degree in. Compiler. Design,. Computer. Architecture and. Operating. Systems classes and believes that such techniques have a place in the computer science ...
PARTICIPATORY TEACHING METHODS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE James S. Jones Computer Science Department Graceland College Lamoni, IA 50140
Tracy Kidder's Pulitzer Prize winning Soul of a New Machine was that it transported the reader right into the process of a computer design, complete with human relationships, struggles and decisions. As our discipline matures and the body of content to be taught grows there is a danger that our teaching will similarly become more content oriented with student assignments taking on a narrow focus in order to illustrate specific principles. The process-oriented learning experience could shift out of the academic environment and into the workplace altogether. Participatory teaching methods may help by developing students with greater depth and breadth of thought, willing and able to articulate a position and make compromises in the face of other viewpoints. Interaction increases teacher awareness of what is actually being taught. Classes become more interesting and motivating. The whole educational process becomes more appealing. Our challenge is to find points within computer science courses where such methods will be appropriate and effective. The difficulty will be in sacrificing some content in order to do this.
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the role of participatory teaching methods in the computer science classroom. The list of these methods includes brainstorming, directed dialogues, small discussion groups, role playing, games, debates, panel discussions, and Socratic dialogues. The author has used such methods in Computers and Society classes and to a limited degree in Compiler Design, Computer Architecture and Operating Systems classes and believes that such techniques have a place in the computer science classroom. It is the aim of this paper to provide an overview of participatory teaching methods and their use in computer science education. INTRODUCTION Participatory teaching methods are those which draw the student into the classroom learning process. The student becomes a participant who articulates in some way what is learned. It is process-oriented teaching. Didactic teaching methods are those which impart content or information to the student as is done in a lecture. It is content-oriented teaching. The former is interactive, the later is batch. Computer science is a process oriented discipline. This is evident to the student writing that first computer program as well as the practitioner planning and adjusting for the next software/hardware release. We are fortunate to be educators in such a discipline because process learning, which is experiential in nature, is so much more satisfying and memorable than content learning. The very appeal of
BACKGROUND Participatory techniques are certainly not new to educators. Socrates was perhaps the original teacher employing participatory methods and we sometimes refer to his style of teaching as Socratic. John Dewey, American philosopher and educational theorist, carefully laid out a theory of experiential learning in education early in the twentieth century. Research in the 70's, first by Carroll and later by Newstrom, on the relative effectiveness of training methods showed that case studies, business games, and role playing techniques were far superior to lectures and films when the aim is teaching problem solving skills. And yet, didactic teaching seems to be most prominent, perhaps because it is easier for which to prepare, to write textbooks, and to do. Although participatory techniques are more likely to be ~ound in
Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/ or specific permission. ©1987 ACM 0-89791-217-9/87/0002/0155
75¢
155
microprocessors, their limits and their strengths. In Operating Systems I have had the class list the possible objectives that an operating systems designer could have when designing an operating system [see the lists in exercises 10.4 & 10.5 of Deitel] and then organize them according to what audience such an objective appeals to (users, programmers, systems engineers, administrators, etc). A discussion of which objectives are in conflict with each other followed to underscore trade-off issues. In Computer Architecture I have students list all possible categories for classifying a computer (word length, bus widths, hardware technology, speed, etc). Following that they are presented with Flynn's, Shore's and other taxonomies, their strengths and weaknesses. In an A.I. class students could list possible expert system projects with instruction to follow on problems suitable for expert systems. Numerous upper division possibilities exist for brainstorming sessions.
use by those teaching humanities, there has been some interest expressed recently for using such techniques in the sciences. In teaching the Computers and Society course at Graceland College it became clear to me that topics such as freedom of information vs. privacy, computer ethics, and the impact of computers on society could best be taught in such a manner so I turned to the psychology, history, speech, and education faculty at the college who were successfully using variohs participatory methods. I owe much to them for getting me started. I began experimenting in the Computers and society classes and later in the upper division Compiler Design, Computer Architecture and Operating Systems classes. After several years of introducing participatory methods in m y classes I have observed that the students are more interested and engaged in the material, give higher ratings to the classes on evaluations, and write more meaningful responses to essay questions on tests. A l t h o u g h most of my teaching is still in a lecture format I will continue to move toward more participatory classes.
