Agent Evaluation‐Word Definition Memory Game - RutgersGRID/VIDAHub GitHub Wiki
VIDA Project: Word Definition Memory Game Evaluation
Executive Summary
The Word Definition Memory Game is an educational tool designed to help students learn terminology across different subjects through an interactive memory matching game. Users match words with their definitions in categories like Science, Technology, and Literature. The application offers three difficulty levels (Easy, Medium, Hard), tracks performance metrics, and allows faculty to upload custom word-definition pairs.
Alignment with UOES & EmTech Mission
The Word Definition Memory Game aligns well with several aspects of the UOES and EmTech mission:
- Game-Based Learning: Directly supports EmTech's core mission of creating educational games with specific learning objectives
- Digital Creative Technology: Combines education, technology, and creativity in an interactive format
- Online Pedagogical Innovation: Provides faculty with an alternative method for teaching vocabulary and concepts
- Online Learning Excellence: Offers an engaging, interactive way for students to learn terminology remotely
- Cross-Departmental Support: Could be utilized across various disciplines (Science, Technology, Literature, etc.)
Key Strengths
- Educational Gamification: Successfully transforms vocabulary learning into an engaging memory game
- Content Flexibility: Supports multiple subject areas and allows custom content upload
- Scalable Difficulty: Offers three difficulty levels to accommodate different learning needs
- Performance Tracking: Measures attempts, completion time, and efficiency score
- Faculty Customization: Enables instructors to upload custom CSV files with subject-specific terminology
Areas for Improvement
- Accessibility Features: Limited evidence of screen reader compatibility or keyboard navigation
- Feedback Mechanisms: No visible way for users to submit feedback or report issues
- Integration Capabilities: No apparent LMS integration features
- Visual Design: Utilitarian interface could benefit from more engaging visual elements
- Collaborative Features: No visible support for collaborative or multiplayer experiences
Detailed Evaluation Matrix
| Criteria | Rating | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Accessibility by Design | ||
| Meets WCAG 2.1 AA standards | 2 | Cannot fully assess; no evidence of comprehensive accessibility compliance |
| Keyboard navigation fully supported | 3 | Basic navigation appears possible but not optimized |
| Proper heading structure and semantic HTML | 3 | Basic heading structure visible but limited evidence of semantic HTML |
| Sufficient color contrast ratios | 4 | Good contrast between text and backgrounds |
| Text alternatives for non-text content | 2 | Limited evidence of alt text for icons and images |
| Responsive design works at 200% zoom | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Screen reader compatible | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Supports accessibility in its outputs | N/A | Not applicable to this tool |
| Section Average | 3.0 | |
| 2. Augmentation, Not Replacement | ||
| Positions tool as enhancing rather than replacing human expertise | 4 | Serves as a learning aid rather than replacing instruction |
| Maintains "human in the loop" philosophy | 4 | Instructors can customize content and oversee usage |
| Handles routine tasks while freeing users for higher-value work | 4 | Automates vocabulary practice and assessment |
| Includes collaboration features | 2 | No evidence of collaborative capabilities |
| Emphasizes quality improvement in messaging | 3 | Focus on learning efficiency through gamification |
| Extends rather than replaces human expertise | 4 | Supplements traditional teaching methods |
| Section Average | 3.5 | |
| 3. Rapid Tool Development Framework | ||
| Uses standardized templates | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Employs modular, reusable components | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Follows project coding standards | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Includes comprehensive documentation | 3 | Basic game instructions provided but limited technical documentation visible |
| Deployed through standard CI/CD pipeline | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Uses shared UI components and patterns | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Section Average | 3.0 | |
| 4. Educational Pedagogy Integration | ||
| Aligns with established learning science principles | 4 | Uses spaced repetition and active recall, established learning principles |
| Promotes active learning and engagement | 5 | Directly engages users in active recall and matching activities |
| Supports diverse teaching and learning styles | 4 | Visual learning, gamification, customizable content |
| Facilitates assessment and feedback | 4 | Tracks performance metrics (time, attempts, efficiency) |
| Incorporates Universal Design for Learning principles | 3 | Multiple difficulty levels but limited accessibility accommodations |
| Enables mapping to learning objectives | 4 | Custom content upload allows alignment with specific objectives |
| Supports various educational contexts | 5 | Multiple subject categories and custom content options |
| Section Average | 4.1 | |
| 5. Faculty Empowerment & Agency | ||
| Provides intuitive interface requiring minimal technical expertise | 4 | Clean, straightforward UI with clear instructions |
| Offers granular control over AI-generated outputs | N/A | Not applicable; doesn't appear to use AI-generated content |
| Allows customization for specific teaching contexts | 5 | Custom CSV upload feature for specific terminology needs |
| Includes clear, jargon-free documentation | 4 | Simple "How to Play" instructions; CSV format guideline available |
| Respects faculty expertise and autonomy | 4 | Allows faculty to define their own content sets |
| Provides multiple pathways for different tech comfort levels | 3 | Basic interface with some customization options |
| Enables user contributions to tool improvement | N/A | No visible feedback mechanism |
| Section Average | 4.0 | |
| 6. Ethical AI Implementation | ||
| Transparent about AI involvement in content creation | N/A | No evidence of AI involvement in tool |
| Addresses bias in AI-generated content | N/A | Not applicable |
