Issues in Project-based Distance Learning in Computer Science |
Patricia Fung
VOL. 11, No. 2, 57-74
In the years since the inception of the Open University, UK (OU, UK), project-based work has been established as a component of many courses in the faculties of Arts, Social Sciences, Science, and Technology. Results from an early study of the desirability and feasibility of using project-based learning (Macmillan, 1975) indicated that this teaching methodology has a useful role to play in distance learning. There has, however, been no comparable use of it within the OU, UK, Mathematics Faculty. In its discussion of the first evaluation of a newly introduced project-based computing course within the Mathematics Faculty this paper considers how valid this methodology has proved to be within the different context of computer science. This discussion concludes that for a number of reasons it has proved more difficult to implement project-based work in the domain of computer science. The paper ends by considering the likely advantages and disadvantages associated with introducing electronic tutoring and conferencing to deliver this distance course and overcome the difficulties discussed.
Depuis la création de la Open University du Royaume-Uni, de nombreux cours offerts dans les facultés des arts, des sciences sociales, des sciences de même que de la technologie, comprennent des travaux axés autour d'un projet. Les résultats issus d'une étude antérieure portant sur le bien-fondé et la faisabilité de l'apprentissage par projet (Macmillan, 1975) indiquent que cette méthode d'enseignement peut jouer un rôle utile dans l'apprentissage à distance. Toutefois, il n'y a eu jusqu'ici aucune utilisation comparable de la sorte au sein de la Faculté des mathématiques de la Open University. En plus de présenter une première évaluation d'un nouveau cours d'informatique développé autour de la réalisation d'un projet au sein de la Faculté des mathématiques, cette étude examine dans quelle mesure cette méthodologie s'est révélée valable dans le contexte spécifique de l'informatique. On en conclut que, pour plusieurs raisons, il s'est avéré plus problématique d'implanter une approche de travail par projet dans le domaine de l'informatique. L'article termine en considérant les avantages et les désavantages les plus susceptibles d'être associés à l'introduction d'un tutorat et de conférences électroniques dans la livraison de ce cours à distance et dans l'aplanissement des difficultés énumérées.
This paper discusses project-based distance learning within the context of a computer science course. This course was developed within the Computer Science Department of the Mathematics Faculty, OU, UK, and it was first made available to students in 1994. Project-based work is well established as a component of many courses in the faculties of Arts, Social Sciences, Science, and Technology at OU, UK. Results from an early study of the desirability and feasibility of using project-based learning (Macmillan, 1975) indicated that this teaching methodology had a useful role to play in distance learning. The authors of that study made a number of recommendations for the successful inclusion of project-based methods in distance learning. In the intervening years there has, however, been no comparable use of this methodology within the undergraduate courses of the OU, UK, Mathematics Faculty. In discussing a first evaluation of the newly introduced project-based computing course, this paper considers two issues: First, to what extent those earlier recommendations have proved to be valid and, second, how successfully they have been implemented within the very different context of computer science. The discussion concludes that those recommendations made almost two decades ago have been successfully incorporated into the design and preparation of many project-based distance courses. However, for a number of reasons, they have proved more difficult to implement in the domain of computer science.
The case for employing project-based learning methods as opposed to more traditional teaching methods, where the learning path follows a carefully predetermined structure, has been argued elsewhere (Farnes, 1975). The argument for the method principally rests upon the assumption that it is a means of developing a more active and motivated student-centred approach to learning. Although it is now a widely accepted teaching methodology, project-based learning has not always been so. A comprehensive and interesting account of the origins of project-based learning and of the merits and drawbacks of this methodology can be found in research work by Adderley et al. (1975). For the purposes of this paper, we base our discussion on their definition of the characteristics of project-based methods: They [projects] involve the solution of a problem often, though not necessarily, set by the student.
They involve initiative by the student or group of students and necessitate a variety of educational activities.
They commonly result in an end product (thesis, dissertation, report, dossier, design plans, computer programme, model, oral report).
Work often goes on for a considerable length of time, though the time span may range from a single afternoon to three years.
