hopper, 1993 [3.2, abstract, overview, toc, switchboard, references]

3.2.3 The Focus of Educational Goals of TODOR and Mechanics 2.01 Problem Set Solutions

Contrary to the stereotypes that are often associated with the use of computers in education, and particularly the technical fields, this research revealed evidence that successful uses of computers within technical disciplines at MIT also humanized the learning experience for the students, benefiting them in deeper and more profound ways than just improving their knowledge about technical issues. This was evidenced in the Project Athena (AC) environment as a whole through the success of courseware which put the student in control of the computer to exploit the discovery mode of learning (Murman, 1989). The simultaneous learner and discipline benefits afforded by the most successful types of software there are described in this passage from the set of documents that supported the Athena system becoming the major computing resource at MIT:
Researchers have long used computers to collect and analyze laboratory data. ... But in some laboratory applications, and especially in computer simulations, a second benefit emerges: the computer enables students to run through many variations of the same experiment, to make new connections between theory and data, to have a more personal experience of theory, to play "what if." The computer can offer self-contained environments or microworlds, simplified representations of reality or imagination. Students find microworlds compelling. Teachers find them effective. (Committee on Academic Computation for the 1990'S and Beyond, 1990a, p. 20).
In addition to the expected increases due to the improved representation of the discipline, the TODOR project was specifically designed to achieve more active involvement of the learners. The interactive capability of workstations was chosen because it appeared it would permit greater possibility for student involvement and choice:
The workstation offers capabilities that are quite different than other media traditionally used in education, and software should try to exploit these. The interactive capability requires users to become consciously involved in the simulation and visualization process. A picture in a book is an effective conveyer of information, but an observer can look at it without seeing much of the content. Also, no opportunity exists for the user to select parameters which influence the result. But when the observer is responsible for deciding what to change, he or she often discovers something which would have gone unnoticed. (Murman, LaVin & Ellis, 1988, p. 9)
In the TODOR project, by producing materials that invited students to interact with the simulation, the faculty helped students to experience the content at a level of involvement beyond anything afforded by a regular textbook, or even labs. Their success is this area was demonstrated through the students reactions to the problem sets as found in Trilling's evaluation:
They want to be able to reproduce it on their own machine, to see how it is set up, to test the limits of its validity. That is the only way to master the demonstration and to use the related material to build a mental map. The notion of being able to simulate the "real world" at will by means of rules which one has set up and which one understands thoroughly is very powerfully attractive. Some students therefore want to learn to program the demonstration as well as observe it, so that they too can manipulate the situation. (Trilling, 1988, p. 3)

 
In this description, there is a pointer to some less deliberate benefits of attempts to increase student involvement, and change their relationship to the content. It appears that the students found the modules an invitation to a learner constructed mode of thought, even in cases where neither the module itself, nor the assignment actually invited their direct involvement in construction (Trilling, 1988).
 
The ability of workstation technology to simulate was also part of the reason that Bucciarelli decided to utilize the computers for his Mechanics 2.01 project. This courseware serves as an interesting reflection of recent developments at Athena. In the following passage he explains how he is using the computer within the context of the Mechanics 2.01 class to help students better understand the problem-sets he assigns:
I question the pedagogic value of handing out a cryptic, one-page solution sheet to students. Usually these presentations tell you little about the intricacies of working a problem, about alternative ways to do the exercise, about common misconceptions and errors. They have limited value in my mind. So I am trying each week, with some student help, to program the solutions in a way that shows some depth, some variations on the assigned problem, even some alternative approaches. (Bucciarelli & LaVin, 1992, p. 10)
The use of Mechanics 2.01 project not only helped the students learn the content better, but also had broader impacts on the students through requiring their active participation. Flowing from this is the change of the role of the student that interactive simulations allow. This aspect of the computer's use is illustrated further in Bucciarelli's dramatic description of the process students must go through:
In 2.01 the design exercises emphasize the fundamental concepts and principles of a subject. But in contrast to the single answer, back-of-the-chapter problem, the students encounter the basics in a different, more active way. Each must grab hold of the contents and put it to use in his or her own way. They are builders now of know-how and knowledge, not just receptacles to be filled up to overflowing. (Bucciarelli & LaVin, 1992, p. 6)
Another highly learner oriented outcome was found outside the use of courseware within traditional courses at Athena. In a number of large Athena projects, talented undergraduates were employed for software construction by faculty directors through the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP). This was done for both educational ends, and well as a pragmatic need for programmers knowledgeable in the subject matter. This widespread role of students in the formation of Athena as a whole is noted in one of the final evaluations of the experiment:
It is important to recognize the critical (if sometimes unacknowledged) involvement of MIT students in Project Athena. Software development relied heavily on student talent. Students handled tasks ranging from basic systems development and programming to on-line consulting to cluster operations. In addition, numerous MIT students served as guinea pigs for Project Athena's efforts to perfect distributed computing, workstation operating systems, user interfaces, and curriculum materials. These roles represented both exciting opportunities and potential costs for students, who managed in myriad ways to maximize the former and minimize the latter. (Committee on Academic Computation for the 1990'S and Beyond, 1990, p. 9)
One major dimension to how TODOR modules improved traditional educational structures stems from the conditions surrounding their construction rather than their use in the classroom. On one notable occasion, this practice received high praise in the specific case of the TODOR modules, which were programmed by more than thirty student programmers (UROPs) over the course of the project. The modules were commended for just this aspect of their construction by Professor David A. Blank from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis during a formal evaluation at an NSF workshop about the modules:
The brilliance of TODOR is in using gifted students to develop the modules on topics which are normally of difficulty in the undergraduate engineering experience. I was one of a few faculty members involved in an experiment in 1977 at the Naval Academy in which we attempted to use talented midshipmen to develop 5-10 minute instructional video tapes on topics of mathematics. The topics chosen were those of particular difficulty to most midshipmen. The midshipmen used to develop these topics chose their own topics. We had similar results. My advice is to (1) keep the energy of the development at a student level with faculty only advising and quality assuring, (2) limit the modules to those topics which cause confusion or for which visualization is essential to the gaining of true understanding of the concept, (3) involve the student in the selection of some of your future topics for modules. (McCune, 1991, p. 4-4)
© Mary E. Hopper | MEHopper@TheWorld.com [posted 12/04/93 | revised 04/12/13]