-- DonaldActon - 04 Oct 2011

Progress Report (First week of October 2011)

During the first 8 months of 2011, under the auspices of the Computer Science Education Initiative, we have been working (slowly) on revising CPSC 317 (Internet Computing). The initial work consisted of enumerating both course and topic level learning outcomes based on the existing course offering. This exercise forced us to think carefully about the relationship between the important networking concepts we wanted our students to learn and the topics used to frame the learning. After careful consideration we decided that not only should we change the pedagogical approach, which was our initial goal, but that we should also change the content (topics) of the course to rely on the networking experiences students already have and to better align the topics with how a typical computer science student would be involved with computer networking upon completing their studies. Although we are changing the topics of the course, the course level learning outcomes and the majority of the topic level learning outcomes are the same.

In order to help with implementing the changes to 317, we hired two students with experience TAing CPSC 317 at 1/2 time each, effective September 2011. The efforts of these students are focused on moving 317 from a classical lecture style course to one where the lecture time is primarily devoted to group based activities and associated class discussions focused on specific learning outcomes. At the time the students were hired we had defined a broad set of unrefined learning outcomes both at the course and topic level. In addition, as a proof of concept, we had, after several iterations, produced a lecture-by-lecture outline of potential activities and desired learning outcomes. (It should be noted that the potential activities were very broadly specified.) Currently, the students are examining the learning outcomes for a lecture or series of lectures and:

• Identifying activities students could perform in class that would help achieve the desired learning outcomes. The goal is to have several possible activities and then choose the ones that have the best fit with respect to learning outcomes, the other activities in the course, and the students' skill level.
• A list of support materials in the form of readings, videos, simulations etc. that are relevant to the learning outcomes.

Once a pool of activities has been identified we will then go through the exercise of selecting the most appropriate activities and constructing a detailed lecture schedule along with a lecture by lecture (potential) lesson plan. At that point the grad students will then:

• Help refine the topic level learning outcomes.
• Prepare and test the in-class activities. This will include the preparation of any instructions the students will require along with the development, deployment or implementation of any required support software.
• Help with the development and preparation of homework assignments.

Assuming the majority of this work is completed by the end of December we would then offer the revised 317 in January 2012 otherwise the first offering will be September of 2012. A wiki page documenting the work done with respect to revising 317 can be found at https://bugs.cs.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Main/ComputerScience317Cwsei.

Response to some questions about the progress report

>> Although we are changing the topics of the course, the course level
>> learning outcomes and the majority of the topic level learning
>> outcomes are the same.

> I think this needs some clarification. On the one hand we're saying
> that we are changing the topics of the course and on the other we're
> saying that the topic level learning outcomes are the same. Can you
> clarify this a bit? Assuming that the topic-level learning outcomes
> remain the same, would it be true to say that you intend to
> illustrate those topics in a different way?

Yes that is correct. For example one of the important topics revolves around taking a stream of data, chopping it into packets and sending it. Then, upon receipt, reconstructing that stream. In such a scenario packets could be lost and/or arrive out of order. In the "old" course this is all discussed in the context of how TCP is implemented and what it does to reconstruct the stream. Given the nature of TCP and its implementation within the kernel, students never really get to experience or work with the programming problems directly. (We do try to give them a fake TCP stack to work with at the application level, but the gap between the fake stack and and actual TCP implementation is challenging for many students to bridge.) In the new version, the plan is to illustrate this topic with application level multi-media protocols. Now they will be working in a problem space they are familiar with using (i.e. streaming video and audio) and at a programming level that matches where the issues are encountered (the application level). The problems are still the same. A stream of data still has to be chopped into packets and on the receiving end decisions have to be made about what to do if packets of data are lost or arrive out of order.

> I'm also wondering if you could tell me what baseline data you've
> collected. I believe that you've already gathered attitudinal data
> from surveys. Do you plan to re-run the survey after revising the
> course? Have you also collected per-question exam data? Is it
> feasible that we could re-use some exam questions after the course
> has been revised in an effort to measure changes in student learning?

Yes, we collected attitudinal data from both my teaching of the course and Norm's. We hope to convince Bill to do the same thing. The plan is to give the save survey when we offer the revised course. In addition we will probably do an attitudinal survey at the start of the course. We wanted to do one this term but didn't. In addition I have held discussions with Allison about looking at old exams, for which we have the student's answers, to see if there are questions that, possibly in a modified form, could be used to compare changes in student understanding. The intention is to identify and re-ask a number of such questions to get some indication of how a student's understanding of the material compares between the two course offerings.