WCAE 2003 - San Diego, CA - June 8, 2003 Combining Learning Strategies and Tools in a First Course in Computer Architecture Pat Teller, Manuel Nieto, and

WCAE 2003 - San Diego, CA - June 8, 2003

Combining Learning Strategies and Combining Learning Strategies and Tools in a First Course in Tools in a First Course in

Computer ArchitectureComputer Architecture

Pat TellerPat Teller, Manuel Nieto, and Steve Roach, Manuel Nieto, and Steve RoachThe University of Texas at El PasoThe University of Texas at El PasoDepartment of Computer ScienceDepartment of Computer Science

{pteller, manueln, sroach} @cs.utep.edu{pteller, manueln, sroach} @cs.utep.edu


AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

NSF MIE GrantNSF MIE Grant

Center for Effective Teaching and Center for Effective Teaching and Learning (CETaL) at UTEPLearning (CETaL) at UTEP


OutlineOutline

• Motivation/Introduction • Course Philosophy/Contents• Course Structure• Learning Vehicles

– RATS – Readiness Assurance/Assessment Tests

– Problem-based Discovery Learning• Simulation• Robots

• Evaluation


ObjectivesObjectives

• Cover a large volume of material• [Prepare students for follow-on

courses] • Develop oral and written

communication skills• Hone deductive reasoning and

critical analysis skills• Learn to work effectively in teams

Motivation/Introduction


StrategiesStrategies

• Traditional lecture• Active learning• Cooperative learning• Problem-based learning• Team-based learning

– RATs-Readiness Assurance/Assessment Tests

– Discovery Labs



ChallengesChallenges• Less material covered in class with

participatory learning strategies (as compared with traditional lecture)

• Accurate assessment of individual mastery given team-generated work product, i.e., building in individual accountability

• Dynamic adjustment of course design to meet student needs

• Development and utilization of technical, communication, critical thinking and analysis skills



Course PhilosophyCourse Philosophy• Approach new, difficult concepts at multiple

levels of abstraction• Use RATs to motivate out-of-class preparation• Use problem-based learning (individual,

cooperative, and team-based) to master concepts

• Use innovative learning vehicles that facilitate problem-based discovery learning– Microprocessor Simulator Labs– Mobile Robots Labs

• Make it fun!

Course Philosophy/Contents


Course FocusCourse Focus

• Between digital systems and computer archiecture course based mostly on Chapters 4-8 of Patterson and Hennessy

• Via Motorola 68HC11 – General method by which a computer executes

a program– Introduction to I/O interfacing, interrupt

handling, and robot control

• Basic concepts in software engineering• Textbook and Motorola 6811 manuals

Course Philosophy/Contents


Course Module Structure - 1Course Module Structure - 1• Pre-class prep (study basic concepts outside class)

• RAT (in class)

• Lecture (maxmum 10-12 minute)

• One-on-one active learning• Active, cooperative, and team-based

learning• Simulator or robot lab • Lecture (maximum 10-12 minutes)

• In-class participatory learning (review)

• Assessment

Course Structure


Course Module Structure - 2Course Module Structure - 2

• Active, cooperative, and team-based learning– in-class using simple problems – out-of-class using simple problems – in-class using more complex

problems– out-of-class using more complex

problems

Course Structure


Learning VehiclesLearning Vehicles

• Readiness Assurance/Assessment Tests (RATs)– Out-of-class preparation– Diagnosis– Feedback

• Problem-based Discovery Labs– Simulation– Robots

Learning Vehicles


Using RATs to Motivate Using RATs to Motivate LearningLearning

• http://www.ou.edu/idp/teamlearning• Larry K. Michaelsen, University of

Oklahoma, “Getting Started with Team Learning”

• Team-Option Workshop materials from Larry Michaelsen and Dee Fink, University of Oklahoma

• J. L. Madrigal, J. S. Lawson, and G. R. Bryce, Brigham Young University, “Experiences in the Use of Team Learning in University Level Quantitative Courses”

Learning Vehicles


Team-based Learning: Team-based Learning: BasicsBasics

• Shifts focus from learning “about” concepts/ideas to learning “how” to use them in a meaningful ways

• Promotes a climate in which students (as individuals and as groups) feel free to challenge the instructor

• Student-centric rather than teacher-centric

• Up-front time investment w.r.t. RATs and application-focused activities

Learning Vehicles


Purpose of RATs - 1Purpose of RATs - 1• Theory:

– Ensure students’ mastery of course subject matter

• Practice: – Ensure students’ preparedness w.r.t. mastering

course subject matter– Develop familiarity with and language to discuss

concepts– Less class time spent on basics; more time

spent on interesting questions and applications• Better work on basic concepts from better pre-class

preparation• Better work on mid-level concepts and applications via

team discussion

RATs


Purpose of RATs – 2Purpose of RATs – 2Application-focused Application-focused

ActivitiesActivities• The RATs guide the development of

projects and exams that require students to USE the concepts to solve the same kinds of problems they will face in subsequent course work and/or future jobs.