PARTICIPATORY
Directed
Dialogues
A directed dialogue is a goal directed session where the instructor directs the class toward a particular solution to a problem. A p r o b l e m is presented and class members respond with what are usually partially correct answers. The instructor continues by presenting the overlooked dimensions of the problem and the students further refine their answers. Such a class dialogue continues until the goal is reached. It is as if the instructor is constantly placing roadblocks before the students in order to keep them on a single path. The students will know they are being m a n i p u l a t e d so only certain topics will work otherwise they will quietly wait out the instructor to give the answer. Similarly, overuse of the technique will render it ineffective. Perhaps the best subjects are those in which there was an actual historical trend in solving some problem from poor to better to best solution, a trend that can be recaptured in class. The students must feel that the solutions that pop into their heads are just what the instructor is looking for or they will not share it. The atmosphere created is similar to one where a puzzle or brain teaser is given to a group to consider. The most effective demonstration of this technique was one that I witnessed in an Algorithms course in which the instructor preceded a lecture on sorting algorithms with a directed dialogue that began with the question "if you had a million papers to s o r t h o w would you do it?" and finished with the class discovering on its own some divide and conquer approaches, not unlike Quick Sort. The instructor's "roadblocks" kept the class on the path of common sense and away from programmer logic ("would you really do it that way?"). I have often felt that Deitel's development of the
METHODS
What follows is a list of participatory teaching methods and the way they have or could be used in the computer science classroom. It is not meant to be exhaustive and there is some overlapping of concepts. Brainstorming In a brainstorming session a problem or concern is presented to the class and then all are invited to freely think about solutions or possible answers and call them out so that they can be listed for all to see. It is a fast paced, spontaneous session in which a mass of ideas are collected without the merit of any being considered when first given. Students are encouraged to piggyback on other ideas and not to think of any idea as their own. Afterwards the ideas can be organized and evaluated in class. I have used brainstorming in Computers and Society to have the class list the possible effects, good and bad, that computers will have on crime, transportation, cities, family life, etc. I have had the class try to list all the purposes that they can think of for a computer and then organize those ideas into central themes such as speed, memory, and so on, prior to a discussion of what makes the computer such an important tool. Brainstorming has been useful prior to assigning a class paper or prior to preparation by students for class debates and panel discussions. Having the students list possible future inventions using embedded microprocessors can provide a foundation for a summary lecture on
156
research those viewpoints enough to p l a y out t h a t role. On e s s a y tests I f r e q u e n t l y ask students to p u t t h e m s e l v e s into the role of the designer, user, or administrator when answering various questions. P e r h a p s s u c h q u e s t i o n s c o u l d be turned into classroom role playing exercises. Students could simulate a d e v e l o p m e n t t e a m d o i n g a w a l k - t h r u of e a c h other's designs or c o d e in class. One p o s s i b i l i t y for an i n t r o d u c t o r y computer science course is tD have students s i m u l a t e actual m a c h i n e c o m p o n e n t s such as AND, O R and N O T gates w i t h w h i t e and b l a c k m a r b l e s for d a t a b i t s and a r r a n g e t h e m in such a way as to build a 2-bit adder. D u r i n g s u c h a d e m o n s t r a t i o n the i n s t r u c t o r could easily p o i n t out the i m p o r t a n c e of the c l o c k and it's speed, the c o n c e p t of levels in a c i r c u i t design, the p r e s e n c e of a p o w e r source, and the v i r t u a l n a t u r e of c o m p u t a t i o n from s w i t c h i n g circuits. Role playing is an e x t e m p o r a n e o u s form of drama. A m o r e s t r u c t u r e d form w o u l d be to h a v e students write and p e r f o r m some d r a m a t i c piece. A h i s t o r y p r o f e s s o r at our college has h a d s t u d e n t s s e l e c t one of a v a r i e t y of t h i n g s as a t e r m project, one of w h i c h is a d r a m a t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an i n t e r v i e w w i t h a famous p e r s o n such as Ben Franklin or A b e Lincoln following extensive research and a basic theme u n d e r l y i n g the i n t e r v i e w questions. H a v i n g students create and perform a dramatization of an i n t e r v i e w with the Countess Lovelace or an imaginary 1940 meeting between Howard A i k e n and Konrad Zuse m i g h t be i n t e r e s t i n g and e d u c a t i o n a l but I h a v e not as y e t b e e n w i l l i n g to try formal d r a m a in the class. I am c e r t a i n that more l e a r n i n g takes place with the students who do the r e s e a r c h and p r e p a r e the dramatic presentation than with the other students w h o m a k e up the audience. If o n l y a few s t u d e n t s are involved then one might ask how this is any more effective than more d i d a c t i c m e t h o d s such as s t u d e n t oral p r e s e n t a t i o n s or lectures. In any case, c r e a t i v e - m i n d e d faculty may w i s h to g i v e m o r e a t t e n t i o n to d r a m a as a p o s s i b l e t e a c h i n g method.
