Gould’s final two steps of the usable design process, iterative development and system installation, produce three different results: the final web site design, feedback from users on the effectiveness of the module, and integration into the classroom. The iterative development stage is a cycle of design, evaluation, and redesign. This stage produces the first two results, the final web site design and the evaluative feedback of the users on the overall effectiveness of the module. The final web site design is detailed in the previous chapter. The evaluations are here detailed with respect to each evaluation’s intent, the proceedings of the evaluation, the feedback provided by the users, and the resulting changes in design. The system installation step, the final step in the process, places the design in a working environment and involves any setup, training, maintenance, or support that is required. This step results in the dissemination of the module for K-12 classes. The system installation of the web site must consider availability to classrooms, recognition by teachers, curriculum integration, and the technical issue of where the web site resides for its life, i.e., the webserver that supports the site. This chapter discusses these results, first the design and evaluation results and then the integration of the web site into K-12 classrooms.

Several evaluations of the Cracking Dams module have occurred during the course of this project. Some feedback came from informal surveys and some from formal testing and evaluations. Some evaluations were conducted with groups outside of the intended audience (not K-12 students) and some within the intended audience (K-12 students). All of these evaluations have led to affirmation or redesign of various aspects of the web site. A summary of the informal surveys and evaluations is provided first. Formally, several evaluations for each level of the Cracking Dams module were conducted during the course of design and redesign. A mentor program for grades 6-12 from the Bethlehem, PA area called STAR evaluated the Intermediate and Advanced levels in January and February of 1999, respectively. A group of 7^th and 8^th grade girls who were participating in the Expanding Your Horizons program at Cornell University tested an activity with the Intermediate level and evaluated it in April of 1999. A group of rising 11^th and 12^th graders who were participating in the NASA-Sharp + program at Cornell University tested a WebQuest and evaluated it and the Advanced level in June of 1999. Four groups of students in grades K-4 in the Greater Ithaca Activities Council (GIAC) summer camp program evaluated the Beginning level in July of 1999. Finally, a group of rising 6^th – 8^th graders at the Cornell University Summer Day Camp tested a WebQuest and evaluated it and the Intermediate level. For each of these evaluations, the main focus of the evaluation, the proceedings of the evaluation process, the results of the evaluation, and the resulting redesigns are presented and discussed.

Throughout the course of the project, informal surveys on different aspects of the site were taken to help make some of the design decisions. These surveys are here reviewed chronologically with regard to the intent of the survey, the response, and the design or redesign that resulted.

Several informal surveys of teachers and other adults were taken regarding the appropriateness of the original name of the module, which was Crack Propagation. Results of the survey indicated that the title had drug trafficking connotations for many adults who did not realize what the module is about. A teacher noted that students of pre-secondary school age would not likely know the meaning of "propagation" (Polaha, 1998). These responses clearly spoke of the need for a new module title.

A Communications class at Cornell University studying interactive multimedia design was surveyed on the following issues: what the title of the module should be; what resolution the site should be designed for; and general likes and dislikes on the appearance and content of the module. As the need for a new module title had been established, the question became, what should the title be? The majority of responses suggested titles with "cracks," "fracture," and/or "dams" in the title.

Second, monitor resolution can vary greatly from one computer to another, from 640x480 pixels to 1280x1024 pixels at this time. Webpages can be programmed to resize according to the width of the resolution, but for a site that is rich in both images and text, the resizing causes images and text to move to fit the width. This often results in an unintended, unpleasant format for the web page. On the other hand, webpages can be programmed for a specific width, and then the question becomes, what width? The students, drawing on their web design experience, suggested that a resolution of 640x480 pixels is quickly becoming obsolete and even 800x600 pixels is on its way out. But most of the class decided, considering the lag schools often experience in receiving new computer hardware, that a resolution of 800x600 pixels is likely a safe resolution for which to design at this time.

Otherwise, general affirmation was apparent for the use of current events and the navigation options. A search function and a lesson plan for the web site were suggested. The search function has since been implemented and the WebQuests provide a lesson plans for the use of the site in the classroom. Finally, there was some indication that the format of the side menu was not well received by the class.

A small graduate class on Engineering Fracture Mechanics at Cornell University was surveyed with respect to the new name for the module and the side menu. Continued efforts to find a new name for the module again resulted in most students feeling that the title should include the words, "cracks" or "fracture" and "dams." The issue of the side menu’s appeal had been raised in the evaluation with the Communications class. The survey of the Fracture class addressed two aspects of the side menu: the black and white coloring and the roll-over that occurs when a user points to a side menu item. Results indicated that about half of the students found these features appealing and the other half did not. Both of these issues were addressed again in later evaluations.

Suggestion of the word "fracture" as the title or part of the title for the module was in question due to the uncertainty that young students would understand or even recognize this word. The naming of the module was taken very seriously considering the first impression it gives to anyone who happens upon the site. Alienation of students by using an unknown word was to be avoided. Thus students’ knowledge of the word "fracture" was surveyed. Results suggested that many of the younger students (3^rd – 6^th grade) did not know the word or, at most, associated fracture with a broken bone, although they did not realize that a fracture was a break or crack (Polaha, 1998). The teacher noted that most children understood the term after she explained it in terms of a broken bone. These results led to the decision not to use the term fracture in the title for the module. Alienation of teachers by the vulgar connotations of the name "Dam Cracks" was also to be avoided. The SimScience team eventually agreed on "Cracking Dams," suitable as having no negative connotations and using both the words "cracks" and "dams."

A survey of public schools provided information on the number of computers with Internet connections available in the schools, browsers, and monitor resolution and size. These results provided information for the design of the web site as well as the likelihood that schools would be able to use it. Most schools had enough computers with Internet connections, usually in a lab situation, to make the ratio of students to computers between 1:1 and 2:1. This is a positive indication that schools do have the resources to use the web for education. The respondents tended to use Netscape 4.0 as their browser. Netscape and Internet Explorer, being two of the most common browsers for schools, can display the same web page differently based on the HTML tags that are used. Thus the knowledge that schools tend to use Netscape lead to the decision to design the site based on the display in Netscape. Also, the fact that version 4.0 is common means that these schools would be able to use the Java applet, as Netscape versions 2.0 and higher are Java enabled. Finally, monitor resolution of 800x600 pixels was common, as were 14 and 15 inch monitors. The implication of a 14 or 15 inch monitor with 800x600 pixel resolution is that the browser window must take up the entire screen to display an 800 pixel-wide web page. But the edges of the browser window itself take up some of the pixel-width, leaving the actual web page with a width of less than 800 pixels. Thus a width of 700 pixels was decided on for design, to be certain that in most cases none of the pages would require horizontal scrolling, even on a 14 inch monitor.