• These activities address the question: “How can I tell if students will be able to USE their knowledge of key course concepts?”

RATs


Readiness Assurance Readiness Assurance ProcessProcess

Context for RATsContext for RATs• Assigned Readings – individual study outside

class• Individual RAT- take test in class, turn in

answers, keeping record of answers• Team RAT – re-take the SAME test in class

(immediately after Individual RAT) but as a group; must reach agreement on each test question– Discussion required to choose a group answer

• Team Appeals– Open-book process outside of class– Formal submission of reasons for contest

• Instructor Feedback re: appeals

RATs


Readiness Assurance Readiness Assurance ProcessProcess

• Assigned Readings – initial exposure to concepts• Individual RAT- additional exposure helps to reinforce

students’ memory of what they learned during individual study

• Team RAT – students orally elaborate the reasons for their answer choices– excellent review of readings– exposure to peer input allows students to learn from each other– gains from acting in a teaching role

• Team Appeals – written appeal– focused re-study of troublesome concepts

• Instructor Feedback – aimed at resolving any misunderstandings that remain – the above ensures that the instructor is aware of students’ level

of concept understanding

RATs


Writing RATsWriting RATs• Define outcomes in behavioral terms, i.e.,

“What do you want students to be able to DO when they have completed this unit of instruction?”

• Define the content that must be covered in assigned readings to be able to achieve outcomes. That is, “What will students have to KNOW to do … ?”

• Define RAT questions by answering the question “How can I ASSESS whether or not students have successfully mastered KEY course concepts?”

RATs


Writing RATs-Form & Writing RATs-Form & ContentContent

• Short multiple-choice and true/false questions on KEY concepts from readings

• Questions that focus on foundational concepts and are difficult enough to create discussion once the team takes the test (avoid picky details)

RATs


Writing RATs-Form & Writing RATs-Form & ContentContent

• Focus on KEY concepts – not on details or computations– Focus on material in table of contents not index– Students should get a “Big Picture” from the RAT –

they will add and retain the details as they complete application assignments

• Focusing on details/computations may make students feel that they are being punished for not memorizing everything

• Potential value of group RATS will be lessened by fact that the discussion will be brief

– Detail focus - focus on what reading says instead of what it means

– Computation focus – one member simply acts on behalf of group

RATs


My Experience with RATsMy Experience with RATs• RAT given after each reading assignment

(usually a chapter)• Students decided on combined score

algorithm – I set constraints: no more than 50% of group score

• Individual and Team RATs and sharing of answers during one meeting

• Appeals submitted before next class meeting

• Discussion of appeals during next class meeting

RATs


Example Good QuestionsExample Good Questions• All machine instructions have one or more opcode

bytes and one or more operand bytes. T or F• The input signals to a memory unit include

– An address, data, a read/write signal, a timing pulse, all of the above

• After fetching an instruction to be executed, the program counter is modified to point at the next instruction to be executed. This modification occurs by adding to the program counter the value– 1, 2, 4, none of the above

• Overflow only can occur when adding numbers of the same sign. T or F

RATs


RAT Scores-Data Analysis - RAT Scores-Data Analysis - 11

Average of 7 RATs(Spring 2002)

50% Individual and 50% Group

5/26 >80 but <9013/26 >70 but <807/26 >60 but <701/26 >50 but <60

16/26 >80 but <9010/26 >70 but <80

The combined average score of every student but one was higher than her/his individual average score. The difference for the one student was individual average 86.98 and combined average 86.1.

RATs


RAT Scores: Data Analysis - RAT Scores: Data Analysis - 22

Team

IndivLow

IndivAvg

IndivHigh

TeamScore

Team +Hi

Team +Low

1 59.81 69.96 81.09 86.92 5.83 17.11

2 73.37 76.19 78.21 88.25 10.04 14.88

3 64.93 75.31 83.34 86.65 3.31 21.72

4 60.28 71.86 80.34 88.17 7.83 27.89

5 65.15 73.64 86.98 85.22 -1.76 20.03

Avg 64.71 73.39 81.99 87.04 5.05 20.33

RATs


Observations Re: RATsObservations Re: RATs

• Students took the reading seriously– There were only 4 RAT individual

scores <= 50 and 2 of these are associated with RAT1, 1 with RAT2, and 1 with RAT3!

• The RATs made class more interesting– Only 5 students missed 1 RAT each!

