As Engineers we are experimental and pragmatic. We do not think, "what can we do next in accordance with X theory?", we think, "what can we do to fix problem Y?".

Our philosophy, such as it is, comes from Piaget and Jung:

1. That learning should be immersive. Language is best learned in an environment where that language is in constant use. Engineering dynamics is best learned in a room full of people who are all talking about it. How do we get them to do that? By setting them lots of problems at an appropriate level, in one place at one time.
2. That students are not just individuals, they also form learning groups at various scales. There are short-term collaborations that happen in the tutorial room. There is also a sense in which the whole class develops over time: it has a mood, it has a communal level of understanding, it has (or lacks) social cohesion. The class-as-collective-being can be felt while giving a lecture. If I say something that the class as a whole does not understand, it is like a ripple passing over the surface of water – you can almost feel the anxiety generated.

ORIGIN OF THE LEARNING DESIGN
Professor Stone visited Professor Burks Oakley of UIUC in 1994. Burks had set up a tutorial system for his students in the subject of Electronics. His system was networked but not diagnostic i.e. it made no attempt to identify specific errors in wrong answers.

TIMES THE LEARNING DESIGN HAS BEEN USED

• In Engineering, both semesters every year since 1995. Roughly 500 students per year.
• In Maths, both semesters every year since second semester 1995. Up to 1000 students per year.
• In Medicine, since 1997, up to 1000 students per year. This development uses the FlyingFish server but is actually a very different learning design (and one worthy of a separate document!).

Several other universities now run Jellyfish/FlyingFish servers, mainly in Engineering Dynamics subjects.

Griffith University has an active development based on this design, in Physics.

MODIFICATIONS SINCE FIRST USE
In the first version of this system (Brother), students used HyperCard on Macintosh computers, and the central server used the Mac printer network (the Web had not been invented!).

The second version was web-based with a Macintosh web server as the host (Starfish, 1997 and 98).

A UNIX version (Jellyfish) was implemented in second semester 1995 by Dr Kevin Judd, with custom additions for the Maths courses.

The current main version (FlyingFish) has been in use since 1999 and continues to evolve.

We could not resist moving to the Web! Subsequent change and development has been mainly to add new features required by new educational approaches. For example the use in Medicine is quite different from that in Engineering and new problem types and database features were added.

DISSEMINATION
The design has been applied at several sites. Curtin University – and several others - run a direct copy of the Dynamics problem set. As mentioned above, there is a large development in Maths, specifically courses in Calculus, Statistics and Linear Algebra.

The server itself, FlyingFish, is very flexible and developments have started in many areas. There are active developers at UWA in medicine, Agriculture and Science. However these developments probably should be seen as separate learning designs. For example the Medical version has quite a few "human marked" assessments, and the Fish is used as a bookkeeping rather than an assessment device.

RESEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE DESIGN
Nathan Scott's PhD work was to study the effectiveness of our tutorial system as it was in 1995. The full text may be seen at http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/nws/NWS_PhD/

The main findings were that

• learning outcomes were the same or better with the new system;
• money can be saved provided the course is not changed for five years or so;
• the social dimensions of learning are very important.

DESIGN EFFECTIVENESS VERSUS INTENDED OUTCOMES
I think the students are learning about as well, or perhaps slightly better, than they did under the previous approach (small class tutorials).

UNEXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES
When we first used online tutorial systems, in 1995, we had no clear idea about collaborative behaviour. Within a few days of starting, however, it was obvious to us that students were going to work very closely together on the problems. We thought about this and decided to encourage it – I still think this was the correct response. Nearly all collaborative behaviour is helpful for learning, and students can be trained to recognize the few cases when it is not helpful (e.g. when one student is just taking answers from another).

HOW LEARNER ENGAGEMENT IS SUPPORTED
Are learner expectations identified and built upon?
No.

Are learners’ prior experiences taken into account?
No. However in some years we have administered a standard non-assessed "entry" test (the Baseline Mechanics Test) which always reveals a generally poor level of fundamental dynamics knowledge.

Do learners experience key concepts in multiple ways?
Yes. The important concepts return again and again in the problem set and the past exams. Where possible we also illustrate them with simple physical demonstrations in the lectures.

Is there opportunity for peer interaction and feedback?
Definitely. Students work together and hammer out a solution to each problem. They also have the shared experience of the Forum (although students are anonymous to each other online).

Do the assessment tasks support engagement?
Students work very attentively and hard while they are in the lab, trying to get the expected answers. I think this is quite addictive because of the instant feedback. This is something they don’t often get.

