Archive for the ‘Project Options’ Category
All reflections should be connected in some way to the Principles of Learning.
Reflections could be done by Filming the Process through photos, videos, illustrations, print and talk
- Is there evidence of troubleshooting, testing, and refinements based on data or scientific principles?
- Has the student evidenced knowledge of robot structure and programming?
- Pictures of Process
- Audio, Video or Written reflections from students and teacher
An example appears below…
Questions from “Getting Started with Lego Robotics” by Mark Gura
Hey there! Welcome to my project for reviewing robot websites.
Today, I’ll be telling you about 6 different websites on the net.
Some are going to be the most dependable thing you’ve ever seen…
And some are going to be the worst things you could ever rely on!
Either way, you’re bound to know the difference after reading this!
Wikipedia is usually one of the most reliable websites that you can visit to find reliable, certainly convincing, and accurate information. You can trust most of its articles —– and you can for this one —– but the question is, can you even understand it?
Of course, I’m not saying the mechanics are poor. Every single word is correctly spelled, and everything fits together nicely. The problem is that you would only understand the whole of it if you were a rocket scientist, and most of us aren’t a rocket scientist.
As a plus, the site is generally very neat. Everything is magnificently arranged and the organization is excellent (hence the table of contents). And best of all, there aren’t any annoying pop-ups or ads to get in your way. On the other hand, there are barely any colourful pictures to border the mass of text.
Looking for info? Wikipedia has stunning amounts of phrases to look through. The whole page has around a whopping amount of 100 paragraphs that, disappointingly, aren’t exactly easy to comprehend. All the words are clumped together to make sentences you would probably need a dictionary to translate. People learning English are most likely not going to like this website.
Overall, Wikipedia is a semi-good website. It’s tidy, navigational- and user-friendly. There are small things they should fix up, but otherwise, all is good.
I’d give it a 6 out of 10.
Awesome! An orderly, appealing website. Too bad it has a few flaws, or it would’ve been the ideal, most perfect website ever.
Britannica offers a steady flow of clear pictures that you can click on to enlarge and a handy drop-down menu that you can use if you’re looking for specific information on the site. There’s even a video, which I found exceedingly helpful. It looks ah-maz-ing, but it forgot to include a few topics such as the different types of robots and functional parts. It doesn’t matter, though, what with all the already-provided information.
There’s a balanced amount of text, which I appreciated hugely when I first encountered it. There may be highly annoying pop-ups depending on your computer, but there’s no crazy flashing advertisements trying to scam you out of your mony (thank god!).
Everything is clearly displayed, and the probability of you understanding the article is likely. The layout is extremely appealing and each and every sentence is accurate. There are no grammar or spelling errors, and it’s just so relieving when you can freely scroll and read without any disruptions (besides the pop-ups).
Overall, Britannica is almost perfect. I’d recommend this website immensely to people who need a reliable, quick website to refer to.
Without a doubt, 9 out of 10.
A quick glance and I know, just know, this website isn’t one of the most terrific websites out there.
For one, take the ads lingering at the sides of the page. Or the featured science video that has nothing to do with robots. All these things make a difference, even if it’s only 40% of the page.
A show of links explains the different sections to the article —– “Robot Basics”, “The Robotic Arm” and “Robots and Artificial Intelligence”, which are the only non-junk sections that most people are interested in researching in general. Thankfully, the sections just mentioned are fabulously laid out and all information is factual. Mechanics of the articles are fairly faultless and everything is easy to understand. The author did an admirable job of interpreting (yay!).
And, there’s a steady number of pictures and text to each section. Everything’s surprisingly easy to navigate through —– nothing that makes the page load longer, or anything that lags.
Overall, if there wasn’t the ads or the unnecessary extras, How Stuff Works could’ve been a wonderful website.
I’d pass a 6 out of 10 along.
Whoa! Who knew a dictionary could be such a wonderful tool to use when you need to know everything about robots?
It’s amazing how neat the overall site is, considering it’s just a dictionary. Everything fits together neatly —– like when something clicks into a jigsaw puzzle.
If you don’t know how to pronounce “robot”, you can hear the pronounciation by pressing on the audio icon (it’s the picture with the floating “Block” above it). In addition, you can scan through related search options and see synonyms and nearby words.
Everything is copyrighted (sweet!) and all the conventions are flawless. A few advertisements might be here and there depending on your computer, but it’s so comforting when a site is easy to navigate through that it just dampens the blow. Accurate information, uncluttered, and easy to understand everything —– brownie points! Yipee!
Overall, besides the ads, Dictionary.com is one of the most awesome sites ever created.
It deserves 8 out of 10.
“Types of Robots”, claims the bolded header that hovers above the page. Read on; not a very strong introduction, which doesn’t hook you in.
So, moving along. The plain, white background makes the whole page look extremely boring —– while the accompanying text is even worse. Not a huge part on the fancy-looking details.
So, you would imagine my disappointment when the colourful, refined pictures are ruined by not having captions, considering what good examples of robots they are.
However, everything is neat and lucid, which is nice. The mechanics of the website are beyond expectations, surprisingly, and there’s just enough information to satisfy a person.
Numerous links are broken —– off to a search engine to rely on information now —– but the ones that aren’t busted lead to marvelous pages that explain the subject with readable words and a captivating picture (or pictures).
Despite the downfalls, all the information is accurate and there’s not too much information (cough, Wikipedia, cough).
Overall, I hated this site; I hated almost everything about it.
3 out of 10 is what it gets.
I saved the best for last.
You know, I bet if I flashed this page in front of you for just a second, you would still guess that this site was mind-blowing.
First of all, who would assume that something from NASA would be false and unreliable? Everything —– and I mean everything —– is impeccable; mechanics, understanding, and the overall appearance.
To start off, I’ll talk about the how well you can understand everything in the article. Most people can manage the amount of text given, and even more can actually understand what they’re reading. Hooray!
How it appeals to its audience. At first, the tacky colours of the picture clashed with the background, and I thought, wow, that doesn’t look very nice, but as I looked more closely, I noticed that the picture was a beautiful example of a robot. Even with the horrible choice of the two colours mixing together, it made sense for the photograph to sit there, beaming proudly as people observed it. The caption is also a nice touch.
People with disability can also change the text size, which is a great touch for people that have trouble reading small print. All the general information people are looking for is included, and furthermore, you can “cite” the article… whatever that means.
The whole page is clean. Clean. There are no ads to cover up the words, no pop-ups that spring out of nowhere (well, what do you expect from a site run by the government?). Again, there are no grammar or spelling errors —– you won’t see anything that says, “IM AKUR1T S0 D3PEND ON ME”.
Overall, NASA World Book is the most user-friendly site you can visit. Nothing screams “read me” more than this site.
Nothing less than 11 out of 10!
Have you been to a great blog or web site that discusses robots or electricity? What did you like about it, what didn’t you like, what did you learn, what would you like the author to add to the site?
Have you read a book about robots or electricity. Share what you liked, what you didn’t like, what you learned, what you would further like to know about from the author of the book!