hopper, 1993 [3.1, abstract, overview, toc, switchboard, references]

3.1.3 Educational Goals of TODOR and Mechanics 2.01

The third major site of courseware development explored through this research was Project Athena (AC). In the past and present, many projects emphasized the use of the computer to simulate and provide more realistic representations of the phenomena under study. Two of the most frequently mentioned examples became the focus of this research. The first was TODOR and the second was Mechanics 2.01. Both of these projects to be examined have originated within traditionally technical fields, and emphasize fairly traditional, engineering discipline oriented goals. The description of their experiences tends to characterize that of many educators who chose to employ the workstations available through Athena.
 
The older of the two projects was the TODOR project, which was initiated by the Fluid Mechanics area of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. That area offers four fluid mechanics subjects: basic fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, aerodynamic theory, and physics of fluids. TODOR is a workstation software package designed to enhance the teaching of undergraduate fluid mechanics, and was one of the largest and most publicized projects during the early years of the Athena experiment. The project was initiated by the entire faculty in the division of Fluids Mechanics in the department of Aeronautical and Astronomical Engineering at MIT. (Murman, LaVin & Ellis, 1988) The faculty in the fluids division were attracted to the visual and animation capabilities computer graphics could provide for displaying solutions of complicated equations and motion of an invisible medium: "It is not clear if the workstation is more effective than a videotape at showing motion; however, when animation is used with the other features the workstation affords, it can be helpful." (Murman, LaVin & Ellis, 1988, p. 9)
 
During the TODOR project a formal evaluation was done by Professor Leon Trilling of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His report confirmed that the computer simulations had resulted in improved discipline representation (Trilling, 1988). While many faculty members who used Athena were enthusiastic about the use of powerful computing facilities to improve traditional discipline and learner oriented outcomes, there were various reports that some were not comfortable with some educational uses of the workstation technology. This type of concern is reflected in the passage below, written by the DEC manager assigned to worked with Athena:
 
Many faculty members had significant basic concerns about the proper role of computing in education. Some thought that students and instructors might substitute computing for thinking or that computing might come between student and instructor. Others were concerned that computing might detract from the theoretic and analytic aspects of the discipline being taught. Although the faculty as a whole held a broad spectrum of opinions about the role of computers in education, a substantial correlation of opinions about this subject arose by school. (Champine, 1991, p. 73)
 
It is undoubtedly true that there may have been faculty who held genuinely negative attitudes about computer use in their discipline, or in the classroom in particular. It is also possible that some legitimate and thoughtful caution on the part of some faculty could have been construed as negativism or ambivalence. There is a basis for very well justified caution about computational representations, and there is not a contradiction in holding both a respect for the power of the computer to simulate, and a strong concern for the student's ability to understand the limits of the representation. In the following passage, Lavin describes the special issues that arise in the use of computers in technical disciplines, and provides a concrete example of the importance of careful attention to representation:
 
Lavin: You have to be careful to teach students that when numerically modeling nature, they have to understand the limitations of the model in order to know if what they're getting from the model makes sense. It's very easy to forget that. The computer has a discrete numerical way of attacking a problem. If you attack a problem with a numerical method in areas like aerodynamics or math, it isn't always going to work because there are limitations to any given theory. How well the computer models reality depends on the quality of the model, and how well the model adapted to the fact that you are doing a numerical calculation over something that is continuous in reality. Students often forget that fact. For example, in one of the TODOR modules, a bonus question on one of the problem sets asks about the outputs of the program. The module lets students calculate the lift and drag on a multi-element airfoil system by a couple of different methods. The task is to get answers for the same given shape by different methods and check to see which one to pay attention to in different situations from an engineer's perspective. The way one theory works, the drag you get on the airfoil is supposed to be zero because it is an idealized calculation. There is no drag in this type of theory. Of course this is not true in reality, but that is one of the limitations of the theory itself. The program does present a very small number in the drag box on the screen because of round off error. The question asks which of the two methods is better, according to the value for drag that appears. One theory tended to give positive incorrect errors, and the other tended to give negative incorrect errors. None of the students gave the right answer, which was that the one with the smallest drag value was the best. Most of the students said the theory that gave positive values was better because the negative values were impossible, because that would mean there was thrust in the air. (Lavin & Hopper, 1992)
This conversation illustrates a powerful rationale for why it may be critical to include computers in the curriculum of some disciplines. LaVin is clearly not against using computers for education. In the technical disciplines these concerns are critical for any thoughtful user of computational tools in either instruction, or the broader profession. If students in disciplines like engineering are going to use them as tools in their profession, they should be trained to appreciate both their strengths and weaknesses. It is clear that the suggestion is not to eliminate the computational power, but rather to teach students to appreciate how to use technology appropriately.
© Mary E. Hopper | MEHopper@TheWorld.com [posted 12/04/93 | revised 04/12/13]