Informed Discussion in Information Technology Survey Courses

Amber SettleCTI, DePaul UniversityJoint work with André Berthiaume, Evelyn Lulis,

and Abdulrahman Mirza

ISECONNovember 7, 2003

2

Outline

• Introduction• Informed discussion

Definition and motivation Courses Debate structure and topics Discussion formats and topics

• Conclusions– General– Graduate versus undergraduate

• Course evaluations• Future work

3

Introduction

• Approach: Introduce ethical, legal, and social topicsinto existing technical survey courses(Cohen and Cornwall 1989)

• Previous work: Highly structured debates requiringprior research to promote interactive learning(Settle and Berthiaume 2002)

• Contribution: A re-examination of the debates− Less structure versus more structure− Undergraduate versus graduate− Course evaluations

4

Informed discussion

• Informed discussion: Informal debates based onsignificant prior research

• Motivation– Formal debates effective for graduate courses

Well-structured Good argumentation

– Undergraduates are stifled by formality Lack of spontaneity Poor involvement

5

The courses• Undergraduate

– ECT 250: Survey of e-commerce technologyECT, IS, and NT B.S. degree programsDual purpose: Survey of e-commerce technology andpreparation for client-side Web application development

– CSC 200: Survey of computing technologyCS B.S. degree program (during the relevant time period)Strictly an orientation for majors

• GraduateDS 420: Foundations of distributed systemsECT M.S. degree programFoundational issues in building distributed systems

• Similarities: Technological survey courses• Differences: Level and maturity of students

6

Debate structure

• Positions: Pro and conExample: Offensive Web content

Pro: Content must be controlled to protect minors

Con: Web content is protected speech

• Preparation: A written research summary– Context for the debate– A summary of the position taken– A list of references with short quotes

• Debates took place during special class sessions

• Grades based on research paper and performanceor on exam questions for non-participants

7

In-class debates• Pro’s opening statement (5 minutes)

Gives context and states position• Con’s cross-examination (3 minutes)

Rebuttal of pro’s position• Con’s position statement (4 minutes)

Statement of position• Pro’s cross-examination (3 minutes)

Response to con’s statements• Comments/questions (8 minutes)

Assigned interrogators, audience, instructor• Closing statements (2 minutes each)

Points of each side are recapped

8

Debate topics

• Offensive Web content: Controlling content viewing• Copyrighting digital media: Napster case and others• The U.S. government vs. the Microsoft Corporation• Legal issues in e-commerce: Digital signatures• Sklyarov case and code breaking in general• U.S. bill draft: Government imposed software security• The French government versus Yahoo!• Virtual child pornography• Internet taxation• American Disability Act and Southwest Airlines• The Bermann bill• The Verizon case and the DMCA

9

Discussion formats• Twenty minutes of each class session

• Current events (Fall 2001)− Terrorism and technology− Articles brought to class

• Course topics (Winter/Spring 2002)− Based on weekly course topics− Articles brought to class

• Informal debates (Fall 2002)− Controversial topics in IT− Material brought to class− Prepared to defend either side

10

Discussion topics

• Technology and terrorism including privacy rights• Monitoring Web content• Credit card transactions on-line• The ethics of data gathering/sharing on commercial sites• The feasibility of electronic voting

11

General conclusions

• Best response:− Current events− Practical topics− Ethical considerations− Material integrated into the course− “Warm-up” exercises provided

• Worst response: − Topics taken strictly from lecture− Material separated from the course

• Variation between graduate and undergraduate

12

Undergraduate courses

• Data from seven quarters of classes(Spring/Fall 2001, Winter/Spring/Fall 2002, Winter/Spring 2003)

• Positives:– Enthusiastic– Better engagement in the course

• Negatives:– Unstructured responses– Little analysis of material– Inability to draw connections

13

Graduate course

• Data from three quarters of classes(Winter/Spring/Fall 2002)

• Results:– Evaluated technical aspects well– Very articulate and objective– Good audience participation

14

Course evaluations

• Conducted in CTI every quarter for every class

• Evaluations are:− Mandatory, strictly anonymous, completed online− Completed during the last two weeks of the quarter− Twenty-two multiple choice questions and comments− Rate aspects of the course and the instructor

• For this work, data from six questions was used:The questions concerned:

− Overall estimate of course− Technical development− Interest in the course− Relationship to other fields− Participation in the course

15

Impact on evaluations

• Data not compared between instructors

• Current events integrated into the course improve:− Satisfaction with participation− Satisfaction with instructor motivation of the material− The perceived technical merit of the course

• The increase was dramatic in some cases (15%)

• Comparisons between different informal discussions was inconclusive

− Taught by an instructor new to CTI− Population shifts over time− The purpose of the course changed

16

Future

• Continuing work in the three courses Gather more evaluation data

• Integrate debates into other CTI courses Liberal Studies (general education courses):

− CSC 200 (new incarnation)− Capstone courses− Possible new course: sophomore seminar

on multiculturalism (women in IT,Digital Divide, etc.)

• Investigate the use of debates across theuniversity as a whole