various a l g o r i t h m s for m u t u a l exclusion primitives leading up to Dekker's a l g o r i t h m is a promising t o p i c for this technique [see Deitel, pp. 80-88]. In C o m p u t e r s and Society I lead a d i r e c t e d dialogue having students construct and r e f i n e a d e f i n i t i o n for computer. I do a similar session for the definition of operating system in m y O p e r a t i n g S y s t e m s class. In b o t h cases the s t u d e n t s give r e s p o n s e s w h i c h are u s u a l l y i n c o m p l e t e and in need of refinement. The lectures I enjoy giving most seem m o r e like d i r e c t e d dialogues that I have with myself where I present a problem, give a possible solution, i d e n t i f y p r o b l e m s w i t h that, and so on u n t i l I g i v e the final solution. I am r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h o s e l e c t u r e s to see if t h e y can be m o r e effective with student interaction. Small
Group
Discussions
The dividing of a class into small d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s seems a l m o s t too o b v i o u s to list. However, it is p e r h a p s the e a s i e s t of the m e t h o d s to u s e w i t h s u c c e s s and it requires very little p l a n n i n g or preparation. I have frequently used the m e t h o d in a s p o n t a n e o u s way when I wanted the students to c o n s i d e r some question that had several possible answers. I s i m p l y tell the class to d i v i d e in g r o u p s of 4 or 5 and to c h o o s e a s p o k e s p e r s o n w h o will record the g r o u p ' s response to a particular question and t h e n report back to the class. Normally, when such questions are g i v e n to the class as a whole only a few assertive students participate in the d i s c u s s i o n with the rest t a k i n g notes (or naps). Small g r o u p s force m o r e s t u d e n t s to engage themselves in the s u b j e c t and to take on l e a d e r s h i p roles in the discussion. Since e a c h g r o u p feels a c e r t a i n o w n e r s h i p for it's a n s w e r due to the t i m e i n v e s t e d in c o m i n g up w i t h it, there are s t r o n g e r feelings and a greater willingness to d e b a t e the m e r i t s of the v a r i o u s answers. In a C o m p u t e r A r c h i t e c t u r e c o u r s e teams c o u l d be g i v e n p i e c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n about a m a c h i n e (for instance, several a s s e m b l y l a n g u a g e i n s t r u c t i o n s and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e execution time formulas) and then called on to infer all they can about the underlying machine's design, making logical a s s u m p t i o n s if necessary. Several teams c o u l d t h e n be j o i n e d to n e g o t i a t e a single response to the question by d i s c a r d i n g the least l i k e l y ideas.
