You are here
THE COMPUTER CONFERENCE ON APPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
Note: This article was scanned using OCR from the Fall 1993 CCCE Newsletter. Please contact us if you identify any OCR errors.
INTRODUCTION
The summer computer conference is the first such conference sponsored by the Division of Chemical Education's Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. Articles on the summer Computer Conference and Computer Conferencing appeared in the Fall 1992 issue ol this Newsletter.
We view this conference as an experiment and have tried to design the format to take advantage of the unique features of computer conferencing. We decided to test the format and other aspects of the computer conference by scheduling a trial session during February. The purpose of the trial session was to determine how well the proposed format worked and to obtain feedback from participants which might be used to modify the format and instructions to participants and authors. PRE-TRIAL ACTIVITIES
Upon registration for CHEMCONF ten pages of INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS were sent to each participant. Twelve pages of INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS were sent to each author. Just prior to beginning the trial session there were over two hundred registrants from twenty-four countries.
Three papers were selected for the trial session:
Paper 1: "How to Make ComputerAssisted Instruction Fail" by Stephen K. Lower, Simon Fraser University, Canada (three pages).
Paper 2: "Windows and Networks: Lowering the Activation Energy for a Chemistry Department Microcomputer Facility" by Thomas O'Haver (eight pages)
Paper 3: "Some Computer Graphics Examples" by Thomas O'Haver (seven pages plus twenty-five figures each converted and transmitted as a separate text file).
These three papers were selected because each was quite different from the other. Paper 1 was similar to a paper which Professor Lower distributed at the 12th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education at UC Davis last summer. Paper 2 appeared in the Fall1992 issue of this Newsletter. Paper 3 was prepared specifically for the trial session and was designed to provide participants with examples of graphics and to provide practice in downloading and viewing figures.
Prior to the beginning of the trial session the abstracts of the three papers were distributed. The trial session schedule was sent out a few days before the beginning of the session. TRIAL SESSION.
The papers and figures were distributed on Monday, February 1. Each paper contained questions intended to stimulate discussion by the participants. Short questions were sent by participants to the authors or to other participants during the next three days, i.e. questions for Paper 1 were sent on Tuesday, questions for Paper 2 were sent on Wednesday and questions for Paper 3 were sent on Thursday. In the second and third week two days were devoted to the discussion of each paper. The authors answered short questions directed to them at the beginning of the discussion of their paper. An evaluation form was distributed on February 16 and was to be returned to Thomas O'Haver via electronic mail before the end of February.
How well did the trial session and the proposed format work? Participants were generally enthusiatic. There were some problems. These will be discussed later. The following are some of the comments received:
- Great conference ... I hope more are in my future. Mike Whitbeck, University of Nevada at Reno
- So far I have enjoyed the discussion and also learned a lot. It is great. Angelo R. Fernando, University of Alberta
- ... many (messages) are immensely helpful and thoughtful. Allan Smith, Drexel University
- We're all operating .. on the cutting edge of a new form of information and idea exchange. Carl H. Snyder, University of Miami
- I've learned and had fun. Paul Edwards, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
- It feels like a real conference. You get snippets of conversations and ideas which add up to a coherent whole after sometime. Dan Bearden, Clemson University
- I have found this trial session at once informative, energizing mindboggling, fascinating and a tremendous source of ideas. The mindboggling fascination is, that from the computer in my office, I am in contact with people all over the world-doing exactly the same thing I am.... a chance to learn, a chance to share new information. Elisabeth T. Kintner, University of Pittsburgh -
Johnstown
- ... the excitement of developing ideas, clarifying points, getting to the position where I better understand what should happen in my classes ... Charles Sundin, University of Wisconsin-Platteville
- I think it has the potential for making us all feel a little less isolated. Robert Brown, Douglas College, Canada
- There was ample time for discussion. Papers and discussion could be examined in a leisurely manner. Participants were able to ask short questions of authors and obtain well thought out answers. Donald Rosenthal, Clarkson University ' .. thoughtful responses (keyboard is better than just discussing, since you do have to think .. about what you are writing.) Frank Darrow, Ithaca College
- Allowed everyone to have a voice. Doug Williams, Kalamazoo College
- The entire concept was wonderful. Opens new horizons. Howard Dess, Rutgers University. One question that was asked on the evaluation form was "What did you like most about the computer Conference?" Some of the above comments were made in response to this question. Other comments occurred spontaneously during the trial session.