Teaching staff are involved in an advisory, rather than an authoritarian, role at any or all of the stages - initiation, conduct and conclusion. (p. 1)
Advantages of project-based learning include the encouragement of student initiative, self-directiveness, inventiveness, and independence. In contrast, the early teaching methodology of distance learning at OU, UK, was largely characterized by the self-contained course packages. Each course is carefully planned by a team of academic and media specialists. Learning units contain combinations of all the audio, video, and text materials that are considered necessary for the student to complete given learning tasks successfully. The rationale behind this approach was, and still is, based upon the knowledge that distance learners, unlike students in conventional institutes of higher education, may not have access to a range of educational research sources. This highly structured approach is also designed to help and support students with little prior knowledge or learning experience. Valid as the rationale may be, it can lead a student to see learning purely as a process of completing a given set of tasks. There is a strong case to be made that this teaching strategy can lead students to develop an “instrumentalist” approach to learning (Morgan, 1976). In the early- to mid-70s, as an antidote to this method, in which the learning process is essentially “teacher determined” or “teacher directed,” and in order to introduce the positive benefits of student-centred learning, project-based methods were introduced in a number of courses in the OU, UK.
In conventional face-to-face teaching, the introduction of project-based methods entails recognizing that there will be less teacher control over the learning processes, that students must accept more responsibility for organizing their own learning experience, and that assessment is more complex because the piece of work that results from each student project will be unique. This variety is usually accommodated within the “conventional” learning framework by laying greater emphasis on providing opportunities for supervision and guidance at appropriate stages during the course of the project. In a traditional setting of face-to-face teaching, frequent teacher/student contact means that adjusting the balance of supervision and guidance is a relatively flexible process. Knowledge of the project, built up by that teacher/student contact, makes assessment of it easier. In distance education, the learning framework is by its nature less able to accommodate such flexibility. Within the OU, UK, framework, distance learning materials are the “core” of each course. Face-to-face contact at specified times with tutors at a study centre within an appropriate administrative region of the OU, UK, is also offered for each course, but attendance is not compulsory.
These face-to-face sessions provide an opportunity for students to meet each other and to discuss their work with a tutor. The majority of regional tutors employed by the OU, UK, do so part time, and they are often full-time members of conventional university staff. Written assignments are submitted to these regional tutors for assessment, and the grades given contribute a certain percentage of the overall end course mark awarded to each student. With the more traditional OU, UK, course packages, there are close guidelines for tutor assessment of student work, and in comparison with conventional university teaching, there is relatively little informal contact with tutors. Thus, considerable care is needed in adopting project-based methods in a distance context.
In order to inform future course design and identify the implications of adopting this methodology in distance education, a research group (the Project Study Group) was set up in 1975 at the Institute of Educational Technology in the Open University. Its remit was to evaluate the desirability and feasibility of project-based work as a teaching method in distance learning. During an 18-month period, a cross-curriculum evaluation was made of all courses containing a “project” element (Henry, 1977). A combination of qualitative and quantitative measures was used to consider a range of issues. With hindsight, we can see that this combination exemplifies the “eclectic” approach to methods of evaluation discussed by Woodley and Kirkwood (1987). The latter argue that a wide range of techniques is particularly appropriate in relation to evaluating innovations in a system of distance education where students are to some extent invisible and distant from the system.
Evaluation of any innovative instructional system is not an easy matter. Parlett (1977) note the “diversity and complexity of learning milieux” and point out that any new instructional system is frequently modified by the various participants’ interpretation of that system.
A major point stressed by the Project Study Group in presenting their recommendations was that they did not consider it advisable to specify any single comprehensive set of requirements for all distance courses containing project work. However, they drew attention to a number of issues arising from their evaluation that proved to be general across all Open University courses incorporating project work. These points were, therefore, considered to be of intrinsic interest to those planning to use project-based methods in distance education. Briefly, these issues related to project time allocation, project scope, and the role of tuition in project work. Academics designing project-based modules seemed to underestimate the time students needed to undertake a project successfully. Students needed strong guidance on delimiting the scope of their chosen project. Although tutors adapted to and enjoyed the added interest of “one-to-one” involvement with individual projects, they found that the degree of personal commitment was significantly greater and the task of assessment harder. Nevertheless, members of the Project Study Group reported that both student and tutor interest was high and concluded that project-based teaching had an important role to play in distance learning. Students valued the opportunity to use their own initiative, to follow their own ideas, to investigate a subject in depth. Academics felt that this teaching method was a welcome counterbalance to the more conventional “teacher-directed” distance courses.
