Nathan William Scott
All of the teaching experience described below has been in classes at UWA.
I was a tutor in this course in 1989, 1990 and 1991, for up to 6 hours per week. Initially this course consisted of two parts: traditional engineering drawing using a drafting machine, and programming graphic operations in Pascal. In 1991 the course changed to emphasise freehand drawing as well as engineering sketching. The drawing classes had up to 100 students; the programming classes about 30.
I distinguished myself to A/Prof. James Trevelyan, course coordinator, by my interest and ability in the subjects taught, and by developing some new ways to help students explore their freehand drawing abilities.
|
1992* |
Two tutorial hours a week during second semester. |
1993* |
Four tutorial hours a week throughout the year. |
|
1994* |
Four tutorial hours a week throughout the year; some lectures given. |
|
|
|
1995 |
Up to ten hours a week as a tutor in a new computer-mediated tutorial environment; some lectures given. This tutorial environment is described in detail in the section on Innovation and is the subject of my PhD thesis. Class sizes in this environment are about 40, although many more were present at some times. Altogether this course had 270 students. |
|
|
|
1996 |
One hour per week as a tutor in the computer tutorial room, with class sizes of about 50. Some lectures given. Also gave regular presentations in Prof. Stone's lectures. |
|
|
* The tutorial classes for 1992, 1993 and 1994 were traditional engineering tutorials of about twenty students.
I have been employed in the Dept. of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, UWA, since 1993, writing software to support the Engineering 100 (Dynamics) course. In this role I felt it was important to have direct contact with the students in the course, so I volunteered to teach one or more tutorial classes during this time.
Since 1992 my role in the teaching of this course has developed from casual tutoring in a single class, to occasional lecturing and academic input. For example I set the June 1995 paper in this subject, wrote one of the tutorial sets, and have helped mark the exam scripts for several years.
I have also had a prominent role in developing and maintaining the computer tutorial system. I have taken pride in ensuring that the system is reliable and does not hinder student learning, and if any student has had a grievance with the system, I have taken prompt action. It is partly because of this responsiveness to the needs of the class that the system has met with the degree of student approval indicated by the June 1995 SPOT survey (see below under Teaching Evaluation). As an example of this commitment to the quality of the learning environment, I always work all new tutorial problems as a student, so that I am never asking them to do something I have not already done.
I have demonstrated commitment to individual student progress through the course, initiating remedial actions for struggling students who would otherwise have simply slipped from academic sight. I have spent many hours outside my allocated sessions in the computer laboratory, talking to students and providing help. I believe it is essential for teaching staff to have close contact with the learning experience of students to work alongside them or they will quickly lose touch.
I had some role in the supervision of two honours students (Jason Yujnovich and Tim Barrett-Lennard) in second semester 1995 during Prof. Stone's absence. Jasons project was closely related to my own research into the effectiveness of the computer-mediated tutorial system, so I had to carefully balance the needs of my own work with those of his, while protecting the privacy of the students in the actual course. Tim was more self-sufficient and only needed technical assistance with some programming and computer hardware issues. I believe I had the trust and respect of both honours students. Jason received a first-class honours degree, and won the Julian Hunka prize for a thesis in Dynamics/Kinematics (1995).
It is most important that my role in the development of the teaching innovations described here is clear. I have a very close working relationship with Prof. Brian Stone, and consequently it is not always possible to say who had the ideas that make a certain innovation work. Also, when applying for funds and we have been extraordinarily successful so far we write jointly. Prof. Stone will usually write a draft application, and I will revise it. However, as he has said, the finished application is often quite different from his conception of it. I am anxious to demonstrate that I have shown initiative in many of these developments, but I do not wish to reduce the credit that is due to my colleagues.
In August 1992 Prof. Stone approached me, knowing that I needed work and had some programming ability, and we wrote our first application to the CAUT, An interactive course in First-Year Engineering Dynamics. During this first year of work (1993) we concentrated on improving student understanding of the concepts of dynamics by the use of moving, interactive illustrations embedded in a book-like context. I defined my role as not only a programmer, but also a source of ideas and academic insight. The simulation software and accompanying text are now in use in seven universities in Australia and one in New Zealand.
