The first site looks like a textbook. There is not much interaction. However, the presentation was clear. This site would be most applicable for review by a student who had missed class or for reinforcement. There was a lack of interaction.

At the second site there were problems with the applets. This site was more interactive than the first. Looking at the exponential functions applet, the group decided that it seemed to need teacher support – an in-class guide or suggested experiments. You might not want to turn students loose. (David S. noted that at the bottom of the page there is a longer module on exponential functions. This is a demonstration of a possible use of the applet. In general, the teacher would have to build lessons around the applets.)

Discussion: How to guarantee the materials remain up until you want to use them?

How will we deal with the access to these materials after many years – when the document reading capability might be out of fashion, e.g., 5 ¼ in. disks?

At site number 3, the geometry was very nice. They liked the Pythagorean Theorem applet; it was very clear. However, it would need some classroom support, which can be a good thing. This site was not as comprehensive as the second. The navigation in this site was not very easy to use. Often, navigation was either next or back. Maybe a navigation bar would be good. However, this might generate a problem with students wandering off.

The first site was static, no interaction. The font choice was bad. You have to put up with advertising. The visuals were not great. Navigation was difficult. Functions were not displayed in math form. Funny colors are a problem on site 1. There was more discussion on back navigation. There is a lack of internal links within pages.

Discussion: We discussed the up and down sides of equation editors and presentation of symbols as graphics. There was a brief discussion of MathML as the future solution. Currently, the problem is that most browsers that do not display MathML. The few that do, often only have presentation math and not "live" math.

On site 2, there are no scales on the graphs. On our machines, buttons were missing, e.g., on parabolas and conic sections. The question was whether this was a basic problem or a feature of the hardware.

Discussion: What is the value of using an array of nice applets as opposed to using a computer algebra system? With applets the students do not learn the general computing method, but do not have to deal with problems of syntax. How to decide which to use? Have to think about the user goals.

On site 3, the group liked the support of paper constructions by a step-by-step applet demonstration. This is an interesting use of online technology to support ruler and compass, paper actiuvities. Sometimes questions asked of the students were answered questions right away. This is not pedagogically constructive. Some applets did not seem to work.

Discussion: The group also looked at exploremath.com. Here interactivity is done with Shockwave not Java applets. We looked at the Trigonometry mathlet -- Shifting and scaling. There was a discussion of a possible business model. Explore Learning seems to be the company, and making money from publishers seemed to be the object.

The group had little to add to the discussion of the Geocities site. Background was distracting. Lots of examples, rather boring. There was only one quiz per section, and the quiz feedback was not good.

On site 2, the group investigated how to use the material in the classroom. They felt that there should be more questions early on, then play with applet and answer questions. The explorations are wordy, clearly not written for students. As noted above, the teacher would have to construct lesson to go with this. See the note on the one modular unit discussed above.

Discussion: The group looked at cut-the-knot.com. This is a good site with good links. Under Games and Puzzles, they liked the Tower of Hanoi 51. This illustrates good discussion and use of an applet. There was a general discussion of the T of H applet. What does applet add to understanding?. The answer was that the problem can be more easily changed than with a physical model. The general principle was, "Use animation after the hand work."

On the third site, there was a discussion of the Pythagorean Theorem Applet. Is this a proof? It is hard to see what to do in using the applet.

The group did not have much to add on the first site.

They spent time on second site. The Tangent Lines applet worked a lot better if you read instructions first. You have to enter your own derivative -- can’t go away and come back and keep stuff already entered. Not easy to deal with complicated functions.

Went to Derivative Calculator site. Fairly easy to figure out what to do. Instructions did not have parentheses in e.g., cos(x). Copying did not work as well as it should.

On the second site, the concavity applet, the error messages were not clear.