General feedback on the site has been received from various sources throughout the design, including parents, librarians, and teachers. Comments have been very positive, to the effect that the module definitely has a place in education. One point stressed by teachers is the need for integration into the curriculum and development of a lesson plan that uses the site. Teachers note that they are much more likely to use a site that is self-explanatory in its educational nature. As a result of these suggestions, several WebQuests were developed; examples are available in Appendices D and E.

Finally, students and teachers were surveyed regarding various aspects of the Beginning level. A stuffed beaver sits next to the front desk at the Sciencenter Museum and Park in downtown Ithaca, NY where the author has worked this past year. The author has asked numerous children if they know what the animal is; an amazing majority of the children do realize the animal is a beaver. They also realize that beavers build dams to make homes and that these dams succeed in slowing and stopping the water to make it deeper for the beaver’s home. The children’s knowledge of the beaver and its dams is important because it provides a building block for introducing "people dams" in the Beginning level.

Librarian and teacher feedback on the Beginning level suggests, as suspected, using a minimum of text, making download time as fast as possible, using a narrating character, and using roll-overs. Images with some text accomplish the same purpose as several lines of text for beginners; for example, instead of describing the services a dam provides with text, images representing these services (a glass of water, a sailboat on a lake, sprinkler systems) are used. Download time for the Beginning level is quicker than for the Advanced or Intermediate levels because the pages in the Beginning level are shorter. A fun cartoon-type character was suggested and implemented to narrate the Beginning level, to provide the students with a friend who walks him or her through the pages of that level. Finally, roll-overs are used to show a number of different things on the Beginning level; a teacher suggested that this technique be used more consistently throughout the level.

A group of 6^th -- 8^th graders from the STAR Academy in Bethlehem, PA evaluated the Intermediate level of the Cracking Dams module in January of 1999. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if several aspects of the site were clear and usable, including navigation, content, and appearance, and the web-FRANC2D simulation. The evaluation also served to provide feedback on what the students liked and what they would change about the module. The evaluation process began with a brief explanation of the Cracking Dams module and the purpose of the evaluation. The students were directed to the main page of the Cracking Dams module and the Intermediate level was suggested for their viewing, although they were not restricted from viewing the Advanced level (the Beginning level had no content at that time). The evaluation forms were passed out to the students. Finally, they were asked to review the module and fill out the evaluation form as they went through the web site. Approximately one hour was allotted for their review and evaluation of the site.

During the process, several things were noticed by the moderators, which included the author and several college students. The issues centered on motivation, movement, complexity of content, and the web-FRANC2D simulation. In the beginning of the testing, the only motivation any of the students had to move through the site was to fill out the evaluation. Movement through the site began with the forward button at the bottom of the pages but shifted to hypertracking, or wandering on the web. There was not much motivation to continue moving through the module using the forward buttons; this seemed tedious. Once students realized there was an activity to do in the Simulation section, they used the side menu to reach that section. The amount of content in the Dams and Cracks sections appeared to disenchant some students and many preferred to move directly to the Simulation section as their neighbors told them about it. Students felt that the sections of the module seemed disconnected. These observations lead to several changes to provide more continuity for the module. Several students were seen exploring other web sites that had no relation to the Cracking Dams module; this was partially due to a lack of motivation to remain in the module and partially due to the general temptations of browsing the web.

The main activity the module included at the time was the web-FRANC2D simulation. The task of learning how to perform a simulation of a cracking dam by reviewing the different sections could have provided better motivation for the students, but the tools for doing a simulation were not contained within the Cracks and Dams sections at this time. The instructions for performing a simulation were contained in the simulation section in the form of a tutorial on the applet page. For each step, the tutorial opened in a new window, explained the step in text, and showed an image of the step. But students did not use the tutorial provided for the simulation; they just wanted to do it. Many of the students had difficulty completing the first step, drawing the model, because they did not realize they needed to click on "Close." This resulted in the need for scaffolding by the moderators on how to perform a simulation. Analogies proved useful in trying to explain the notion of forces and fixities on a dam. The moderators who were new to the simulation themselves had difficulty helping the students. These moderators did find help for themselves in the tutorial and could then transfer that knowledge to the students. The Simulation was by far the most popular part of the module, "cool" even, based on observations and the evaluations, although there were some difficulties with the analyses. When several analyses were running simultaneously, the analyses tended to take longer than if a single analysis were running and often would return with only some of the five stress contours that should be returned. But when the simulation did return the contours showing the progression of cracking, students were intrigued and had more motivation to understand what was happening.

Several students worked with a partner; these pairs seemed to have more motivation to move around the site, perhaps as a result of the students playing off each other’s interests.

The evaluation form was filled out by 38 students. The four main sections of the form are navigation, content, appearance, and simulation. Results showed that students generally had no problem navigating the site and used both the forward and back buttons and the side menu. About 75% of the students reported little or no trouble getting around the site. More than 80% of the students used the forward and back buttons to walk through the site. Almost 100% of the students found the side menu useful. Half of the students reported that they used the side menu the most and half, the forward and back buttons.

Regarding the content, students reported that the information was generally interesting and the amount of content was reasonable, although their actions suggested that the content was a bit too extensive. Almost 75% of the students noted that they found the information interesting, very interesting, or extremely interesting. More than 75% of the students said they understood more than half of the ideas presented on the site; no comment was given on which concepts were clear and which were not. 82% of the students felt there was a good amount of information on the site. Responses indicated that 75% of the students learned something new, particularly about the different types of dams and how cracks occur. The responses gave no consistent indication regarding what concepts students had seen in class before.

Feedback on the appearance was positive. All of the students reported that they liked the colors in the module. Students were directly asked about the appearance and roll-overs of the side menu as a result of the negative feedback received in the informal surveys. The large majority of respondents said they liked both the side menu’s coloring (73%) and the roll-overs (95%), the opposite of what many college students and adults said. Many of the students were not able to perform a simulation in the allotted time, but the students who did perform the simulation reported that they did not use the tutorial. Finally, of the ten students who responded the to question asking if they would return to the site, all answered yes.

With respect to the evaluation form itself, it proved to be too long to evoke a detailed response to all of the questions. The evaluation form was revised and shortened for the next evaluation.