Our second application to the CAUT, Self assessment and fault correction in engineering dynamics using graphical means, sprang from an idea by Rodney Entwistle of Curtin University. The original intention of this work was to extend the simulation software written in 1993 to allow the student to test themselves in a graphical way. However, during 1994 it became clear to all of us working on the project that we could be using our skills and the grant money to attempt something completely new in terms of course structure. Prof. Stone returned from a study tour of Australia, the UK and USA, and guided by his observations we devised a unique tutorial system.
The details of this system can be found in several of our publications. I had a great deal of input both in designing the form of the tutorial system and actually writing the code that makes it all work. The system replaces the traditional tutorial component of the Engineering 100 (dynamics) course at UWA, and makes it possible for four teaching staff to do what 14 had previously done, with equivalent learning outcomes and better student satisfaction (see Teaching Evaluations, below).
In late 1994 I was also closely involved in a successful application to the University Initiatives Fund of UWA, Towards 100% Pass rates: an initiative to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of a first-year Engineering course. This grant was used to upgrade equipment in the Mathematics Computing Laboratory at UWA.
The new tutorial system has been used since March 1995. I have been central to the maintenance and further improvement of the system during this time, as well as studying its effectiveness and the response of the students. The system has attracted attention from universities in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and China. Prof. Stone and I will be travelling in June and July 1996 to liaise with interested groups in these places.
Our 1995 CAUT grant, Open-ended and evolving laboratories for first-year dynamics, was to produce three laboratory exercises with a particular flavour. Again I took an active part in writing the grant application, and supervising the development of one of the experimental rigs.
Our application to the CAUT for the 1996 calendar year was also successful. This work, entitled How WOULD you solve this?: teaching high-level problem-solving skills by requiring many outline solutions, will extend the current computer-mediated tutorial system so that students can enter not only answers, but also sequences of solution stages required to get to the answer.
No other Department in Australia has received four CAUT grants. The same development team has applied for a fifth grant but the outcome is not yet known.
Table 1: Summary of successful grant applications I have helped to write
|
Year |
Fund |
Abbreviated Title |
Amount |
|
1993 |
CAUT |
An Interactive Course... |
$48k |
|
1993 |
AUDF (Apple Universities Development Fund) |
$8k |
|
|
1994 |
CAUT |
Self Assessment and Fault Correction... |
$41k |
|
1995 |
CAUT |
Open-ended and Evolving Laboratories... |
$43k |
|
1995 |
UIF |
Towards 100% Pass Rates |
$150k |
|
1996 |
CAUT |
How WOULD you solve this... |
$41k |
In 1996 I introduced a new type of teaching to Prof. Stones lecture series in first-year Engineering Dynamics. Since performance in the subject is ultimately measured by written examinations I reasoned that students should be familiar with the process by which examinations are marked, and should know the common types of error. Therefore I began presenting actual student solutions in the lectures, marking them out loud and pointing out the difficulties that many students encountered. It remains to be seen whether this innovation will lead to a real reduction in the incidence of these errors; however it has been well received by students so far.
My personal teaching philosophy includes
The comments below are taken from SPOT (Student Perceptions Of Teaching) surveys in response to the question What aspects of the course do you feel were the best?. Note that the survey forms were about the teaching of Prof. Brian Stone and did not mention me by name at all.
Survey of June 1994
"Clear, logical, well presented; heaps of examples; tutor (Nathan) v. helpful."
"The use of animation; the enthusiasm of Prof. Stone & Nathan Scott."
Survey of June 1995, class using new computer-aided tutorial system:
In response to the question I prefer computer-based tutorials to [ordinary] ones, the approval rating was 3.97 out of 5.
"The interest shown by Brian Stone in my progress throughout the course (as well as Nathan Scott)."
"The computer-based tutes were good [because] you had to finish all the questions to get to the assessed, [which meant] more practice; Prof. Stone was very enthusiastic and Nathan Scott was extremely helpful and understanding."
"Tutorial method good, better than statics, better than last year; Dynamics gets [five stars]."
"Nathan Scott is invaluable as far as tutorial advice goes; student groups have developed, which is terrific; social skills have been essential; good stuff."
"Prof. Stone's enthusiasm and knowledge of the subject; help provided by Nathan Scott and others in the Maths Lab."
Survey of November 1996
181 responses were recorded. Most of the survey pertained to the
teaching of Prof. Stone; only the following three questions were
specifically about my teaching:
SPOT survey for Engineering Design 213
Current member of HERDSA.
I am working with several groups and individuals to implement or extend the teaching innovations I have helped to develop: