| Literature DB >> 25105085 |
Constantinos S Hilas1, Anastasios Politis1.
Abstract
The recent economic crisis has forced many universities to cut down expenses by packing students into large lecture groups. The problem with large auditoria is that they discourage dialogue between students and faculty and they burden participation. Adding to this, students in computer science courses usually find the field to be full of theoretical and technical concepts. Lack of understanding leads them to lose interest and / or motivation. Classroom experience shows that the lecturer could employ alternative teaching methods, especially for early-year undergraduate students, in order to grasp their interest and introduce basic concepts. This paper describes some of the approaches that may be used to keep students interested and make them feel comfortable as they comprehend basic concepts in computer networks. The lecturing procedure was enriched with games, magic tricks and dramatic representations. This approach was used experimentally for two semesters and the results were more than encouraging.Entities:
Keywords: Computer networking course; Engineering education; Lecture improvements; Teaching approaches
Year: 2014 PMID: 25105085 PMCID: PMC4124110 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Figure 1The problem of the bridges of Konigsberg. (a) A drawing of Konigsberg (b) An incomplete stroll around Konigsberg (c) A graph equivalent.
Figure 2Two well known graph related problems. (a) The little house and (b) The three utilities problem.
Figure 3A magic table.
Figure 4Shots taken during the dramatic presentations of computer network protocols. (a) Token Ring: messages are transmitted over the ring (wire) while the token (student on the left) holds an alarm-clock to keep the token holding time, (b) Acknowledgements arrive at transmitter’s site and packets (numbered boxes on the desk) wait for their turn during a presentation of the Go-Back-N protocol.
Course evaluation questionnaire
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| 1 | The course material taught during the semester was well organized |
| 2 | The additional material used (photocopies, videos, slides, etc.) helped towards a better understanding of the subject matter |
| 3 | The books (if any) were distributed in time |
| 4 | The books (and any additional material) were helpful. |
| 5 | There was easily accessible and relevant research material in the library |
|
| |
| 6 | The course was difficult as regards the semester it is being taught |
| 7 | The aims of the course were attained |
| 8 | In cases where there were written and/or oral assignment/s: There was guidance from the instructor |
| 9 | In cases where there were written and/or oral assignment/s: You were given a chance for improvement |
| 10 | In cases where there were written and/or oral assignment/s: This assignment helped you to understand the particular subject matter |
|
| |
| 11 | The instructor succeeded in stimulating students' interest for the course |
| 12 | The instructor uses effective teaching methods and examples that enhance my learning. |
| 13 | The instructor encouraged students to join in discussions in a way that helped them to participate and develop knowledge/capabilities |
| 14 | The instructor was consistent in keeping class and office hours, provided timely feedback on projects |
| 15 | The instructor was receptive/open to students’ questions |
| 16 | In general, the overall performance of the instructor was very good |
|
| |
| 17 | In case there were laboratory assignments/exercises: the difficulty level relevant to the semester that the course is being taught |
| 18 | In case there were laboratory assignments/exercises: the laboratory textbook and other teaching material were helpful. |
| 19 | In case there were laboratory assignments/exercises: the guidance provided during the laboratory hours was helpful and sufficient |
| 20 | In case there were laboratory assignments/exercises: the laboratory equipment was sufficient |
|
| |
| 21 | I attend class regularly. |
| 22 | I always participated in class discussions, projects, written and/or oral assignments |
| 23 | On average, I have spent ________ hours per week doing work outside of class for this course. (0–1 hour (1), 2–4 hours (2), 5–6 hours (3), 7–8 hours (4), 9+ hours (5)) |
Average response to teaching quality and accomplishment related questions for the intervention and the pre-intervention semesters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| The aims of the course were attained. | 3.6 | 3.75 | 4 | 3.50 |
| The instructor succeeded in stimulating students' interest for the course. | 3.62 | 4.06 | 4.2 | 3.56 |
| The instructor uses effective teaching methods and examples that enhance my learning. | 4.36 | 4.62 | 4.35 | 4.10 |
| S/he encouraged students to join in discussions in a way that helped them to participate and develop knowledge/capabilities | 3.68 | 4.32 | 4.5 | 4.05 |
| In general. the overall performance of the instructor was very good | 3.92 | 4.16 | 4.45 | 3.89 |
Figure 5Response scores to the course’s questionnaires before (second bar) and after (first bar) the intervention. The Department’s average score for the first semester of intervention is also depicted (third bar).
Mean and standard deviation of the course’s evaluation one semester before and two semesters after the intervention
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Mean (M) | 3.69 | 3.90 | 3.63 | 3.95 | 3.49 |
| Standard Deviation (SD) | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.57 | 0.42 |
| Number of questionnaires | 34 | 33 | 2418 | 43 | 3144 |