|
|
 Ratings
|
|
|
| Reviewed: |
Oct 16, 2006 by Teacher Education |
| Overview: |
This site contains one of nine modules that together comprise an online course
titled "Students at Risk: Assessment and Intervention."
|
| Learning Goals: |
The purpose of this activity is to help students (preservice and inservice
teachers) construct categories that are personally meaningful so that they can
remember the contents of the categories. By having students work in groups, the
processing is deeper and more thoughtful than working as individuals hopefully
making the memories more durable. (paraphrased from author's words)I wonder if
the author really intended this to be the learning goal? I view the importance
of this site as its potential for motivating teachers to confront issues
relevant to at-risk adolescents. I think it's more about learning to help
at-risk students, than it is about learning to categorize information so that
students can remember the contents of different categories.
|
| Target Student Population: |
Students in a graduate-level education course
|
| Prerequisite Knowledge or Skills: |
None that I found
|
| Type of Material: |
Education/counseling
|
| Recommended Uses: |
As a secondary resource for studying about "at risk" adolescents.
|
| Technical Requirements: |
Flash 5.0, RealPlayer (free download).
|
|
|
|
| Strengths: |
Web pages and streaming presentation pages look good. The topic is an extremely
important topic. Good that the instructor is having the students (groups)
submit reactions to a specific discussion topic.
|
| Concerns: |
p. 8 of 54: More effective if a balanced presentation would be given?not just
Christian solution. Or, up front tell the user that Seattle Pacific University
was founded by "Free Methodist pioneers. SPU is a comprehensive Christian
university of the liberal arts, sciences and professions."
"While it isn?t as effective as prevention, it is immoral to allow a negative
condition to exist if we perceive it, and can do something to fix it." Seems a
bit simplistic to this reader.
It's not clear to this reader what the criteria for evaluating each group's
response to the discussion topic are.There would be even greater benefit if
groups asynchronously submitted their responses?and groups reacted to the inputs
of other groups in the class.
|
|
|
Potential Effectiveness as a Teaching Tool |
Rating:  |
|
| Strengths: |
The author organized the points of the lesson well.
|
| Concerns: |
Format change for page 9 of 54? Two bullets popped up:
? Find the root cause
? Help deal with consequences
Before that, it was one bullet at a time? I wasn't clear about what the author
wanted the reader to know about helping to deal with consequences?
Some notes on sentence structure:
? "?they are a victim?"
? pollyannaish
? given ,and (space)
? this ?going on?
? ? many conditions which largely reside within an individual and can place them
at risk
(There were more.) I recommend the author use a spell/grammar-checker.
References? I was looking for references. There were citations,
but I was
unable to find the actual references.
|
|
|
Ease of Use for Both Students and Faculty |
Rating:  |
|
| Strengths: |
Very easy to use. I used Internet Explorer 5.5.Very "clean" presentation; e.g.,
no distractions from sloppy graphics.Audio is clear. Enunciation is good.
Timing (speech) is well paced. Streaming Presentation was effective. Good that
the instructor is having the students (groups) submit reactions to a specific
discussion topic.
|
| Concerns: |
An error has occurred while trying to access this URL. Please click here or
your browser's "back" button. For more detailed error information, please
scroll down. The reason for this problem: The code on the page at
http://www.spu.edu/online/kline/EDCO6676/ is: (requires free href="www.real.com">realplayerThat's a relative reference. Replace
"www.real.com" with "http://www.real.com"(Note: The author used the correct
code for the Flash download.)Page 53 of 54: What happened to the quality of the
audio? It should be re-recorded and digitized.On that same page, the graphic
is a bit blurry. Perhaps the resolution isn't high enough?
NOTE: I ran a Bobby check (http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp)
and the page didn't pass. [I don't know of many pages that pass the Bobby
check.]
Flash: The movie was a bit jumpy. I don't think the Flash movie added anything
to the overall presentation. I think it detracted from the quality of the
streaming presentation.
|
|
|
| Other Issues and Comments: |
|
|