This evaluation had two impacts: first, on redesign, and second, to learn the general effectiveness of the site. With respect to design changes, the most important aspects were the motivation, the content amount and complexity, and the simulation. Students require more motivation to move through the site and remain on the site than was provided for this evaluation; this is reflected in several changes in both future evaluations and the site. The Fluid Flow module, which was also evaluated by this group, includes a quiz that was very well received by the students. Thus, a quiz was developed for the Cracking Dams module to provide some impetus for finding pieces of information. Eventually, the WebQuests were also developed to address the motivation and focus issues. Content complexity and amount were both reduced to a more appropriate level for 5^th – 8^th graders, as reflected in later evaluations.

With respect to the simulation, this evaluation indicated that students at this level are not inclined to work through a tutorial to learn how to do a simulation. Learning the tools to do a simulation would be more appropriately embedded in the other sections of the site on Cracks and Dams; this is reflected in the final version of the module. Also, scaffolding by a person was important. An animated GIF on how to draw a model for the simulation was soon created to help with the scaffolding. The difficulty with the simulation not returning all the stress contours sparked investigation into why this was happening, although it was not solved for some time. Efforts to increase the speed of the applet also began; the speed has since been increased by decreasing the precision of the data downloaded for the stress contours.

Concerning the impact of the site on students, the evaluation proved very positive. The students were very familiar with the Internet and interested in using it for learning; most would like to see the Internet find a place in the classroom. The simulation was the most engaging aspect of the site and gave the students some insight into the engineering world, based on their verbal comments to the author. Although the tutorial was not effective for this group, the moderators found the tutorial helpful, which allowed them to scaffold the students. This suggested that the tutorial is more beneficial for teachers than students in this age group and can aid the teachers in scaffolding their students. In the final version of the site there is a link from the applet page to the tutorial page for those who are interested in using it, but it is no longer part of the applet page. The numerous students who worked successfully in pairs of their own accord suggested that work in teams should be employed in future use of the site. Finally, the sources of interactivity, like the roll-overs and the simulation, engaged the students’ interests.

A group of 32 9^th – 12^th graders from the STAR Academy in Bethlehem, PA evaluated the Advanced level of the Cracking Dams module in February of 1999. Again, the purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the site was clear and usable, particularly navigation, content, appearance, and the web-FRANC2D simulation, as well as to receive feedback on what the students liked and what they would change about the module. The evaluation process was basically the same as for the previous evaluation with the 6^th – 8^th graders with an added element for motivation. After the initial introduction to the site and explanation of the purpose of the evaluation, the students were directed to the main page of the Cracking Dams module and the Advanced level was suggested for their viewing. The evaluation forms were passed out to the students and they were asked to review the module and fill out the form. A moderator asked several quiz questions over the course of the hour, awarding a small prize to the person who found the answer to provide motivation to look through the site.

Again, the moderators noted several things during the course of the evaluation. Students tended to work together, as they did in the previous evaluation. This lead to more serious consideration of incorporating teamwork into the use of the web site. This group of students was more likely to read through the pages of the module, but there was again too much information to go through in an hour. The use of the quiz questions helped move the students to different parts of the site to look for the answer. Often the students would then look around in that section; this made the use of the quiz questions a success in the respect that it gave students a reason to go through a section. But students still tended to become hypertracked once the search for the quiz answers had passed. Students were again seen visiting other web sites. Development of WebQuests as motivational frameworks for use of the module were implemented to answer the problem of hypertracking. More students tended to use the tutorial for the simulation in this evaluation, but the applet prompts themselves proved confusing.

The evaluation form and the resulting redesign concentrated on the content of the site, the simulation, and more general feedback. Responses indicated that the content of the site was generally reasonable, although the text in the sections on Cracks and Dams could be broken up more. Thus, more illustrative images and the Quicktime movies were added to these sections; the text was broken into shorter chunks as suggested in the literature (Guzdial et al, 1997).

Students noted that they particularly liked the pictures, the simulation, the different types of dams, learning how to design a structure, and the explanations of cracks and dams. The simulation was the most appreciated part of the module. The interactive nature of the simulation made it very popular. Although more students in this group than in the Intermediate level group used the tutorial, students commented that they would prefer just to use the applet prompts. These prompts required some rewriting to improve their clarity. Following this evaluation, an animated GIF for the first step in the simulation was also created and tested to help with the scaffolding of the applet. Eventually, animated GIFs for all of the steps of the simulation were created based on the success of the first one. Navigation and appearance both received positive comments. Finally, 80% of the students students again showed interest in using the web site in class. Comments included "It’s better and more interesting than reading a book," "It would make class easier and fun," and "It is as good as a hands-on."

The global impacts of these first two evaluations of the Cracking Dams module are twofold. First, there is a great amount of useful, interesting information available on the site, but students require more scaffolding on working their way through the site as well as performing a simulation. Integration of the tools to do a simulation and the rest of the site is important to avoid a disconnectedness between the sections. A WebQuest was designed to provide motivation and a framework for using the module. Scaffolding on using the simulation is implemented in a number of ways throughout the site. The process of performing a simulation must be broken into steps to show the student how an expert might handle a simulation. These steps are first presented to the student during their review of the Cracks and Dams sections. The steps are then reviewed again at the beginning of the Simulation section, just before the student gets to the applet, to bring together everything he or she has seen thus far. Within the applet itself, the prompts must be as clear and succinct as possible to convey the next step to the user. Animated GIFs showing the actual performance of the steps accompany the applet to give the user one more piece of scaffolding.

The second global impact of these evaluations is the positive reception of the use of the web for educational purposes. The students showed a great interest both in using the web for education and learning about engineering simulation. The attraction of both the web and the simulation makes this module a good vehicle for showing students an example of what engineers do. But the use of the site and the simulation needs to be clearly explained to avoid association of difficulty and confusion with engineering and education on the web. Also, students need to be sufficiently motivated for an appropriate amount of time so that they are not tempted to browse the web. These first two evaluations generally proved that the module has great potential as a medium for education and engineering simulation.

Since the general navigation, appearance, and content of the module and level had been established, an activity was created to provide more structure and motivation for using the module. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine general feelings on the activity and the module. The evaluation form was kept very short this time, as the primary purpose of the gathering was to teach the group about civil and environmental engineering; evaluating the Cracking Dams site was secondary.

