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.