Games Games arouse i n t e r e s t and are highly interactive. Some games are appropriate for u s e in class as an instructional method. I h a v e u s e d a game called QUERIES 'N T H E O R I E S in m y Compiler Design class prior to a lecture on formal grammars. S o m e c o m p i l e r texts r e f e r to a " s y n t a c t i c dominoes" game which c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d and p l a y e d out in class as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to parsing. Artificial Intelligence c o u r s e s p r o v i d e a n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t for g a m e p l a y i n g exercises. If s y m b o l i c logic is b e i n g taught somewhere in a c o m p u t e r curriculum then WFF 'N PROOF is an excellent game t h a t can be u s e d in small classes or groups. The i n s t r u c t o r could c r e a t e some g a m e - l i k e e x e r c i s e s from LOGO or Karol t h e R o b o t l a n g u a g e s to i n t r o d u c e
Role Playing/Drama Role playing is simulating someone e l s e ' s position. M y u s e of role p l a y i n g in class is coupled with debates, panel discussions, and S o c r a t i c dialogues which are discussed later. In Computers and s o c i e t y I a s s i g n v a r i o u s roles to s t u d e n t s for a panel d i s c u s s i o n on such t o p i c s as freedom of information vs. privacy or p r o f e s s i o n a l e t h i c s and the s t u d e n t s m u s t
157
proposition that "electronic democracy, even if t a k e n to the extreme, w o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l to our nation". A l i v e l y d e b a t e could be had on any of the following propositions: "total freedom of information would be g o o d for humanity", " s o f t w a r e s h o u l d be p a t e n t a b l e " , " f i r m w a r e (microcode) is software, not hardware, and the courts will see it that way too", "hackers are n o t criminals'[, "companies should allow employees reasonable personal u s e of d e s k t o p t e l e p h o n e s and computers", "companies have a right to monitor telephone traffic over company leased lines to the fullest extent", "violent crime will d e c l i n e as E F T expands", "the c o m p u t e r age w i l l c a u s e p e o p l e to i n t e r a c t m o r e and d r a w c l o s e r together", etc. Since trade offs are inescapable in considering h a r d w a r e or software design decisions, t h e r e m a y be o p p o r t u n i t i e s for debates in upper division courses. How about a simulated debate between hardware design team members split into "two warring factions, one advocating making the 8-bit b y t e the b a s i c u n i t of memory, and t h e o t h e r a d v o c a t i n g the 32-bit w o r d as the basic unit of memory" [see Tanenbaum, 2nd ed., p. 202].
s t u d e n t s to p r o g r a m m i n g logic. P r o g r a m m i n g contests could be i m p l e m e n t e d as a class activity rather than just an e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r event. A trivial pursuit type of game could be constructed for content-intensive material (as in a computer literacy course). S u c h a game c o u l d e v e n be p l a y e d by teams r e p e t i t i v e l y with team members being c h a n g e d each t i m e to r e m o v e s i n g l e - p l a y e r i n f l u e n c e and t h e n the game scores c o u l d be used as one m e a s u r e of a s t u d e n t ' s p e r f o r m a n c e . Panel
Discussions
At professional conferences it is o f t e n the p a n e l d i s c u s s i o n s e s s i o n s t h a t d r a w in the larger audiences. Panels are interesting because they are used for a i r i n g d i f f e r e n t sides of an issue -- and that means controversy. Conflict attracts interest and participation. This is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e in p a n e l s that give ample opportunity for audience participation. Panels will b e c o m e d i d a c t i c in n a t u r e if the p a n e l i s t s e a c h g i v e l e n g t h y s t a t e m e n t s of position leaving little time for interaction between panelists or w i t h the audience. Panelists should give a brief statement of their response to some problem or issue. Clarifying questions c o u l d follow. F i n a l l y t i m e is a l l o w e d for i n t e r a c t i v e d i s c u s s i o n and debate between p a n e l i s t s and perhaps with the audience. Questions should be d i r e c t e d to s p e c i f i c individuals unless a moderator distributes the q u e s t i o n s a m o n g s t the panelists. The instructor could be the moderator, however, if the p a n e l i s t s are to be g r a d e d then the instructor may need to tape record the session or be an outside observer. P a n e l i s t s c o u l d be r e q u i r e d to t u r n in a p a p e r or o u t l i n e showing their research and anticipation of opposing points. Panel discussions can also be f a i r l y s t r u c t u r e d like a formal debate. My u s e of panel d i s c u s s i o n s in class have been m o r e like a debate or like a r o l e - p l a y i n g panel e n g a g e d in a Socratic dialogue (both discussed later). Any controversial issue t h a t is appropriate for d e b a t e can be h a n d l e d less f o r m a l l y in a panel discussion. Controversial issues w h i c h c l e a r l y h a v e m o r e t h a n two sides m a y be m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e for a panel d i s c u s s i o n t h a n a debate. Case s t u d i e s can also be reviewed in a panel discussion as an a l t e r n a t i v e to u s i n g S o c r a t i c dialogues.