| Protects user privacy and data security | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Provides options to review and modify AI suggestions | N/A | Not applicable |
| Establishes clear guidelines for appropriate use | 4 | Clear game instructions and purpose |
| Implements content filtering for problematic outputs | N/A | Not applicable |
| Section Average | 4.0 | |
| 7. Institutional Integration | ||
| Works within existing educational technology ecosystems | 3 | Standalone web application; no visible LMS integration |
| Supports flexible authentication | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Allows institution-specific branding/customization | 2 | No visible institutional branding options |
| Facilitates analytics aligned with institutional needs | 3 | Basic performance metrics but limited analytics |
| Complies with institutional data policies | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Enables LMS integration where appropriate | N/A | No visible integration capabilities |
| Provides flexible deployment options | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Section Average | 2.7 | |
| 8. Continuous Improvement Through User Feedback | ||
| Includes robust feedback mechanisms | N/A | No visible feedback mechanism |
| Provides clear pathways for feature requests | N/A | No visible feedback option |
| Incorporates analytics to identify usage patterns | 3 | Tracks basic usage metrics but limited analytics |
| Maintains communication channels with users | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Has undergone usability testing | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Demonstrates improvements based on user feedback | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Section Average | 3.0 | |
| 9. Scalable and Sustainable Infrastructure | ||
| Designed for growth in users and functionality | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Optimized for resource efficiency | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Includes maintenance documentation | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Has appropriate monitoring and alerting | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Designed with cost efficiency in mind | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Plans for long-term sustainability | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Section Average | N/A | |
| 10. Knowledge Sharing and Community Building | ||
| Facilitates sharing of best practices | 2 | Limited sharing capabilities |
| Supports collaborative development | 3 | GitHub fork option visible suggesting open-source approach |
| Includes case studies or examples | 4 | Sample categories with predefined word sets |
| Provides mechanisms for peer support | N/A | No visible community features |
| Recognizes community contributions | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Promotes inclusive community of practice | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| Section Average | 3.0 |
Overall Score
| Pillar | Average Rating | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Accessibility by Design | 3.0 | Basic accessibility considerations with room for improvement |
| 2. Augmentation, Not Replacement | 3.5 | Good supplement to teaching but limited collaboration |
| 3. Rapid Tool Development Framework | 3.0 | Limited assessment possible |
| 4. Educational Pedagogy Integration | 4.1 | Strong educational foundations and flexibility |
| 5. Faculty Empowerment & Agency | 4.0 | Good customization options for faculty |
| 6. Ethical AI Implementation | 4.0 | Limited relevance as tool doesn't appear AI-driven |
| 7. Institutional Integration | 2.7 | Limited integration capabilities visible |
| 8. Continuous Improvement Through User Feedback | 3.0 | Limited feedback mechanisms visible |
| 9. Scalable and Sustainable Infrastructure | N/A | Cannot assess from screenshots |
| 10. Knowledge Sharing and Community Building | 3.0 | Some sharing features but limited community aspects |
| OVERALL AVERAGE | 3.4 | Good educational tool with room for enhancement |
Items Rated as N/A
The following criteria could not be adequately assessed from the screenshots provided:
-
Accessibility by Design:
- Responsive design works at 200% zoom
- Screen reader compatibility
- Supports accessibility in its outputs
-
Rapid Tool Development Framework:
- Uses standardized templates
- Employs modular, reusable components
- Follows project coding standards
- Deployed through standard CI/CD pipeline
- Uses shared UI components and patterns
-
Faculty Empowerment & Agency:
- Enables user contributions to tool improvement
-
Ethical AI Implementation:
- Most criteria N/A as tool doesn't appear to use AI
-
Institutional Integration:
- Supports flexible authentication
- Complies with institutional data policies
- Enables LMS integration
- Provides flexible deployment options
-
Continuous Improvement:
- Multiple criteria regarding feedback mechanisms
- Usability testing history
-
Scalable and Sustainable Infrastructure:
- All criteria in this section
-
Knowledge Sharing and Community Building:
- Mechanisms for peer support
- Recognition of community contributions
- Promotion of inclusive community
Recommended Next Steps
-
Accessibility Enhancements:
- Conduct a formal WCAG 2.1 AA compliance assessment
- Improve keyboard navigation and screen reader compatibility
- Add appropriate alt text for all visual elements
-
Integration Capabilities:
- Develop LMS integration options (LTI compatibility)
- Create institutional branding customization features
- Implement authentication options for institutional use
-
User Feedback Mechanisms:
- Add in-game feedback option for users to report issues or suggest improvements
- Implement more comprehensive analytics to track usage patterns
- Create a process for regular evaluation and implementation of user feedback
-
Collaboration Features:
- Add multiplayer or classroom competition mode
- Create leaderboards for classroom or institutional use
- Develop sharing capabilities for instructor-created content sets
-
Documentation and Support:
- Develop comprehensive documentation for technical implementation
- Create educational guides for integrating the game into curriculum
- Establish a support system for technical assistance
-
Enhanced Learning Analytics:
- Implement more detailed performance tracking
- Create exportable reports for instructors
- Develop learning progress visualization tools