In April of 1999 Cornell University hosted the Expanding Your Horizons Conference to introduce 7^th and 8^th grade girls to math, science, and engineering. Workshops were given by female graduate students from several departments to introduce the girls to a variety of disciplines in math, science, and engineering. The author held a workshop in the field of civil and environmental engineering (CEE) that used the Cracking Dams module; this was also another opportunity to evaluate the Intermediate level. There were six girls in the workshop, each accompanied by a parent or chaperone, and the workshop lasted one hour and 25 minutes. The basis of the workshop was an activity that used the Intermediate level of the Cracking Dams module to teach the girls about CEE, about how to do a simulation of a cracked dam, and about the impact of a dam failure. The activity was scaffolded by a worksheet for the girls to fill out as they moved through the activity. This activity was the precursor to the WebQuests for the Intermediate level. In this case, the author led the activity and guided the students to the appropriate sections of the module; the WebQuest that was developed based on this activity now does this. Following the activity the girls were asked to fill out a short evaluation on the module.

The activity began with an introduction to the web site and some tips for using it. The author asked the students what they knew of civil and environmental engineering and the group discussed what sort of things civil engineers build, including dams. The students were also asked to describe aloud how they thought cracking happened, what a simulation was, and why simulations are necessary. The girls recognized that cracking can be catastrophic and simulations allow engineers to determine how a structure behaves in a certain situation. Next, the students were lead to gather the tools they needed to do a simulation of a cracking gravity dam. This was accomplished by pointing the students to the sections of the site that contained information on a simulation tool, one by one: Gravity Dam Anatomy section to learn what a model cross-section looks like and how it is fixed to the ground; Gravity Dam Forces section to learn about the loads on a dam; and Cracking Science section to learn about where gravity dams are likely to crack. The author pointed the students to a specific section, asked them to find the tool for simulation, and waited for everyone to find it. In this way, the group was kept together throughout this first part of the activity.

To provide some personal motivation, the students were then instructed to go to the National Inventory of Dams (NID) database on the web. Here, they were to search for dams near their hometown and then pick out a concrete gravity dam to simulate. They filled out information about their dam on their worksheet. This information was both technical and societal in nature to emphasize both aspects of engineering; for example, they had to find the height of the dam, the purposes of the dam, and the downstream hazard potential of failure. Following the worksheet, the students were guided to draw a scale model of the dam they found in the database, which all of them were able to do with no trouble. They were asked to show loads and fixities on their model drawing.

The girls were led to the Simulation section, where they reviewed the simulation steps and then moved on to the web-FRANC2D applet. An animated GIF of a model being drawn for simulation instructed the girls on how to draw their model in the applet window. Successful use of this animated GIF to explain a step in using the applet led to the creation of animated GIFs for each step of the applet. Simulation results, although contours were still missing from some simulations, were compared and everyone was able to see how the crack grew in the dam. The missing contour problem was solved shortly after this evaluation took place.

Finally, the group looked at the impact of a dam failure. Each student looked up the population of the town nearest to their dam in the US Census Bureau’s database. They used this information to estimate the loss of life due to a dam failure using Brown and Graham’s (1988) algorithm in a web-form in the Scenarios section. The group also discussed these results.

During the activity, several things were noticed. Students often helped each other to find the tools for simulation or perform the simulation. Also, the girls worked with their chaperone on the activity; again, this helped with motivation and figuring out what to do, making a strong case for working in groups as in the WebQuests. Keeping the students together during the first part of the activity helped to make sure that all of them understood each tool, but it did not necessarily allow each of them to learn at their own pace. The WebQuests developed from the activity do allow each group to move along on their own. Calculating, rounding, and drawing the model on paper before actually simulating helped most of the students perform the simulation more quickly. In general, the author leading the activity combined with the use of the worksheet sufficiently scaffolded the students in reviewing the site, performing the simulation, and estimating the loss of life.

Results of the evaluation forms indicated that the best things about the activity are, indeed, the use of the computer, the performance of a simulation, and the estimation of the loss of life. The students reported that nothing covered in the activity was too complicated except perhaps adding cracks in the web-FRANC2D applet. As a result, animated GIFs of all steps of the simulation were created soon after this evaluation. The major suggestion was to improve the web-FRANC2D applet in terms of speed and reliability. Speed of the applet has been increased in two ways. First, the precision of the data for the stress contours was reduced, which decreases download time of the stress contours. Second, the applet was moved to a computer with a 500 MHz dual processor and 512 MB of RAM. Reliability of the applet was improved once several bugs were worked out Finally, five of the six students rated the module good or great, the other one rated it ok.

Most of this group had a good idea of what civil engineers do and why they use simulations. The module allowed them to perform an application of civil and environmental engineering and to estimate a societal impact of engineering. The interactive nature of the simulation and the loss of life scenario made both of these aspects of the activity very popular. By providing interactive tasks on both the technical and societal nature of engineering, both aspects of engineering were equally emphasized. The activity was revised to begin with the search in the National Inventory of Dams database for a dam near their home. This creates personal motivation right at the start and makes the introduction more exciting. A WebQuest for the Intermediate level was written based on this activity and the results of the evaluation to enable use by any teacher in the classroom.

In June of 1999, a group of nineteen high school students taking part in the NASA-Sharp + program at Cornell University completed a WebQuest for the Advanced level of the Cracking Dams module and evaluated it. The intent of the evaluation was to receive feedback on the WebQuest, the module, and the learning objectives, engineering skills, the use of simulation, and the social impact of engineering. The students were given a brief introduction to WebQuests, the Cracking Dams module, and the purpose of the evaluation. They were then directed to the main page of the module and then to their WebQuest. There was one WebQuest available for the groups of three and one for the group of four. The only difference between the two WebQuests was the number of roles described for the group. The students had about one hour and 15 minutes to complete the activity. Following the WebQuest, the students were asked to fill out an evaluation of the WebQuest and the module.

The task of the WebQuest for each group was to study several issues of the Narrows Dam on the Little Missouri River and decide if the dam should be decommissioned or repaired. The revised WebQuest is described in Chapter Four. The worksheet that originally accompanied this WebQuest did not include most of the directions about the Process that it now includes; more directions were added to the worksheet as a result of this evaluation, as described below.

During the WebQuest, the author noticed several things about the WebQuest and the group dynamics. More explanation about how to use the WebQuest than was initially given was necessary. At first, it was not apparent to the students that they would have to return to the WebQuest page to follow the Process. They expected all of the directions to be on the worksheet, which was not the case. The students were inclined to just begin filling out the worksheet without reading through the WebQuest page on the web. Some steps in the Process were not sufficiently clear and required verbal explanation by the author; these steps were clarified in the final version of the WebQuest.

One group assigned roles to each of its members and then split up the work accordingly, some members working at different computers than others. The rest of the groups remained together for the course of the activity.

With respect to the simulation, there were two difficulties. First, many of the groups had not calculated the forces on the dam and thus did not know what forces to apply to the dam in the simulation. Once the author explained that calculations had to be completed and where to find explanations of the calculations, the groups were able to proceed. This difficulty was again a function of the fact that the groups were not reading through the Process on the web and were trying to just fill things in on the worksheet. The other difficulty was that groups were hitting the "Run FRANC2D" button on the simulation applet repeatedly, causing several analyses to start. As a result, the analyses were taking a long time and students became impatient and frustrated; it was not until this point that students were again seen browsing the web while they were waiting for results.

Finally, the author stated that once the groups had finished their review of the situation and posted their statement on the bulletin board, they could fill out the evaluation and be finished. The author did not check to make sure that postings were made before groups began evaluations in an effort to see how many of the groups would post a message on the bulletin board without being forced. Many of the groups did not post their statement about the dam on the bulletin board. Those groups that did post to the bulletin board were seen reading the other messages though.

According to the evaluations, the activity was well-received overall. The amount of information, the navigation, the graphics and video clips, and general interactivity of the Cracking Dams module were repeatedly noted as things the students liked. Several comments indicated that the multimedia aspects such as the animated GIF on the main page and the video clips from the movies were inviting and motivating. Particularly, the loss of life scenario and the simulation applet provided a great amount of interactivity and evoked much interest. Suggestions about the module centered on ways to improve the simulation applet, such as an Undo button for Attaching, Adding loads, and Adding cracks and providing links back to the parts of the module where calculations are explained. Both of these suggestions resulted in changes to the simulation page.

There were several positive and negative points noted about the WebQuest on the evaluation forms. Students reported that they liked the WebQuest because of its organization, the roles, the hyperlinks, and detailed explanation of instructions. Descriptions of the WebQuest included "unique interactive environment," "easy access to links made it fun and efficient," and "allowed us to explore for ourselves." The organization forced the students to move through much of the module to find information in a motivated way. Many did suggest that more instructions be included on the worksheet and that these instructions be numbered both on the worksheet and on the web page for easier reference. Although the participants of one group particularly appreciated the roles of the WebQuest, two other groups’ participants noted that the roles seemed unnecessary and that the group members should just work together. Verbal clarification was required for some steps of the Process, but some students did appreciate the detailed instructions in the Process. Some scaffolding by the author, although a small amount, was still necessary for the activity. Answers on the groups’ worksheets indicated that students did review the Fontana Case History. The students drew several conclusions on cracking and remedies based on this Case History to apply to the dam in their WebQuest. Finally, it seems that the WebQuest provided sufficient motivation to keep the students from browsing the web until they began to have difficulties with the simulation applet. This issue has been addressed with the improvements to the applet, such as the addition of the Undo button. The Run button was modified so that it only sends the analysis once as a result of this evaluation. Also, appropriate setup of the classroom to facilitate the teacher’s monitoring of the student’s computers will also help with this issue.

The students made several comments about teamwork, engineering, and the impact of engineering on society. Many students noted that teamwork is very important and every member of the group needs to do their part. Comments on engineering and its impact on society included the following:

"Engineers must weigh safety, environment, cost, and usefulness."

"Engineering can save lives."

"It affects everything."

"It affects our lives directly."

"Engineers are concerned with social issues."

These comments indicate that students’ views of engineering are not limited to the technical aspects. Also, the students seem to put more emphasis on the services that dams provide rather than the problems they cause. But the students do realize that there are environmental and cost issues to consider. There is some indication that the module succeeded in introducing the students to a wider view of engineering than they originally held, a view of engineering as requiring teamwork and a balance of issues.

On July 13, 1999, two groups from the GIAC summer camp evaluated the Beginning level of Cracking Dams. The two groups totaled 22 students: two rising 2^nd graders, seven rising 3^rd graders, and thirteen rising 4^th graders. The intent of the evaluation was to gain feedback on the Beginning level from students of the appropriate ages. The proceedings of the evaluation began with an explanation of the web site and the purpose of the evaluation. The students were asked to walk through the web site and fill out the evaluation form. The students worked in pairs and had approximately 45 minutes to move through the site. Three counselors and the author were available to help the students read and navigate. It was assumed that the majority of these students would be able to read and write sufficiently to use the site and fill out the evaluation; this assumption was also being tested in this evaluation. These two evaluations are reviewed together here because the students’ ages, the evaluation proceedings, and the general feedback from the two evaluations were very similar.

During the two evaluations, several issues became apparent. First, a number of the students were preoccupied with the desire to play games on the computers instead of working with the web site. This revealed their primary exposure to the computer as a game-playing tool. When asked what sort of games the students played on computers, answers ranged from war games to math games. Some students had used the computer as an educational tool but usually in the format of a game. Although the Cracking Dams module is interactive and uses multimedia, it does not have a game format. Using computers and the web to learn from an educational web site seemed foreign to most students and unappealing at first. The students eventually became interested. The Dams Quiz was well received by most students, notably providing immediate reactions to students’ responses to the questions. This page has the most similarities to a game. The students seemed to appreciate affirmation when correct and redirection when incorrect.

The second issue of these evaluations involved the evaluation form and movement from one section of the module to the next. The students viewed the form as a worksheet. They were trying to "find" the answers to the questions on the web site, instead of thinking about what they had learned from the web site and evaluating it. The first five questions of the form could be answered while the student was in the Dams section. At the end of the Dams section, as in the other levels, there was no forward button. There was a prompt at the end of the section telling the student to choose Cracks from the side menu to continue. This seemed to confuse the students, as they had become accustomed to moving to the next page using the forward button up to that point. As a result, many students did not realize how to move on to the Cracks section or beyond it. Thus the students became frustrated about "finding the answers" to the final three questions on the evaluation form, as these were about the Cracks and Simulation sections. Also, students’ attention spans seemed to be dwindling after they completed the Dams section.