Socratic
Dialogues
The Socratic dialogue is a dialogue between instructor and s t u d e n t s in w h i c h the instructor plays the role of the inquiring teacher who asks leading q u e s t i o n s and p r o b e s the a n s w e r s g i v e n by a s k i n g m o r e q u e s t i o n s of the student. T h e instructor thus brings out points of c o n c e r n or c o n f l i c t to further test the student's thoughtful consideration of the subject. The i n s t r u c t o r d o e s not lead the s t u d e n t to a p a r t i c u l a r a n s w e r as in the d i r e c t e d d i a l o g u e nor d o e s the i n s t r u c t o r give answers. The purpose is to insure t h a t t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s of an issue and the variety of possible solutions are u n d e r s t o o d . It is a p r o c e s s of e x p l o r a t i o n into the s u b j e c t by b o t h instructor, w h o acts as m o d e r a t o r , and s t u d e n t s alike. I developed an i n t e r e s t in u s i n g this approach after observing several Public Broadcasting Service programs on television in w h i c h this technique was u s e d to e x p l o r e a v a r i e t y of c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues with the likes of Harvard Law School p r o f e s s o r s A r t h u r Miller, Charles Nesson, and o t h e r s as m o d e r a t o r s of such a dialogue. T h e M e d i a and Society Seminars of the C o l u m b i a School of J o u r n a l i s m in conjunction with several affiliate PBS stations have produced these programs i n c l u d i n g "The C o n s t i t u t i o n : T h a t D e l i c a t e Balance" and "The M i l i t a r y and t h e News Media". T h e s e forums are really a mixture of panel discussion, role playing and debate with a moderator f a c i l i t a t i n g the S o c r a t i c n a t u r e of the seminar. I u s e d s u c h an a p p r o a c h in m y C o m p u t e r s and Society class to explore the complexities of a professional ethics case. I a s s i g n e d to p a r t i c i p a t i n g s t u d e n t s
Debates In a debate, d e b a t e ~ teams test o p p o s i n g sides of an issue. A conclusive proposition statement m u s t be formulated giving r i s e to two teams, one for the p r o p o s i t i o n and one a g a i n s t it. S t u d e n t s in class may have had debate experience e l s e w h e r e and be logical c h o i c e s as t e a m captains. I am a l w a y s a m a z e d by the a m o u n t of e f f o r t and r e s e a r c h t h a t the teams put into a debate. In C o m p u t e r s and S o c i e t y I have had student teams debate the
158
various panelist roles in a hypothetical case taken from Deborah Johnson's Professional Ethics text (programmer, immediate supervisor, top management, d e f e n s e secretary, reporter, editor, etc). T h e y w e r e to r e s e a r c h the likely p o s i t i o n s they would take prior to the session. I was very p l e a s e d w i t h the outcome. P r i o r to this approach, s t u d e n t responses to essay questions on professional ethics were much more naive and single minded than when this was introduced in m y classes. I hope to do more of this in C o m p u t e r s and S o c i e t y and p e r h a p s in o t h e r courses if I see a feasible topic for d o i n g that.
