More thoughts on Udacity CS101, upon completing Unit 1

I wrote my last post when I was about a third of the way through Unit 1 in CS101, and before the homework for Unit 1 was posted (which happened last Thursday morning). Now that I’ve finished Unit 1, both content and homework, I thought it was a good time to take stock & post again.

First, I have an issue. The instructor, David Evans, made his videos using some technology I’m not familiar with, but it’s clearly some kind of smartboard- or tablet-and-smartpen combination. The way it appears in the video is like this: he writes on a white surface using this groovy pen, and what he writes shows up in various colors, just like on a smartboard. The weird part is that what he writes seems to be floating above the pen and his hand, rather than appearing below it. That is, not above in the Y axis on the plane of the screen, but hovering above on the Z axis, so that the writing appears to be closer to the viewer’s eye than the pen. It’s kind of distracting. Actually I’ve more or less gotten used to it, and I can tune it out now, but it was very distracting for the first few videos.

This of course is Rule #1 for the use of technology in teaching: Never let the technology overshadow the actual pedagogical purpose. And I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this tech overshadows the content. But it is distracting.

And this raises a question for me, for the videos I make for my courses: handwriting or Powerpoint? Evans has so far made all the videos for CS101 using his own handwriting. (Except the bits in the Python interpreter, of course.) The videos that I’ve seen from Sebastian Thrun’s AI course last semester were all done with handwriting. Khan Academy videos are all Sal Khan’s handwriting. (At least I assume it’s his handwriting.) Obviously there’s a trend here: making educational videos using handwriting. And I can see the advantage of that: it makes it feel personal, like the instructor is writing just for you, like you went to David Evans’ office hours and he’s jotting on his whiteboard while you talk. I get that.

But here’s my problem: my handwriting sucks, and these videos are edited heavily. Why edited? To fast-forward in time, so you don’t have to watch Evans form every single letter. Which brings me to Powerpoint. I made a few videos for my Digital Library course using Powerpoint: I wrote a script and created a slide deck to accompany it, more or less in tandem (the script usually slightly preceded the slides), then I used Powerpoint’s Record Slide Show feature to record the timing of the slides and my narration, and exported that YouTube. It was super-easy. Powerpoint is definitely the low-bar way of creating videos. And for getting time-consuming stuff done, I tend to prefer low-bar. Good enough is good enough. But I do fear that Calibri is a poor alternative to handwriting. Does using a font make the video feel less personal? Or can the voiceover compensate for a lack of handwriting? If anyone is reading this, I’d welcome your feedback on this weighty issue.

My second issue is that some of the videos feel slightly pedantic, especially on the quiz reviews. Evans proceeds through each quiz option in somewhat excruciating detail. Which is, of course, better than the opposite. And I understand why he does it this way: these materials are being prepared for 70,000 (or more) students. As in any course, the instructor has to make things as clear as possible, which often means going slower than more advanced students would prefer. I figure I’ll probably mind this less as the content gets more advanced, and I stop being an advanced student. And, I have to think, this is probably what half the students in my courses feel like a good bit of the time. I need to be careful of that in my classroom teaching. But for making videos, I think Evans makes the right call: better to err on the side of being slightly pedantic than to lose your audience within the span of a 3 minute video.

That’s one gripe and one sort-of gripe. Now the good stuff: I’m finding the course so compelling that I want to work on it all the time. I had a hard time this week stopping once I’d started. I even found myself wanting to work on the course during the day while I was at work, and the one time I actually succumbed to that temptation, it took a student walking into my office to make me veer off.

The downside of the course being so very compelling is that I found myself rushing through it: I would watch video after video, and spend some significant time working on the quizzes and Python exercises. On the one hand, this is good, because, well, education should be compelling. But on the other hand, by Wednesday I found myself concerned that I’d finish Unit 1 too quickly and lose the thread before Unit 2 was posted. In the end, that didn’t happen, as I should have known it would not: the homework was posted on Thursday, and that took me several hours, plus the simple fact of having a real job and a family slowed me down sufficiently.

But this did make me realize that this is no different than “traditional” classroom-based courses, where there are sometimes several days between class sessions. I teach a Monday/Wednesday course this semester, so my students have a 4 day gap between class sessions. Hopefully they’re doing work for the course during those 4 days, but I don’t really have a way to force that to happen. In an asynchronous course like CS101, there’s no way to force it either. I’m a big believer in project-based courses (both of the courses I’m teaching this semester are based around semester-long projects), so I have to assume that my students (most of them, anyway) have their head in the game during non-class days, otherwise they’d never get their project deliverables finished by the due dates. But CS101 has made made me appreciate the value of homework and other small self-assessments, which I tend not to use much in my courses. Something to reconsider for next semester.