Other issues of the evaluation included reading, vocabulary, the movie clips, and the cracking experiment with paper. Most of the students were able to read the pages and follow the instructions, such as, using the forward arrow to move on, pressing play to watch a movie, and rolling over words to change a picture. Students often read aloud to each other and took turns using the mouse. The counselors and the author did have to encourage the students to keep reading to move through the site. Several students and the counselors commented that the typeface in the Beginning level should be bigger. The words "irrigate" and "reservoir" proved to be too large for the students in many cases. Many of them tried to sound it out but did not make the connection between the word and its definition. None of them were seen using the Glossary. Although the download times for the movie clips of Superman and Asteroid were several minutes, students were willing to wait and were very excited about watching the movies. Finally, students who did review the Cracks section found the Mode I cracking experiment with paper. This constructivist application of cracking fascinated the students; their interest was contagious to others.

The evaluation forms from these groups revealed the students’ thought processes and perceptions of the site. The large majority of the students chose "Dammy is great" over "Dammy is yucky." Verbal questioning by the author during the proceedings indicated student recognition of the animal as a beaver and appreciation of his appearance throughout the site.

The majority of the students also answered that they knew how to move to the next page using the forward button, when and how to watch a movie, and when and where to move the mouse to change a picture. During the evaluation it was also noticed that although the students knew where to roll-over to change a picture, they often clicked their mouse on that location as well. The nature of the JavaScript program that creates these roll-overs requires that the location that produces the roll-over must be a hyperlink as well. For the roll-overs in the Beginning level that are only intended to change the picture, the location is hyperlinked to the same page. So when the students clicked on the roll-over, the page would reload; this often frustrated the students. The author is not aware of any HTML or JavaScript commands that would allow roll-overs without hyperlinks at this time; this is a point for further investigation.

Most students answered the questions about dams with references to beavers. Likely, these answers are a result of the fact that beaver dams are discussed on the site before "people dams" and the students were filling out the form as they went through the site. Most students did not answer the questions about cracks, simulation, and engineering. Finally, most students answered that they would return to the web site. Verbal questioning of the second group indicated that the students would be interested in using the web site in class. Students wrote in comments about why they would return to the module, such as, "because it teaches you a lot" and "because it is fun to learn."

A number of changes to the web site occurred as a result of these evaluations. First, the GIAC facilities where the evaluations took place had fourteen-inch monitors. The screen resolution was initially set to 640x480 pixels, which requires horizontal scrolling to see the whole of the Cracking Dams pages. The author changed the resolutions on the monitors to 800x600 pixels to eliminate this type of scrolling. This prompted the addition of a note on the first page of the module to suggest a resolution of at least 800x600 pixels.

Second, a label pointing to the forward button was added to facilitate student recognition of the button. Some students initially confused the site’s forward button with the browser’s forward button. A forward button linking to the beginning of the Cracks section was added to the last page of the Dams section due to the students’ confusion during the evaluation.

 Third, the words "irrigation" and "reservoir" were replaced with more meaningful descriptive phrases since the students were not using the Glossary to look up the definitions of the words. The font size of all pages of the Beginning level was increased to ease reading.

The phrase "roll your mouse over" was replaced with "place your mouse on" for the roll-overs that change pictures. The students understood to move the mouse over certain locations to create a roll-over but there were two problems. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the students also clicked on the location, which reloaded the page. Also, because download times for new pictures were not instantaneous at the GIAC facility, students would sometimes roll over a location too quickly to allow the new picture to appear. Thus the new phrase "place your mouse on these words" is intended to communicate to the student that he or she does not need to click and that he or she should leave the mouse on the location for a few seconds.

Next, a worksheet was designed for the Beginning level as a result of the students’ reactions to the evaluation forms. It asks questions about each section of the level. The worksheet was used in the next evaluation. Eventually, three worksheets were created for this level. The worksheets are available online on the teacher’s page, which is linked from the first page of the level. Overall, these evaluations showed that the Beginning level is usable for grades 2-4. Students appreciated the use of color and interactive multimedia. Students’ associations of computers with games was obvious; using a web site for education was a new concept. Students required some prompting to read through the pages but were generally able to read. Once they reached the quiz, the students appreciated the game-like interactivity. Students’ use of the evaluation form like a worksheet indicated the applicability and usefulness of a worksheet for the level. Finally, Dammy the Beaver appeared to be a good narrator for the level.

On July 14, 1999, a group of eleven rising 2^nd and 3^rd graders in the GIAC summer camp evaluated the Beginning level of Cracking Dams. This evaluation was intended to test a new worksheet for the level as well as gather feedback on the level in general. This evaluation began with a group discussion of the students’ use of computers and the Internet. The discussion, once again, indicated that the students had used computers for games and typing in school. Most had some exposure to the Internet, although brief. An explanation of the web site and the purpose of the evaluation was given. The students were asked to move through the site and fill out their worksheets. The worksheet used for this evaluation was a combination of the worksheet on Dams and the worksheet on Cracks. At the end of approximately thirty minutes, the students were engaged in a discussion about the web site and the activity. The new time length allowed for moving through the site reflects the approximate length of the attention spans of the first two GIAC groups. The use of a worksheet with the level was also a consequence of the first two evaluations. In addition, verbal discussion of the activity with the students instead of the use of an evaluation form reflected the fact that the most valuable feedback from the first two GIAC evaluations came from verbal comments from the students and not from the forms.

During this evaluation, the students required a little more help with the reading, likely due to the fact that there were more 2^nd graders. Again, they expressed desires to play games. The worksheet proved to provide more direction through the site; many of the students were very intent on filling it out and would be upset if they did not finish it. Most students did not make it past the Dams section, but those who reached the end of it more readily moved on to the Cracks section by using the new forward button. Finally, there was again a difficulty with students clicking on the roll-over locations, which caused the page to reload.

The answers on the worksheet showed that most of the students could write reasonably and found the answers to the first five questions, which concentrated on the Dams section. Several students did answer the last two questions on cracking.

The students were brought together in a group on the floor to discuss the activity and the web site. The author lead the discussion by asking several questions and taking answers from the students one by one. Most students said they would like to use the web site again and would like to use it in school. Most also responded that they would prefer using this web site to using a textbook in school. It was noted that students liked completing the quizzes on Dams and Cracks, changing the pictures using the roll-overs, moving to the next page using the forward arrow, and using the computer in general. The students requested that Dammy the Beaver appear on every page of the level.

The students were asked about good and bad things about dams, which were the first two real questions on the worksheet. Many of the students could recall a positive or negative point and some requested to review their worksheet for an answer. All were very excited to demonstrate what they had learned to the author. Finally, the author asked the students what an engineer was, although they were not expected to know as none of them had reviewed the Simulation section, where the concept of engineering is introduced. The students who answered said an engineer drove a train. This response demonstrates that the students did know the word "engineer" but have a very traditional association for it. The Beginning level thus has the opportunity to introduce students to the more universal "engineer."