Recommendations made by the Project Group were that issues of time, scope, and tuition should be addressed by the following measures:
In essence, then, it was recommended that in distance teaching using project-based methods, it is necessary to specify much more clearly than in conventional face-to-face teaching precisely what is expected of students. Project-based methods also imply more tutor involvement in terms of reassurance and guidance. Assessment will also be more demanding, and more resources may need to be allocated for assessment than would be required on “teacher-directed” distance courses (Crooks et al., 1976). These recommendations and extensions of them (Bynner & Henry, 1984) have since been largely followed in the design and implementation of Open University courses incorporating project-based work.
The course under discussion in this paper was developed to answer a need for computer science students to have the experience and benefits of working on a computer project. An earlier survey of students following computing courses offered by the Mathematics Faculty had confirmed that student interest in taking such a course was high. All existing computing courses offered by the Mathematics Faculty at the Open University followed the more conventional teaching strategy by which student’s learning followed a directed path through course units leading to a final examination. The new project-based course (course code M450) is a fourth level undergraduate studies mathematics course, one that would normally be taken by Open University students who have successfully completed their third level computer science studies. The new course is for students at a level approximate to that of students who have completed two years undergraduate studies at a conventional university. However, given differences between Open University and conventional university courses in terms of organization and duration, it is not possible to give an exact equivalence. Because of the fundamental principle that prior qualifications are not a prerequisite for Open University study, students are not necessarily at this level. M450 is designed to offer students the opportunity of applying their existing computing knowledge and skills to a specific programming project. In addition to extending their knowledge of computing, the experience of planning, undertaking, and completing a project is intended to help them gain confidence in organizing and scheduling their work and to develop the skills needed to study, independently, a larger computing problem.
Students have the choice of undertaking one of three given computing projects, each of which is specifically designed to relate to computing topics covered in earlier courses. Typically the project entails designing and developing a software system within a given context and tailoring it to meet specific requirements, for example, a system for handling flight reservations or a database system for handling holiday accommodation bookings. Each project undergoes developmental testing during which the projects and materials are given to a selection of people who work through them under conditions similar to those of students following the course.
This testing provides indicators of the recommended time allocation for students, of the anticipated level of difficulty for students, of the level of tutorial guidance needed, and of assessment guidelines that would be useful for tutors. In comparison with other computing courses, tutorial resources allocated are higher, ensuring a maximum of 6 students per tutor rather than the more usual 20 students per tutor. Assessment is carried out in three stages over the 32 weeks of the course. At an early stage, after approximately 10 weeks, students submit an outline project plan to their tutor, indicating how they intend to develop the project and giving an outline of their work to date. A mark is given at this stage and it contributes to the final grade each student will receive, but the role of this submission is essentially to provide formative feedback. Building on the results of this feedback, students continue to develop their project, and after approximately 20 weeks submit a second project progress report. This, too, is given a mark that contributes to the final grade, but again the report is primarily designed as a means of providing students with constructive feedback. The tutors are then able to monitor overall progress and determine the level of guidance students may require in completing the project and writing up the final report. The completed project and report is submitted after 32 weeks. There is no course examination as such, but students must submit work at an initial, interim, and final stage in order to be awarded a course grade. The submissions contribute, respectively, 15%, 25%, and 60% of the marks on which this grade is based. The final submission of the project is double marked, by the tutor and by an independent assessor.
In addition to feedback via initial and interim submissions, resources are allocated to provide 12 hours of tutorial contact for each student. As with the student tutor ratio, this tutorial contact is a higher level than would normally be resourced for a “traditional” distance computing course at this level. Beyond a proviso that there must be at least one face-to-face meeting between each student and tutor, this tutorial contact may be through face-to-face meetings or by telephone. Students receive a course pack designed to contain sufficient guidance, information, and materials for them to undertake and complete their chosen project. The booklet “Student Guidelines” introduces the course and aims, gives details of the academic support available, outlines the course timetable and methods of assessment, provides advice on how to approach project work, and gives guidance on how to write up a final project report. An “Assignment Booklet” gives details of each project and its requirements. The “Sample Project Reports” booklet provides a set of specimen projects with sample solutions in order to help students delineate the scope of their own project.