Are learners encouraged to reflect on their learning experience?
We tell them to think about how they are making use of their collaborative learning experiences. I don’t think many of them understand what we mean. So we put it bluntly and say, "Remember that you will be ALONE in the exam!". As for reflection on what has been learnt, no, not really. A good mark in the exam is enough for them and us.

Are learners given a sense of control in conducting the activities?
We encourage them to tell us when they have an idea for change, and we always run an anonymous written survey at the end, which has a place for comments. On a day-to-day basis they communicate by the Forum and email so we quickly hear about any ideas for change.

Does the learning experience engage students affectively?
I think some students can become frustrated while working on the problems. This is acceptable up to a point – Engineering professionals have to learn to deal with frustration in technical matters. Many students have an emotional reaction to the assessed problems: either a "YESSSS" when the correct answer is accepted, or an "ARRRRGGGG" when marks are taken away.

On a deeper level, I think most of our students will remember the course fondly because of the teaching of Professor Stone. A typical comment from the survey is, "Stoners is a legend".

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LEARNING CONTEXT
Do the activities link both specifically to the field of study/professional practice and consider the broader context (such as social, political, economic, and environmental) circumstances?
The subject is an introductory course in a narrow technical field. It does not set out to address those larger questions. Examples are drawn from real engineering fields such as aviation and road accidents.

The consequences of incorrect reasoning are strongly emphasized. If a student makes a serious error, we might say, "Well, the bridge you just designed has collapsed and you are now being interviewed on Channel 9".

Do assessment tasks match the intended learning outcomes?
The examination is a good measure of competence in the technical areas.

Does the learning design assist students to see how their learning can be used in other situations than the ones given?
Not explicitly.

Are there cultural assumptions built into the learning design?
Not intentionally. However in reality many assumptions are made; perhaps they must be made. Our approach and material are designed for students from a specific, narrow range of backgrounds: school leavers from Western Australia. On the other hand, students from other countries have taken our courses and seem to do quite well.

HOW THE LEARNING DESIGN CHALLENGES LEARNERS
Are students given the opportunity to question their knowledge and experience thus becoming self-critical of the limits of their knowledge base and their assumptions?
This is an important part of our teaching approach. Students enter our courses with many incomplete or, frankly, incorrect ideas about motion. It is part of our intention to challenge them with situations they cannot explain.

Does the learning setting assist students to go beyond the resources provided for them?
Not really. In fact we try to provide everything the students need close to hand. The students in this course have quite enough to do without also having to look for resources.

Are students able to make decisions about planning, directing and assessing their own learning?
They are able, but many of them do not do it well. Some leave all assessed work until the last possible moment, and then complain when the computer lab is too full to find a seat. We respond to these observations by changing the form of the tutorial system to cope with "Student Nature". For example our deadlines are now "staggered" to reduce the peak load on the physical and computing resources.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRACTICE
Are students encouraged to articulate and demonstrate to themselves and to others what they are learning?
Yes. Students are told to work together as much as possible i.e. NOT to work at home by modem. We also tell them that the best way to learn something can be to explain it to someone else.

Is sufficient practice provided to enable expertise to be realised?
Yes – provided it is attempted in the right spirit. A student who tries only to get the answers, without really working at Why, will not get much from the problem set. Most students do have an encounter with "Why", however.

Does the learning design help students to apply criteria that indicate they are learning appropriately?
No, in fact some students end up in a deceived state just before the exam. They solve all the tutorial problems in a superficial way and assume they know the subject. They do not bother to try past exams (or they would have a shock!). Then they get into the exam and find they can’t even start the problems. We warn them about this in the lectures but some just don’t listen.

Is appropriate feedback available at key points in the learning process?
Feedback is provided very frequently, when students submit answers to problems. However I am not sure whether it is appropriate or not. I see a great deal of poor working in log books and it is clear that the students need more feedback about this. After all, it is the main skill assessed in the Exam. It is a question of resources.

Is there a clear alignment between the activities conducted and how the students are assessed?
Our dynamics problem set has answers of the form "number units" e.g. "3.2 m/s". We have cases where students have worked for hours on a problem, and their working is correctly structured, but there is some arithmetic error that staff can’t find. Students do focus very much on the answer and they don’t relax until they get it. This is in stark contrast to the assessment approach in the exams – where the bulk of marks are at stake. In the exams 18/20 is given for correct equations and reasoning and only 2/20 is given for a correct numerical answer.