|
3. Results
The culmination of our first two years of work was the creation of
a stable set of enabling tools and methods, necessary experience in delivering
content, a trial run of the course with a small group of selected students,
and an official offering of the class as a computer engineering elective.
This latter class can be considered a scaled-up version of the course
design obtained from the results of the first trial run of the class.
The following subsections deal with some of the issues we were concerned
with as a result of having a greater number of students in the class with
potentially diverse levels of experience. Areas of interest included:
the learning curve associated with the use of course related software,
the effectiveness of network based communication between staff and students,
and the quality of electronic journal submissions.
3.1 Effectiveness
of Software
Unlike the trial version, our last offering of the course involved students
who had varying levels of programming experience. Although having some
programming experience was a prerequisite for enrollment in the class,
we encountered a wide range of competencies among the students enrolled.
With the assistance of a set of both online and offline manuals, and control
code examples, most students were able to begin writing robot controllers
within the first week of class. Those students who were unfamiliar with
Java had only minor difficulties; these centered around learning the syntax
for writing Java methods. Due to the nature of the our API's and programming
environment, little to no knowledge of object oriented programming or
the Java class libraries were required. As we had hoped, the main challenge
that confronted students dealt with solving the specific control problem
at hand.
3.2 Network Based Communication
The authors and their colleagues have considerable experience in offering
autonomous robotics practica. We have observed that face-to-face interactions
among students engender a collegial atmosphere that provides support and
motivation to achieve. In this subsection we outline the results of interaction
mediated by simple Internet collaboration tools. Within this context we
pose two questions: were students able to sufficiently articulate questions
and comments using this medium, and was there adequate accessibility to
faculty and staff via this medium.
Given that text based
correspondence typically requires the use of clear and concise expressions
of meaning, students with poor communication skills may find themselves
at a disadvantage using these collaboration tools. To further complicate
matters, meaningful discussions regarding class related programming problems
can be relatively complex, and require familiarity with the vernacular
of computer science and engineering. In our recent experience, we found
that students who had difficulties relating their questions and comments
required slightly more attention than others, and we often had to second-guess
the intended meaning behind certain pieces of correspondence. As the course
progressed, however, these students improved in their ability to articulate
problems. It is assumed that this improvement resulted from the extensive
number of formal and informal online meetings held.
The second question
can be addressed based on the chat logs saved throughout the ten-week
quarter. At least one member of the faculty/staff was online -- ready
to address any questions that arose, between 9:00am and 5:00pm Mon. through
Fri.. For the most part this simply entailed having a Hotline client open
throughout the day and responding to periodic notifications from students.
Because student schedules were meant to be flexible given the framework
of the course, preset online "office hours" would not afford
adequate correspondence, hence a virtual open door policy was adopted.
Because the chat clients used could maintain a history of conversations
over an extended time period, students could benefit from other class
members' previous interactions with staff members.
3.3 Journal
Quality
The authors and their colleagues have observed in other, traditional project
courses that student journals kept in paper notebooks are usually superior
to those kept using word processors or other document preparation software.
We attribute this to the fact that when completing projects that require
stretches of time away from the computer, use of paper journals is more
spontaneous as it is easier to add entries to a carried notebook than
it is to return to a computer (we are presuming that most students do
not have personal digital assistants). Since, by its very nature, WWW
Autonomous Robotics requires that most work be completed at a computer
-- we originally hoped that students might not suffer the same loss
of spontaneity.
We compared journals
produced in this class with those produced by comparable students in another,
similarly structured but traditionally delivered project course. We found
that the electronic journals, on average, lacked the level of detail found
in their paper notebook counterparts. Most students had no problems describing
what they had accomplished and their final results of a given assignment.
What was lacking, however, was content that dealt with why they had committed
to a particular solution and what analytical processes took place during
the evolution of their solution. The reasons for this disparity between
the two sets of journals were multifold, and ranged from the different
motivation levels of individual students to the added overhead (in terms
of time) associated with editing documents using a word processor and
graphics software. Students who displayed a motivation to learn the subject
(as expressed through frequent contact with staff and greater involvement
in chat sessions) typically created higher quality journals -- as would
be expected. Also, a significant number of students initially had problems
converting documents to PDF. This was remedied over time as students gained
experience using the software.
Many of the content
specific issues regarding the electronic journals could potentially be
addressed by giving students examples of "good" and "bad"
journal submissions. In our class, students were not exposed to each other's
work. This policy was put in place to discourage plagiarism, and to encourage
independent forms of expression. Making generic journal templates available
that serve to demonstrate some of the key elements of a "good"
journal may help guide those students who have limited experience in technical
writing. Making certain sections of each class member's journal
available to the entire class may also prove to be a valuable feedback
mechanism. In this way students can exchange ideas and benefit from others
who may possess expertise in other areas.
|
|
){kind=small}