LIMITATIONS
Technology Revolution, by F o r e s t e r (Ed.), Future Mind, by Ed Lias, and Computer Ethics, b y D e b o r a h Johnson, are e x a m p l e s of e i t h e r p r i m a r y or reference texts that I have found u s e f u l for t h a t course. On the o t h e r hand, u p p e r d i v i s i o n texts m u s t be h i g h l y c o n t e n t specific. I h a v e found t h a t a c a r e f u l r e a d i n g " of t h e s e t e x t s and the e x e r c i s e s in t h e m h a v e led to c r e a t i v e in-class participatory opportunities. Class size and a r r a n g e m e n t may be a problem. If the class is too large t h e n not e v e r y o n e can be a part of a d e b a t e team or panel discussion. P e r h a p s those s t u d e n t s s e e k i n g b o n u s c r e d i t or an "A" in class w i l l p r o v e to be a m a n a g e a b l e subset and the r e s t of the class will b e n e f i t as m e m b e r s of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g audience. Not e v e r y o n e in m y c l a s s e s of 40-50 C o m p u t e r s and Society students participate in a debate or panel because there are alternative projects or e v e n t s to c h o o s e from. Small g r o u p d i s c u s s i o n s can be d o n e in large c l a s s e s b u t t h e y m a y not all be able to r e p o r t b a c k to the class. I d e a l l y classes are not arranged in rows o f immovable chairs. I o f t e n w o r k in such environments and would certainly not discontinue participatory teaching because of it. A r e all s t u d e n t s g i v e n equal o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e ? When using participatory t e c h n i q u e s it is too easy to e n g a g e in a dialogue with the m o r e a s s e r t i v e or the more knowledgable students. One must develop s t r a t e g i e s to see t h a t all are participating. I have heard of studies suggesting that instructors o f t e n ask the male student more abstract or e v a l u a t i v e questions continuing with follow-up q u e s t i o n s w h e r e a s t h e y will ask the female student more content-oriented questions m o v i n g m o r e q u i c k l y to the next student. Most instructors lack t r a i n i n g in the u s e of t h e s e techniques. T h e r e are p l e n t y of r e s o u r c e s other than formal training. One c o u l d do as I did-read about the d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g methods, t a l k to o t h e r faculty who h a v e u s e d t h e m or could list u s e f u l resources, day d r e a m about h o w a p a r t i c u l a r t e c h n i q u e can be t r i e d in class (always a useful learning method), and then get some hands-on trial-and-error experience. I also found myself being a k e e n o b s e r v e r of the PBS p r o g r a m m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r r e g a r d i n g S o c r a t i c dialogues. Perhaps the greatest limitation that m u s t be o v e r c o m e is the fear and a n x i e t y for v e n t u r i n g into the unknown. No one likes to fail or l o o k like a fool and lectures are a nice security blanket because they create distance between i n s t r u c t o r and students. The i n s t r u c t o r is comfortably insulated from the student's views, n o t o n l y a b o u t the s u b j e c t but also about the teaching. Often one likes to feel w e l l p r e p a r e d and in control of the situation when trying something new. Unfortunately, one may never take that first step to try something new even if the d e s i r e is t h e r e b e c a u s e one m a y n e v e r feel p e r f e c t l y ready. T h e s o l u t i o n to t h i s
AND CONCERNS
T h e r e are a variety of l i m i t a t i o n s or p r o b l e m s to consider before implementing v a r i o u s p a r t i c i p a t o r y t e a c h i n g methods. First, p a r t i c i p a t o r y techniques require more class time than do didactic techniques. One must be willing to s a c r i f i c e some of the time d e v o t e d to inclass content teaching. Additional responsibility will be placed on the s t u d e n t s to read the t e x t and dig out the content on their own and in their research. M o r e class t i m e will be d e v o t e d to h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s u n d e r s t a n d the c o m p l e x interrelationships in w h i c h t h a t content exists. In general, more preparation time is needed with participatory techniques because instructors m u s t be p r e p a r e d for the u n e x p e c t e d q u e s t i o n or t u r n of events in such a class. The p o s s i b i l i t y for this d y n a m i c is a l m o s t e l i m i n a t e d in a lecture. As w i t h any technique, the more practice one gets using it the less preparation t i m e it requires. Student evaluation becomes more s u b j e c t i v e and difficult. C o n t e n t - o r i e n t e d classes lead to objective tests for evaluating students and are easier to grade whereas e v a l u a t i o n of panels and debates are more difficult. One could decide not to evaluate them at all, no more than one would evaluate student notetaking, but then the question of student m o t i v a t i o n for participation in d e b a t e s and p a n e l s needs to be addressed. I found it h e l p f u l to s e e k the a d v i c e of liberal arts f a c u l t y on how they made s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of essays, papers, oral p r e s e n t a t i o n s , p a n e l s and debates. I h a v e also found s u b j e c t i v e g r a d i n g less of a hand wringing experience as I h a v e d o n e it more. It does h e l p if I r e m i n d m y s e l f that g r a d i n g t e c h n i q u e s n e v e r are perfect, that it's the overall GPA average that counts, and that life isn't always fair. A p p r o p r i a t e texts are h a r d to find. M o s t are c o n t e n t oriented. For C o m p u t e r s and S o c i e t y I p r e f e r texts that p r e s e n t v a r i e d p o i n t s of v i e w s or ideas without lengthy content-oriented computer literacy sections. C o m p u t e r s i__n Society, by K a t h r y n Schellenberg (Ed.), The Information
159
is simply to decide to try these techniques, mention them as upcoming assignments to the class in the syllabus, make student assignments for panels and debates as if they are really going to occur, and then let it happen and learn from the experience.