As a result of this evaluation, several changes to the web site followed. Dammy the Beaver was added to each page of the web site. The term "engineer" is now introduced earlier in the level, in the Dams section. The worksheet was split into a worksheet on Dams and a worksheet on Cracks. A third was created for the Examples and Simulation sections. It is suggested to teachers that they have their students move through one section of the level at a time in light of the attention span of most of the students. A page for the teacher links from the Introduction page of this level to make this suggestion and link to the worksheets.

This evaluation demonstrated the successful use of a worksheet to scaffold movement and learning with the Beginning level of Cracking Dams. Students were able to retain the information they had learned from the web site. Once again, the children were expecting a game when they first began working on the computers for this evaluation. General responses indicated, though, that the students liked the web site and are interested in using it in school.

On July 15, 1999, eleven rising Kindergarten and first graders from the GIAC summer camp evaluated the Beginning level of Cracking Dams. The intent of this evaluation was to learn how the web site would be received by a non-reading group. The evaluation proceedings were similar to that of the preceding group, beginning with a discussion and then using the web site with a worksheet. The discussion indicated that all of the students had used computers before, to play games in all instances. Students moved to the computers to begin the evaluation. Camp counselors and the author were available to help them read and write on their worksheets. The activity was stopped after about 15 minutes for reasons explained below.

All of the students required someone to read to them from the web site. Although the rollovers did provide some interaction and the students liked the beaver and the colors, the students could not stay focused on the module on their own. With an adult helping the pairs of students, focus and motivation were improved but the web site was still lacking in the audio and dynamics the students were used to. There were not enough adults to help every pair of students so the evaluation was cut short to avoid neglecting anyone. Many of the students told the author that they were used to playing computer games that used constant animation and audio.

Although the students were not able to stay focused and motivated on the module, an important lesson was learned from this evaluation activity. Another level with increased animation and audio clips to explain things to the students is required to effectively reach students who are not yet able to read or write. Without being able to read, the students are left with pictures that have no significance. Without being able to write, the students cannot be scaffolded or motivated by the worksheet. The concepts of cracking and dams can certainly be taught to students at this age but it must be done using different tools to adapt to their abilities. The development of another level of Cracking Dams for non-readers is suggested for future work on the site. The Beginning level of Cracking Dams is now recommended for K-1 only if someone can help students with the reading.

On July 16, 1999 a group of 20 rising 6^th -- 8^th graders from the Cornell University Summer Day Camp tested the Intermediate level WebQuest activity on Gravity Dams in groups of three and four. The intent of the evaluation was to test the effectiveness of the WebQuest with students at this age level. The Expanding Your Horizons group had done the activities incorporated into this WebQuest under the direction of the author successfully. But prior to this evaluation, no students at this age level had tried out the WebQuest for the Intermediate level. The evaluation proceedings began with an explanation of the web site, the WebQuest activity, and the purpose of the evaluation. The author explained the use of the WebQuest in detail, emphasizing the need to return to the WebQuest Process for each step in light of the evaluation with the NASA-Sharp + students. The students were asked to bookmark their WebQuest so that they could return to it more easily. The students had the Worksheet to fill out during the WebQuest. They had about one hour for the WebQuest. Following the activity, a group discussion was led by the author on the evaluation of the web site and the activity.

During the evaluation, there were issues with motivation and focus. About one-third of the group felt no motivation to move through the WebQuest. They expressed distaste for having to do school-type work during summer camp. These students tended to leave the Cracking Dams module to surf other web sites often. Other groups also expressed interest in being allowed to surf other web sites as a reward for finishing the WebQuest. As the younger children associated the computer with games, this group associated the computer/Internet with surfing the web. It was difficult to keep some groups from surfing and trying to answer questions of other groups simultaneously. This evaluation took place in a computer lab that had all desks facing front. Perhaps a different arrangement of the desks to have all monitors visible at once would keep students from surfing.

Those groups that made the effort to move through the WebQuest had some difficulty. These groups did assign tasks and begin without too much trouble. The search of the National Inventory of Dams for a gravity dam proved more tedious for this group than it had been for the Expanding Your Horizons group. Further instructions on how to search the National Inventory of Dams were added to the WebQuest as a result. Although it had been clearly stated by the author to return to the WebQuest Process for instructions, students repeatedly did not return to it and asked the author what to do next. As a result, each step on the Worksheet was revised to include a note to return to the WebQuest Process on the web using their bookmark to proceed.

The gravity dam force diagram is intended to show the forces on a dam and where they act, including the water forces, the weight of the concrete, and the uplift force. The triangular distribution of the water and uplift pressures were included on the force diagram. Tool #3 for the simulation asked the students to draw the forces on their sketch of their dam; the sketches in their worksheets indicate that they were able to transfer what they saw on the web onto their sketch. But the sketches were too complicated when it came time to do the simulation using the applet and students were unsure how to simplify the forces for the simulation. Thus, the force diagrams for this level needed to be simplified to show just the forces the students should use in a simulation.

Three groups were able to perform simulations successfully. The animations of the simulation steps appeared to aid these students. This was certainly the most interesting and motivational part of the activity.

The students did not use the bulletin board on their own, also seen in the NASA-Sharp + evaluation. The groups who performed simulations were specifically asked to post a message about their results on the bulletin board. Of these three groups, two of them did post messages, although the messages are very brief.

Discussion of the activity following the evaluation indicated that the students felt unmotivated to be working on an educational activity during summer camp, although the web site would be more appropriate in school. Thus, it is suggested for further development of the site that user testing be performed in a school setting. The ability to surf the web was a definitive challenge to keeping this group focused on the module. Those who were able to complete a simulation suggested that was the best part of the activity.

Overall, this evaluation indicates that students at this age level can be preoccupied with the expanse of the web. Although the WebQuest is designed to keep the student focused on the activity, he or she must feel the need to stay focused to begin with. The author feels that better results may be obtained by testing the WebQuest in a classroom environment. This evaluation also indicated that the simulation applet is usable and motivational.

Each level of Cracking Dams has been evaluated at several stages in its development. Testing shows that this educational use of the web is a new concept for the students involved and presents some challenges. For the Beginning level students, the challenge is to play games, for the Intermediate and Advanced level students, the challenge is to surf the web. The interactive multimedia of the site and the Cracking Dams WebQuests have the potential to overcome these challenges as seen in the positive responses from many students. Particularly, the children appreciate and enjoy the opportunity to perform an engineering simulation of a crack in a dam. In most cases, student comments indicate that they would like to use the module in the classroom and are engaged by the interaction offered by the web. Further evaluation is required to understand issues like students’ depth of learning and teachers’ feelings on the module and WebQuest.