Considerable discussion was generated during the conference with many of the registrants participating. One participant reported the trial session had generated overtwo hundred pages of print out. (This does not include 80 pages of evaluation from 34 participants.) The papers and full discussion are available and can be accessed via electronic mail. (If you are interested, contact Thomas O'Haver at T02@UMAIL.UMD.EDU.)
Participants were asked to provide an overall evaluation of the papers, discussion and meeting on a scale from t to 5 where t is poor, 3 is average and 5 is excellent. The overall evaluation of the papers ranged from 3 to 5 with an average of 3.7. The discussion was rated from 2 to 5 with an average of 3.5. The trial session was rated from 3 to 5 with an average of 4.1.
Paper 1 listed eleven things a teacher could do to make computerassisted instruction (CAl) fail. The paper was written in an ironic style and generated the most wide-ranging discussion, including the use of CAl, simulation and the role of more traditional teaching methods in a course which uses CAl.
Paper3 contained examples of black and white, gray scale and color graphics. Some participants identified difficulties in the transmission of graphics and offered solutions and suggestions for the better handling of graphics. Some participants didn't even try to work with the figures. This discussion was most useful. As a result, some modification in the instructions and in the handling of graphics will be made for the summer conference.
Another question which was asked on the evaluation form was "What did you like least about the conference?" Many of the responses to this question reinforced comments made during the session. Rather than listing individual comments, we will summarize some of the conclusions. 12
"Noise" was generated by some participants due to a lack of familiarity with electronic mail and LISTSERV, a lack of discipline on the part of some registrants and inadequate instructions. Some registrants when they discovered more about the nature of the trial session and the volume of mail it would generate decided to sign off CHEMCONF but did not know how to do it properly. We all received the message "I want out". A few other extraneous messages added "noise",
The first week was designed for SHORT QUESTIONS to the authors or participants. All such questions were to be sent to CHEMCONF so that all participants would know what questions the authors were being asked. Private messages were to be sent to the authors identifying grammatical or other errors, or messages to Tom O'Haver asking for technical assistance. Some participants used the first week to begin discussion. This was not our intention. The first week was to be used for reading the papers, asking short questions and preparing tor the discussion.
Some participants introduced "noise" by discussing one paper during the time allocated for discussion of another paper. Another problem was that even though a specific two days was allocated to the discussion of a particularpaperseveral threads of conversations intertwined. Even if the thread can be identified, the segments of the thread are not necessarily received sequentially. The labeling of the message was not always sufficient to identify the thread nor indicate where the message fit on the thread.
We sought to obtain information on the degree of participation by each registrant in the trial session. We consider this evaluation to be an important aspect of the trial session (and summer conference) experiment. Several registrants indicated that February was a busy time for them. When someone goes to a meeting the participant frequently makes a definite commitment to participate. We are interested in learning how much of a commitment of time and effort registrants will make to a conference which extends over TWO MONTHS in the summer. The results of the trial session survey indicated that those participants who returned the survey:
1. accessed the discussion from zero (only read the papers) to seventy times. The average was 24 times.
2. Devoted from 2.3 to 28 hours to the trial session. The average was 9.5 hours.
Those who participated in the evaluation process probably devoted more time to the trial session than the average registrant.