In view of the fact that this was the first presentation of a project-based course in computer science, an early formative evaluation was carried out based on postal survey questionnaires (Fung, 1994). Both students and tutors were surveyed. The purpose was not only to elicit feedback from both student and tutor perspectives and to crosscheck student/tutor responses but also to give the course development team information on the usefulness and appropriateness of the tutor guidelines they had developed for the course. This course would be a “new” experience both for the students and for the tutors involved. The evaluation took place approximately 12 weeks into the course. At this point, students would be expected to have had completed and submitted initial plans for developing their project, to have had feedback on it, and to have had at least one face-to-face meeting with their tutor.
As course numbers were relatively small (270 students and 45 tutors), the survey was carried out as a census rather than being sent only to a sample. The survey instruments were designed in collaboration with the course development team. The structure of the questionnaires was designed to elicit information on three principal aspects of the course: the materials used, the content of the course, and the pattern of communications and contact between students and tutors.
Students and tutors were asked to rate materials on a scale of one to five in terms of usefulness, clarity, and sufficiency of information contained in the Student Guidelines, the Assignment Booklet, and the Sample Project Report. Course content questions concentrated on the extent to which students had found the course met their expectations in terms of the hours of study needed and the level of study expected. They were also asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, how difficult and how interesting (or not) they were finding the course.
To gather information on tutorial contact and communication, students were asked to rate their satisfaction with the frequency and usefulness of tutorial meetings and of any other contact with their tutor. Throughout the questionnaire, respondents were asked to comment on reasons for their dissatisfaction if any of their responses indicated dissatisfaction with the course. Additionally, both students and tutors were invited to make free-form comments on any aspects of the course that they felt had not been touched upon in the questionnaire.
Of the 270 students (45 female, 225 male) who were surveyed, 114 (42%) students responded, of whom 23 were female. These numbers reflect a slightly higher female/male response (one in four) than the overall gender ratio of students following the course (one in six). Of the 45 tutors who were surveyed, 27 responded (60%).
Numerical data from the surveys were entered on-line for analysis. Bearing in mind that these “quantitative” date were principally subjective ratings and that the object of the survey was to provide the course team with first feedback, descriptive analyses, that is, frequencies and cross-tabulations (using SPSS), were judged sufficient to provide the information needed.
Qualitative data, in this case open-ended free-form comments by students and tutors, were analyzed by hand and were expected to explain and provide insights into the more quantitative data.
Results showed that students were finding project work stimulating, approximately 95% recording level four or five on a scale where “4” indicated that they found the course “interesting” and “5” indicated that they found it “very interesting.” This level of interest seemed unaffected by the level of difficulty being experienced. These results are very much as would be expected from previous experience of project-based work in distance courses (Henry, 1976). Gratifyingly, over 90% of students responding felt that overall the materials provided were useful and that tutorial contact and feedback were satisfactory. Other returns from the survey, however, principally those relating to guidance with the sample project and to course content, indicated areas of concern that were shared by students and tutors. The four principal issues arising are discussed below.
Interestingly, these points reflect the very issues that almost 20 years ago engaged the attention of the Project Study Group in their evaluation of project-based work in distance courses. At that time, specific recommenda-tions were made to address these issues in subsequently designed project-based courses. The question here is whether the points resulting from a first evaluation indicate that the recommendations made earlier by the Project Study Group were not implemented or whether the recommen-dations were implemented but for some reason or reasons were not suffi-cient in the context of this new computer science course. To help answer that question, we relate the above points to the recommendations of the Project Study Group and follow with a summary of what steps had been taken in the design of the new course to carry these out.
Project Study Group Recommendations
To ease the problems indicated by the first two points, a number of recommendations were made. These were that to help students with “time management,” strong guidance on how to tackle project work was needed at the outset, that project specifications must be more detailed than they would be in “face-to-face” teaching, that projects should have been carefully pilot tested to establish how much time students will reasonably need to allocate for their completion, and that sample projects should be provided to indicate to students the scope of project expected.