The final stage of the usability design cycle is system installation. The system installation of a web site is very different from that of computer software that must be physically installed on individual computers or networks, the latter likely being Gould’s assumption. With a web site, availability is immediate and worldwide to a certain extent – anyone who is connected to the Internet can view a web site. The issue becomes how to get the web site noticed by the people for which it is intended, considering the vast amount of information available on the web and the hypertracking that often occurs.

In order for a web site to be used in the classroom, the classroom must have Internet access, the teacher must realize that the site is out there and available for their class’s use, and there must be apparent curriculum applications and a framework for use in the classroom. In addition, the web site must reside on a reliable server that is appropriately maintained.

By the year 2000, an estimated 95% of public schools will have Internet access. But what about the private schools? What is to be said for the speed of the Internet connection? It is expected to be another 10 years before bandwidth catches up with the needs of the users. In the mean time, for those schools with computers but no Internet access, SimScience is available on CD-ROM for no charge. The CD-ROM may be obtained by sending an email or letter to the addresses given on the web site. This seems like a Catch-22, but hopefully teachers will have access to the web at their local library. Although web site filtering software is finding a place in elementary and secondary schools, there are some schools who remain without the Internet connection for fear of where on the web their students might venture, as noted earlier.

For those viewing the Cracking Dams module from the CD-ROM, there are several things that are not available. First, any external links cannot be accessed since they will not have the Internet; to warn the user that a link is external and cannot be followed from the CD-ROM, the link is followed by (#). Second, the simulation applet cannot be run from the CD-ROM due to the nature of the Java program. But the user is still able to view the animated GIFs, or "quick movies," of the steps of the simulation and its results. Finally, the electronic bulletin board is not available on the CD-ROM.

Availability of the module is defined in terms of how easily the teachers who are on the Internet are able to find it. This requires listing SimScience or Cracking Dams on the web sites where teachers look to find resources on the web. Sometimes this is as easy as asking the webmaster to add a new site to their list but sometimes a thorough check of the requesting site is involved. Based on the author’s experience at the SchoolTech Exposition and Conference in April of 1999, there are certain web sites that are well known to teachers who are web-savvy. First, Dodge and March’s WebQuests are very well known. Their web site (http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/ webquest.html) links to numerous WebQuests that teachers from all over the country have written. The Cracking Dams’ WebQuests have been added to this site, which will be a major resource-locator for teachers. Yahooligans is also a well-known searchable directory specifically for children. Inclusion in Yahooligans is based on extensive review of the site; SimScience has been added to this database. Webivore has also included SimScience on its site, a research system to help students and teachers find educational web sites. Other web sites that have compilations of educational web sites that have added SimScience are the Cornell Theory Center Gateway for Math and Science, IthacaNet, the Sciencenter, Lyceum Academy’s Education Emporium, the Gateway, and the Fingerlakes Library System. Addition to the lists of educational web resources on Discover Engineering Online, Access Excellence, the National Academy Press, the Franklin Institute, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, the Kids on the Web, and TechLearning are pending. Finally, SimScience has been added to the database of search engines and directories such as Yahoo, Alta Vista, GoTo.com, HotBot, InfoSeek, and Lycos.

The curriculum applications of the Cracking Dams module as discussed in this thesis are also available on the web site, under the link Applications for each level. This allows teachers to see what skills and concepts their students will use in the module. The WebQuest also provides a section on curriculum applications for the teacher. In itself, the WebQuests provide a lesson plan for using the module in the classroom.

The majority of the Cracking Dams module will likely reside on a PC running Linux, maintained at Syracuse University. This will be determined at the final meeting of the SimScience team in August of 1999. The simulation applet, bulletin board, and loss of life scenario program reside on a PC running Red Hat Linux maintained at Cornell University by both the Cornell Fracture Group and the Cornell Theory Center. The simulation applet will require monitoring to make sure that no analyses become "stuck," as occasionally happens. These analyses, which run indefinitely for an unknown, apparently random reason, require a person to manually end the process; the Fracture Group and Theory Center will likely be responsible for this. With respect to the bulletin board, certain words can be banned from it, but there is still the possibility that an unwanted message could be posted. Thus the bulletin board will require monitoring and deletion of these unwanted messages. This can easily be done remotely and may be done by the author of this thesis for some time not yet determined. The loss of life scenario should not require any maintenance as long as the Perl script remains unharmed on the computer.

One final technical issue is that of the movie clips included in the site under Fair Use. It has been suggested that Fair Use is only applicable for two years from the time of completion of the multimedia work. Thus in August of 2001, Fair Use may not apply to the clips used from Superman and Asteroid any longer. At that point, perhaps a more definitive law will have been developed for the educational use of multimedia on the web and the clips will be able to remain on the site. In the event no legal provisions have been made to allow the clips to remain, they will have to be removed, unfortunately. The responsibility for this action will be discussed at the final meeting of the SimScience team in August of 1999 also.

The Dam News and Cracking the News sections will no longer be updated, but perhaps their existence will inspire students to search the news for recent events on cracks and dams. Links to search the Yahoo news database for headlines on cracks and dams have been added to these pages.

This chapter has reviewed the surveys and evaluations conducted during the interactive design cycle. Numerous aspects of the module benefited from revisions suggested by the evaluations. The surveys and evaluations also served to provide feedback on the appearance, navigation, content, and scaffolding of the module. Positive feedback was received on all of the aspects of the module. Students reported that the interaction and multimedia were fun and interesting. The simulation and loss of life scenario were the most engaging aspects of the site, followed closely by the movie clips. All of the evaluations indicated that students would like to use the module in the classroom. There are challenges to using the web in the classroom, particularly in young children’s association of games with computers and older children’s association of surfing with the Internet.

Integration into the classroom is accomplished by providing the module on CD-ROM with the rest of SimScience for the classrooms without Internet access. A teacher’s knowledge of the module’s existence will precipitate use in the classroom. Thus numerous attempts have been made to get the module listed in prominent web-resource locators for teachers; several of these attempts have succeeded and several more are pending. Finally, the site will be maintained by a combination of the SimScience team at Syracuse University and the Cornell Fracture Group and Cornell Theory Center.