, Richard Barrans
Revised: 31 October 2011. Maintained by Richard Barrans.
URL: http://www.barransclass.com/phys1090/labor/tool_labor_F11.html