Design of the New Computing Course
Projects were pilot tested for this course to give an approximation of time needed to complete the projects. Text materials were developed to give student guidance, and sample projects were provided to help students appreciate the scope of project expected from them. Nevertheless, feedback from the first evaluation suggested that students found the time allocation was too short, that the text materials provided did not always give sufficient explicit guidance, and that the sample projects provided were not representative of the projects actually given. A sizeable proportion of students and tutors responding, 35% and 25% respectively, felt that insufficient information and guidance was given in the Student Guidelines and Assignment Booklet, and approximately 40% of both tutors and students felt that the sample projects did not provide sufficient guidance in relation to the content level and length of project that was expected. All comments were broadly in the same vein, suggesting that the project given as a sample was misleading because it was simpler than the actual project set. Most respondents who commented also indicated that they felt that the sample project was not representative in respect of the amount of work needed.
Project Study Group Recommendations
Recommendations made by the Project Study Group to address the problems indicated by the third and fourth points above were closely related to the extra involvement and time commitment that project-based work entails for tutors. These recommendations centred on acknowledgement of that extra workload, on the extra resources that may need to be allocated to compensate for it, and on the more complex task of project assessment.
Development of the New Computing Course
In the development of the new course, resources were allocated to take these factors into account. More generous tutorial support was allocated than is provided for “traditional” distance courses. Additional tutor time needed to assess a final computing project report and for double marking of that report was also included. Nevertheless, tutors responding to the early survey were concerned on several counts.
Time taken to mark the initial submission had varied considerably, ranging from a minimum of 1 hour to a maximum of 12 hours. Frequent comments were that it took “far too long” and that marking submissions on this project-based course was a very demanding task compared with marking submissions on more conventional Open University courses. Only 30% of those responding felt the guidelines to tutors on marking were satisfactory. Some tutors felt the marking guidelines were too restrictive in certain areas of the project and did not necessarily reflect the amount of work required by students to produce a solution, whereas others indicated that they would have liked more guidance. The latter group felt that they would have liked a more rigid breakdown of how to mark but with the discretion to reward what they saw as good work, even if it did not conform strictly to an expected solution.
As noted above, a number of tutors felt that students needed more precise specifications of the computing projects to be undertaken and more specific guidance on how to tackle a project and how to write up a project report. In addition, approximately 30% of tutors felt that they themselves should have had more guidance on how closely students should keep to “model” solutions to the projects or, conversely, how far students should be allowed to stray from standard computing solutions.
Overall, tutors did not find it easy to resolve this dilemma of either pressing for conformity of solution to projects or allowing students room to pursue more individual approaches. If they chose the latter course, tutors ran the risk of greatly increasing their marking load and, in some cases, also the workload of the student because a more individualistic approach at an early stage could entail substantial reworking at a later stage. Tutors felt that it had been difficult to determine what is to be expected from students in their project work, and they were unsure about whether or not they should be persuading students to conform to a “standard” solution. The consequences of not being clear on this issue meant that tutors spent considerable time working out the many and varied solutions that students presented.
In summary, from an evaluation in the initial stages of its first presentation, it is apparent that there are still areas for concern in the course design related to those identified in the first years of project-based work at the Open University. In spite of the fact that course designers had taken into account the recommendations of the Project Study Group, all of those concerns were not resolved.
In response to formative feedback, a number of immediate steps were taken to address the issues that had arisen in this first presentation of the new course. In addition to the resources that had been allocated for tutor assess-ment of students’ final project report, extra resources were also allocated to allow for the higher than expected involvement and time commitment of tutors in assessing the initial and interim submissions. Where it was apparent from student and tutor feedback that students had clearly been faced with problems that had arisen through materials giving insufficient or inappropriate information, this was noted and was taken into account in subsequent assessments. In the following section, however, we try to understand why the concerns arose, discuss longer term measures that can be taken to address them, and, finally, summarize what we see as the implications for the design of computer-based projects in distance learning.
The recommendations set out by the Project Study Group have been successfully adopted in the design of project-based elements in many Open University courses. An underlying assumption in developing the new computer course was that these recommendations would be equally valid in the domain of computer science. This assumption, however, ignores the differences between existing courses and the recently developed course. These differences are not trivial and have implications for both students and tutors.