RATs


Observations Re: Group Observations Re: Group RATsRATs

• Students take the discussion seriously– As you walk around the room, you

hear students effectively supporting their positions

– Because the discussions were so effective, I often let them continue for longer than planned

RATs


Observations Re: RAT Observations Re: RAT AppealsAppeals

• There were few – only two• Students took the appeal process

seriously• Discussion addressed

misunderstandings/ambiguity

RATs


Conclusions Re: RATS - 1Conclusions Re: RATS - 1

• RATs are amazingly effective!– Students

• rarely miss a RAT• come to class prepared• are able to discuss reading assignments

– Class time• not consumed by basic concepts• rather filled with discussion of interesting

concepts/ideas

RATs


Conclusions Re: RATS - 2Conclusions Re: RATS - 2

• RATs must be designed carefully– this takes time and practice

• I have a few examples with me that have good and bad questions – I was still learning!

– but it reaps VERY positive benefits

RATs


Learning VehiclesLearning Vehicles

• Readiness Assurance/Assessement Tests (RATs)-diagnosis and feedback– Out-of-class participation is KEY

• PROBLEM-BASED DISCOVERY LABS– Simulator Labs – Robot Labs

Learning Vehicles


Problem-Based Discovery Labs - Problem-Based Discovery Labs - 11

Lab assignments based on guided learning via different levels of abstraction– Well-defined, proctored, cooperative

labs– Lead students down a path of self

discovery– Afford opportunities for students to

teach themselves via the scientific method Discovery Labs



• Lab assignments are used to– Introduce, explore, and strengthen

understanding of new concepts– Stretch students’ knowledge

• Students work in pairs – Brain storming– Communication and team skills

Discovery Labs



• Simulator labs– VISUALIZATION

• Assembler listing• Symbol table/cross-reference listing• Registers• Memory (text and data)

– Exploration/experimentation• Dynamically change state

– Eases move to next level of abstraction – robots

• Robot labs– FUN– Self reliance and critical analysis

Discovery Labs


Simulator: Learning ToolSimulator: Learning Tool

• Helps in understanding of concepts in a visual manner– Step through process via well-defined

labs (much like science labs)– View changes that occur at each step– Construct hypothesis– Experiment: change process in-place

• Facilitates discovery learning• Demo available after session

Discovery Labs


Why Robots?Why Robots?

• Student point of view– Robots are fun! – They really can hit walls!– Physical embodiment

Discovery Labs


Why Robots?Why Robots?

• Teaching point of view – I/O interfacing, interrupt

handling, vehicle for real-life utilization of microprocessor

– Discovery– Debugging– Brain storming

Discovery Labs


Robot Labs - DiscoveryRobot Labs - Discovery

Challenge students to discover how to

• Make robots go straight, turn right, turn left, etc.– Given how to make the robot go

in circles

• Use sensor to detect wall-hit – Given how to read a sensor

Discovery Labs


Robot Labs - DebuggingRobot Labs - Debugging

• Bugs can be hard to find• Programs too big for

– random debugging (uneducated, uninformed)

– guessing (educated, uninformed)

• Output too difficult for brute force (uneducated, informed)

• Analysis (scientific method) is necessary (educated and informed)

Discovery Labs


EvaluationEvaluation

• Some quantitative assessment• Ad-hoc assessment• Excellent course evaluations• Student comments• Observations

Evaluation


Student Comments – Student Comments – SimulatorSimulator

[The simulator] HELPED me achieve knowledge about the material covered in the class

• “[it] helped me to understand what was happening”

• “we could test and see what happened for ourselves”

• “[it] helped me learn how to assemble and disassemble”

• “[it] helped me with programming”

Evaluation


Student Comments – Student Comments – RobotsRobots

[The introduction of the robots] was a good idea

• “[they] enforced the concepts learned in class”

• “[they] gave me confidence that I can do something that seems impossible at first”

• “[they] were fun!”• “[they] made it possible to see the power

of the 68HC11 in action”

Evaluation


ObservationsObservations

Students must• be clever about creating a hypothesis• be resourceful in testing hypothesis• discuss

– hypotheses must be in terms of behavior, not underlying computer architecture

– solutions in terms of underlying computer architecture

Evaluation


ConclusionsConclusions

Effective teaching and learning means• an open, student-centric

environment• up-front investment by the instructor• student cooperation/participation• continuous quality improvement• a more successful course experience

for all

Evaluation


AdvertisementAdvertisement

The Sun Conference at the The Sun Conference at the University of Texas-El PasoUniversity of Texas-El Paso

March 2003March 2003• Center for Effective Teaching and

Learning• Keynote speakers• Presentations from various

disciplines


THANK YOUTHANK YOUfrom all of usfrom all of us

Simulator and robot demo available upon request

Example RATs (with good and bad questions)

Example Labs (both simulator and robot)

Documents

WCAE 2003 - San Diego, CA - June 8, 2003 Combining Learning Strategies and Tools in a First Course in Computer Architecture Pat Teller, Manuel Nieto, and