And on the subject of self-assessments… the quizzes and Python exercises. These are automatically evaluated. It’s not clear what this looks like on the back end, though I imagine they’re fairly simple algorithms. It seems like it would be quite easy to automate evaluation of a multiple choice quiz. As for the Python, if the value of such-and-such variable (and Evans tells us what to name the important variable) equals the correct value, then the exercise is evaluated as correct. It’s not clear to me, at this stage, if the code that gets to that point is evaluated.

But my point is, it’s difficult to imagine assignments in Information Science that could be automatically evaluated. I know of some instructors in this field who use multiple choice exams in their courses, though I’m not one of them, and in fact I have a hard time even imagining what a good multiple choice question would look like in the courses I teach. Though maybe that’s a failure of imagination on my part. I can think of one or two assignments that I could use in my courses that could be automatically evaluated, and in fact I plan to set up one such assignment for the next time I teach my Digital Libraries course. (Assignment: Set up an OAI-compliant metadata repository. I’d have to create a harvester. If the harvester successfully harvests the student’s metadata records, then the student has successfully completed the assignment.) But the point is, I can only think of one or two assignments that could be automatically evaluated that I can use in my courses. I’ll probably think of more as time goes on. But I have a hard time imagining that I’ll ever be able to come up with enough such assignments to cover a whole course.

A lack of assignments that can be automatically evaluated means that my courses (any courses in ILS? any courses in the social sciences?) cannot scale to 70,000 or 160,000 students, or whatever. Without the ability to automate evaluation of all, and I mean all assignments, that scalability is just impossible. Because no automation = a human grading 70,000 assignments. And by “a human” I mean “me.” Now, I don’t expect that 70,000 students are suddenly going to rush out and take my Digital Libraries course online. (I should be so lucky.) But if I make my videos available, & I make whatever assessments I create available, there’s no reason why a student not enrolled in SILS shouldn’t be able to use them. And am I going to evaluate that student’s performance? No I am not. And so I feel that my teaching — and maybe the entire field of ILS, maybe the social sciences generally — hits a wall fairly quickly, in terms of the scalability of online courses. Some courses can probably be automated better than others. But fundamentally, there will probably always be some courses for which evaluation cannot be fully automated (or automated at all?). And so I feel a bit stuck. Again, maybe this is a failure of imagination on my part. If anyone is reading this, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to More thoughts on Udacity CS101, upon completing Unit 1

  1. Todd Johnson says:

    First, check out Andrew Ng’s machine learning course for a different approach that uses powerpoint slides + handwriting. Second, I teach biomedical informatics and after taking the AI and machine learning classes from Stanford last semester, and now the two Udacity courses, I think that with careful design of exercises and appropriate technology, I could autograde much more than I previously thought possible. I am now working on this with my faculty so that we can offer informatics courses in a style similar to those at Udacity and Coursera. I find these courses far better than most, because of the high degree of interactivity.

  2. Greg says:

    I’ve been able to get used to the tech, although I wish he would not always have such a jumbled page like he usually does in Chapter 2. Clear out what you don’t need right away and then come back to other things later through cut and copy. Also, when he changes his cursor and color, there has to be an easy way that we don’t have to see him do it, either through working off screen or editing afterwards.

    I know that most programming has multiple ways to “skin a cat,” but my main issue is that he seems to get off topic by trying to find multiple ways to do things. This could be due to the technology and the fact that we are not in classroom, so he is covering all bases, but at times, it just jumbles things.

    One example is Chapter 2, Chapter 15. (I forgot who is teaching the course, so I will call him “he”) He goes over one of the quizzes on creating multiple strings and it made sense to me. And then he started delving deeper in various different ways to write the code and lost me. I am not coming in as a novice, . Maybe it’s because I finished my last class before this tech was out, but there sure are time where the teaching style has a tendency this somewhat experienced programmer feel like a confused novice.

    I find the class highly interesting and all, but the teaching style is starting to wear me down already.

  3. Kitty says:

    I didn’t take the same course as you but am currently taking Introduction to Physics from Udacity.

    What I found about the handwriting issue is that handwriting does, for me, benefit to discipline and understanding. I’m also taking courses with coursera, which are powerpoint + seeing the lecturer and I’ve taking for-profit courses with Oxford which are written units + lecturer in forum only.

    For me, I’m much more likely to stick to anything if there is a human touch. Seeing someone writing with his own hands makes it more engaging. In coursera, the professor tries to counteract the use of powerpoint with handwritten underlining of important concepts but it is not as successful then seeing words form in front of one.

    For a lot of people, written things down physically helps them remember concepts and seeing someone else handwriting has a similar effect. It also adds to the allure you described.

    In regards to the pedantism – that is obviously only a problem if you are already familiar with the topic :) If your average student is not, he won’t have the same feeling of drag.

    I currently prefer the Udacity model the most, because of its excitement and the free-time option. For courses in the humanities and social sciences realm, I actually enjoyed the Oxford model. Coursera succeeds mainly in giving the lecturer a face, which is nice and probably works best for a very diverse audience. So I guess the question is who you cater to.

  4. Kitty says:

    * Sorry about the spelling and grammar mistakes…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>