J. Dewey, Experience and Education, Collier Books (a division of Macmillan Publishing Co.), 1938 D. Gallagher, et al, Using TAKING SIDES in the Classroom, (a general instructor's manual for the entire Taking Sides series), The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., Sluice Dock, Guilford, CT 06437 (phone 800/243-6532), 1986
SUMMARY Although participatory teaching methods such as panel, debate, and Socratic discussions are not new to the field of education, they may be unknown or untried by computer science educators. Courses such as Computers and Society are particularly suited for such techniques and other upper division courses such as Operating Systems and Computer Architecture may also be suited for these techniques when complex analysis and design issues are raised. Other participatory techniques, such as role playing, brainstorming and games may be applicable as well. It is my view that such techniques increase 'student interest and motivation. The students enter into the "process" of thinking about the subject and articulate what is being learned with their peers. The disadvantage is that less time is devoted to the learning of facts in class but this is perhaps offset by the advantages gained by requiring students to read, understand and articulate the material on their own. The difficulties in choosing a participatory approach to teaching includes seeking appropriate texts, increasing preparation for classes, moving toward more subjective evaluation of students, and overcoming the apprehension one has to try the untried. These difficulties diminish with time and practice. I believe that the rewards are worth it.
P. Hounshell and G. Madrazo, Jr., "Debate: Verbal Encounters In the Science Classroom", School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 79, pp. 690-694 (Dec 79)
REFERENCES
E. J. Lias, Future Mind, Company, 1982
J. Newstrom, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training Methods", Personnel Administrator, January 1980, pp. 55-60 H. Schroeder and D. G. Ebert, "Debate as a Business and society Teaching Technique", Journal of Business Education, Vol. 58, pp. 266-269 (April 1983) G. Stanford and A. E. Roark, Human Interaction in Education, Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1974 "The Constitution: That Delicate Balance" and "The Military and the Media", each is a 13-part PBS series produced by The Media and Society Seminars, Columbia University School of Journalism REFERENCED
CLASSROOM TEXTS
H. M. Deitel, An Introduction to Operating Systems, rev ist ed., Addison Wesley, 1984 T. Forester (Ed.), The Information Technology Revolution, The MIT Press, 1985 D.G. Johnson, Computer Ethics, Prentice Hall (Series in Occupational Ethics), 1985
M. Adler (Ed.), "The Conduct of Seminars" (Ch. i), The Paideia Program: Pointers and Prospects, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984
Little,
Brown and
K. Schellenberg (Ed.), Computers in Society, (an Annual Editions publication), The Dushkin Publishing Group, 1986
L. Allen, P. Kugel and J. Ross, "QUERIES 'N THEORIES: The Science & Language Game", WFF 'N PROOF Publishers, iiii Maple Ave., Turtle Creek, PA 15145, Copyright 1970
A. S. Tanenbaum, Structured Computer Organization, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 1984
E.P. Bell, Jr., "Debating Controversial Issues", The History Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 207-223 (Feb. 1982) M. Buchmann, "Improving Education by Talking: Argument or Conversation?", Teachers College Record, Vol. 86, pp. 441453 (Spring 1985) S. Carroll, et al, "The Relative Effectiveness of Training Methods-- Expert Opinion and Research", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 495-509, 1972
160