Unlike existing courses, where project work constitutes an element of the course, M450 consists wholly of planning, implementing, and completing a computing project. Students have no other written assignments or examination by which they can bolster their grades should they have problems with the project element.
This course is the first project-based distance course offered by the Open University in the domain of computer science. In contrast to the other domains in which project-based work has been offered, computer science brings a different set of constraints to distance learning project work. Although there can be a number of ways by which it may be reached, each computer science project has a given “end goal.” In that sense, even though there may be various paths, students must ultimately reach the “right” solution to the problem set.
A particular aspect of working on a computer science project, where the “end goal” is predefined, is that indications of which paths should or can be usefully followed are built into the description of the project specification. Students are particularly dependent upon the clarity and usefulness of the materials provided. The major sources of information available to students are the project specification and any advice or guidelines provided with it.
The demands of the domain, that is, the need for students to reach a defined “end goal,” is at the root of the dilemma experienced by tutors. A continual tension exists between deciding to require students to follow conventional paths to that goal or to allow them to take an individual approach that may be, at best, circuitous or, at worst, a cul-de-sac.
Bearing in mind these domain differences, it is clear that the recom-mendations of the Project Study Group are not invalid. It seems, rather, that in project-based courses in computer science, they need to be strengthened. Considering domain differences brings the understanding that designers must be acutely aware of the dependency of students on the text materials provided. This dependency must be the foremost consideration in preparing specifications of the projects, in preparing guidelines, and in the choice of sample projects.
Pilot testing in this domain is particularly demanding and particularly important. Although pilot testing was undertaken, the evaluation indicates that a more rigorous testing is called for. The possibility of there being various and varied ways of achieving the “end goal” of the project suggests that each project’s “trial” work-through should be carried out across a wider range of “student” level testers than was originally thought necessary.
It is apparent from the evaluation feedback that much more specific guidance is needed for tutors as well as for students. The tension experienced by tutors and caused by the constraints of a project in this domain may never be fully resolved. However, it seems important in a distance context that tutors have relatively clear guidelines on two points. They need guidance on the extent to which they should allow students to follow an individual and independent path and at which point they should intervene if a student’s chosen direction seems to be going badly off-course. The flexibility of tutorial contact in a conventional teaching situation makes it easier to remedy the problem of students taking a “wrong” direction. In a distance course, the opportunities for intervention are relatively scarce.
From an academic point of view, tutors need to be clear about the rewards and penalties that students may incur by pursuing an unconventional solution to their project problem. They need to know the balance that the course aims to achieve between encouraging students to produce uniquely individual solutions and rewarding a successful arrival at the “end goal.”
Given the difficulties faced in incorporating project-based work into distance teaching in the computer science curriculum, it is interesting to consider to what extent these could be alleviated with the use of electronic media. The Open University UK has now committed itself to investigating and incorporating the use of electronic media across the whole range of its teaching, learning, and administrative structures. Currently, this commitment means that on some courses electronic communications are used as the medium of teaching and learning, whereas on others they are used as tools or adjuncts. In common with other educational establishments engaged in open and distance learning and teaching, the Open University UK faces a major challenge. It is seeking ways to use the new technologies that exploit their inherent potential for flexibility and interactivity in the production and delivery of courses. In parallel, it is also seeking to ensure that the technologies are used within a sound educational framework and in a way that is equitable to students. For instance, the computing project course discussed in this paper could equally well be “delivered” on-line. An electronic version of the current text version of the course, which is delivered to students, could be mailed on-line or made available via the internet.
This possibility raises the first and most fundamental issue-the cost, both to students and to tutors, of investment in necessary equipment. It can be assumed that students on a computing course and their tutors will own or have use of a computer. That is not the same, however, as having access to and use of a machine of the necessary specifications and modem facilities. This access to equipment is a problem across all distance courses where electronic media are to be introduced. Research undertaken within the Open University UK (Kirkup & Jones, 1995) has indicated the dangers of moving to electronic delivery and support of courses without thought of the consequences. Costs to students may create an elite of those who can afford the extra expense that computing equipment could entail and exclude students of more limited means. The current policy has been to allocate funds to create a substantial loan pool of equipment that can be bought by students at reduced cost or that can be leased over the period of a student’s study. It is presumed from past trends that, in the longer term, costs of computing equipment will fall and that access to computing facilities will become easier. Meanwhile, the feasibility of providing computing access at a regional level for Open University students is also being investigated.