The trial session evaluation form contained the question: "What changes can be made to improve the computer conference?" Some suggestions were made during the trial session. Some of these suggestions have already been mentioned. The suggestions were not always consistent. Some participants wanted more structure, others wanted less. Some participants wanted more than two days devoted to discussion of each paper. Other participants were afraid that additional discussion time might result in too much discussion. If three papers generated 200 pages, will tilteen papers generate 1000 pages I Who wants to wade through so much discussion? There was an appeal for brevity in discussion. It is obvious that some participants are addicted to electronic mail. The suggestion was made that we impose voluntary limits on the number of times participants can submit discussion on any one paper. Registrants will need to exert more selfdiscipline and the conference manager may need to play a more active role in managing the summer conference. In order to reduce the noise, the conference manager (Tom O'Haver) will announce the beginning and end of each session. This will avoid confusion associated with different time zones. Registrants will be asked to limit themselves to the designated activity, e.g.
SHORT
QUESTIONS for Paper 1 or DISCUSSION for Paper 2. Time for GENERAL DISCUSSION may be available on another LISTSERV or at other designated times. Discussion of papers will generally be for two days, but where discussion is scheduled for Friday and Monday the weekend will be available. This effectively provides four days.
Additional details will be provided for registrants just prior to the summer conference. SUMMER CONFERENCE - June 14 through August 20, 1993.
Abstracts for the following fifteen papers have been received and the tentative order of presentation is as indicated:
SESSION ONE
1. CULTURALDIFFERENCESREFLECTED BY AN INTEGRATED MEDIACHEMISTRYCOURSE-AN AMERICAN/ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE. Nava Ben-Zvi, William S. Harwood, Ahuva Leopold, and Lisa L. Ragsdale Hebrew University, Israel and University of Maryland
2. FOR LANS SAKE: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE USE OF NETWORKED COMPUTERS IN CHEM ED B. James Hood, Middle Tennessee State Unversity
3. WHY DO ELECTRONS AND NUCLI:CI FORM ATOMS AND MOLECULES?: A GUIDED, INTERACTIVE EXPLORATION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS John P. Ranck, Elizabethtown College
4. THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN A JUNIOR-LEVEL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY -PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LABORATORY COURSE Donald Rosenthal, Clarkson University
5. IT'S HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME: DESIGN OF AN ELECTRONIC ASSISTANT FOR ORGANIC QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Joyce C. Brockwell, Northwestern University SESSION TWO
6. INDIVIDUAL COMPUTERGENERATED GRAPHICAL PROBLEM SETS Frank M. Lanzafame, Monroe Community College
7. INTEGRATING COMPUTERS INTO THE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY CLASSROOM William J. Sondgerath, Harrison High School, West Lafayette, Indiana 8. USING THE AIRWAVES: A SATELLITE M. S. FOR INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTS. K. J.Schray, N.D. Heindel, J. E. Brown, and M.A. Kercsmar. Lehigl1 University
9. APPLICATIONS OF NETWORKED COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL IN A CHEMISTRY COURSE FOR NONSCIENCE STUDENTS Carl H. Snyder and James Shelley, University of Miami
10. COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY AS A CENTRAL FEATURE IN THE TEACHING OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY Joseph Casanova, California State University at Los Angeles SESSION THREE.
11. STAFF DEVELOPMENT IS THE BIGGEST COST IN COMPUTlNG David W. Brooks, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
12. THE COMPUTER CO-OP: TEACHING ORGANIC CHEMISTRY ON A CONFERENCE IN AN INTERDISCIPLINARY MACINTOSH LAB Carolyn Sweeney Judd and Robert G. Ford, Central College, Houston Community College System.
13. FINITE DIFFERENCE SOLUTION OF THE DIFFUSION EQUATION ON A SPREADSHEET Douglas A. Coe, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology.
14. CHEMULATE! A SIMULATOR OF UVJVIS KINETICS EXPERIMENTS FOR THE MACINTOSH Richard S. Moog, Franklin and Marshall College.
15. MENU DRIVEN PROGRAMMING FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS Reed Howald, Montana State University.
Those wishing to register for the Computer Conference must send the message: SUBSCRIBE CHEMCONF <your name> to LISTSERV@UM DO. UMD. EDU before June 1, 1993. Detailed instructions will be sent via electronic mail to registrants.
The success of any conference depends upon the quality of the papers and of the discussion. We hope YOU will help us make the summer conference a success.
Date:
02/16/93 to 02/20/93
- Log in to post comments