This aspect, although currently problematic, is of course fundamental to any introduction of technology into courses. Not underestimating its importance, however, this section of the paper considers issues that would arise from specific uses of electronic support on a project-based computing course. Looking back at the issues raised in this paper, three areas come to mind in which this “new” technology could be useful on this type of project-based course: computer conferencing, electronic mail (e-mail) tutoring, and e-mail contact between tutors and members of the course team responsible for writing the course materials.
In feedback on this course, students commented on the “isolation” of project-based computer science work. Each student was working individually on a project rather than on a task that was identical for each person on the same course. An on-line student conference might be a way of reducing that sense of isolation. Because of the nature of the course, there were no regular fortnightly or monthly tutorials at which students would meet each other. It is often at these tutorials that “distance” students meet and reduce the sense of studying “alone” that is part of any distance learning experience and that is possibly more pronounced with this type of course.
Another problem for students on this project-based course was feeling unsure of themselves in terms of guidance and structures for their work. Being given a specification round which to plan and implement their own project was very different from the usual structured work path through the “units” of their course. Over the duration of the course, reassurance, guidance, and clarification had come from their tutor via feedback from telephone calls, at two specified points in written feedback, and at two points in group meetings. Students had often, however, been reluctant to phone their tutor and had felt it difficult to “explain” on the phone. Tutors had often been unavailable, and students had to call back. This experience suggests that on-line tutoring could offer a means of contact that could be more satisfactory. E-mail contact would give students the facility to be able to frame their problems or concerns without the immediacy of talking on the phone. The asynchronous nature of e-mail would have allowed tutors to check out students’ queries at a time that suited them. If it became apparent that there were a number of overlapping queries, it would have been relatively easy to circulate one response to everyone in the tutorial group or simply to set up a “frequently asked questions” facility.
Tutors felt that there had been a tension between providing students with a “right” solution and letting students follow their own path, which might be less satisfactory and possibly ultimately mistaken. They themselves felt some ambiguities existed in project specifications and were unsure of how to resolve them. E-mail contact with course team authors, who had produced the original materials, would seem a direct and rapid way of obtaining answers and clarifications.
Computer conferencing, on-line tutorial support, and e-mail com-munication between course tutors and course team members are three relatively simple to implement and seemingly “obvious” ways of using new technology to help the students on this course. It seems only common sense that students following a computer course should have access to such computer-based technological support. Nevertheless, introducing it raises issues and concerns that are not, as yet, answered. Early work on the introduction of electronic support has shown that the consequences of incorporating new technology into distance education must be carefully thought through (Thomas, 1989) and the resource implications considered.
A principal aim of computer conferencing is to encourage discussion of work between students and tutors and to provide mutual peer support and learning through discussion among students themselves. Experience has shown that it does not realize its aim without skilful handling by its moderators. To develop its potential requires a careful mixture of tact, persistence, and enthusiasm on the part of the moderator. In some cases, for fear of peer judgement, students can feel very vulnerable in discussing their work on-line (Fung & O’Shea, 1994). For others, a conference can “die” prematurely because of insufficient nurturing by its moderator in its initial stages. Students must feel motivated to participate (Oliver, 1994).
On-line tutoring can be equally demanding in terms of the skills required to combine the need for guidance and leadership with the sensitivity to provide support and encouragement. An even more pressing demand on the tutor is perhaps the time that needs to be allocated for on-line tutoring. Experience on other courses has shown that the availability of on-line tutoring raises expectations on the part of the student that the tutor is much more readily available.
Direct electronic communication between tutors and course team members, that is, those academics responsible for producing the course, appears unproblematic. Direct contact between tutors and course writers has in the past, for historical reasons, been relatively limited. With the use of e-mail becoming more widespread, this situation is changing, but regular contact is not yet the norm. Within the context of OU, UK, course development, production, and presentation, this direct contact and its implications for course revision and updating no doubt has far-reaching potential (Goodfellow & Kukulska-Hulme, 1996). Currently, for the course under discussion, direct e-mail contact between tutors and course team academics has taken place. It has principally been limited to those tutors who have access to e-mail. Built into the course in a context where all students and tutors had that access, it could represent a change of role for academics responsible for the course and a change in the balance of resources input to the course.
The change in mode of study from the structured units and teaching methods of conventional Open University distance courses to the more open framework of a project-based course demands from students a heightened level of self-confidence, motivation, and ability to organize their own work plans. These general demands seem to be even more true for students undertaking project work in computer science. Recommendations for the successful use of project-based teaching methods in distance learning were made two decades ago in the early years of the Open University. These recommendations had been explicitly incorporated in the design of the new computer science project-based course discussed in this paper. Early feedback from that course suggests, however, that a number of the issues that they were designed to address remained unresolved. Specifically, these issues related to project time allocation, project scope delineation, and tutorial responsibility.
After considering why these issues remain unresolved, we conclude that the recommendations that addressed these issues remain valid in themselves. Given the delicate balance between the need for students to arrive at a specified “end goal” in computer science and the need for students to be given the opportunity to follow an individual path to that goal, however, the recommendations must be far more rigorously implemented. In the domain of computer science, it is apparent that they need to be interpreted with a much greater awareness of the particular demands of computer science projects.
The role of electronic support for this type of distance course has also been considered. There appear to be a number of areas in which it would help address some of the difficulties experienced in teaching project-based computer science courses. Introduction of electronic support, such as computer conferencing, on-line tutoring, and e-mail contact between tutors and course team members, would seem to be the obvious possibilities. Nevertheless, a number of issues have been put touched on, principally in terms of additional resourcing, which the introduction of this technological support would raise. If these issues are not resolved, there would be a danger that the introduction of technological support might not achieve its potential in terms of benefit to students and the development of project-based work in computer science.
Dr. Patricia Fung
Institute of Educational Technology,
Open University, UK
tel: +44 (0)1908 652418
e-mail: p.fung@open.ac.uk
Adderley, K., Ashwin, C., Bradbury, P., Freeman, J., Goodlad, S., Greene, J., Jenkins, D., Rae, J., & Uren, O. (1975). Project methods in higher education (Monograph No. 24). Society for Research into Higher Education.
Bynner, J., & Henry, J. (1984). Advanced project work in distance teaching. Higher Education, 13, 413-421.
Crooks, B., Henry, J., & Morgan, A. (1976). Project memo 7: Assessment procedures in project courses (Project memo series). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.
Farnes, N. (1975). Student centred learning. Teaching at a Distance, 3, 2-6.
Fung, P., & O’Shea, T. (1994). Understanding why computer science students find formal reasoning frightening. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 10, 240-250. Fung, P. (1994). First evaluation of M450: A project-based computing course (SRC Report Series. No. 91). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.
Goodfellow, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (1996). Evaluating new technology in learning and teaching (CITE Report No. 225). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Henry, J. (1976). Project memo 8: The tutor and project work (Project memo series). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.
Henry, J. (1977). Project memo 9: A study of project work at the Open University (Project memo series). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.
Kirkup, G., & Jones, A. (1995). New technologies for open learning. Programme for learners’ use of media (Report No. 70). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Macmillan, B. (1975). Project memo 1: Project-based learning in Open University courses (Project memo series). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.
Morgan, A. (1976). The development of project work in the Open University. British Journal of Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 13(4), 55-59.
Oliver, I. (1992). Modems in the North (Project Report No. 1994/10). UK: Open University in Scotland.
Parlett, M. D. (1977). An introduction to illuminative evaluation. CA: Pacific Soundings Press.
Thomas, R. (1989). The implications of electronic communication for the Open University. In R. D. Mason & A. R. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 166-177). UK: Pergamon.
Woodley, A., & Kirkwood, A. (1987). Evaluation in distance learning. Report prepared for the International Extension College Council for Educational Technology (SRC Report Series). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.
Dr. Patricia Fung is a lecturer in Educational Technology at the Open University, UK, with a particular interest in the application and evaluation of schemes designed to promote access and retention of students in open and distance learning systems. Research interests include the introduction and use of computing technologies and electronic communications in learning environments.
ISSN: 0830-0445