150 likes | 227 Views
A Course on Multimedia QoS Networking: Development and Evaluation of On-Campus Offering. Martin Reisslein, Jana Reisslein, Patrick Seeling, and Hyo-Sik Yang Arizona State University. Multimedia QoS Networking. Examples: Audio, Video Streaming over Internet
E N D
A Course on Multimedia QoS Networking:Development and Evaluation ofOn-Campus Offering Martin Reisslein, Jana Reisslein, Patrick Seeling, and Hyo-Sik Yang Arizona State University
Multimedia QoS Networking • Examples: Audio, Video Streaming over Internet • Requires stringent Quality of Service (QoS) from network • Active area of research for over a decade • Sophisticated understanding of underlying principles
On-campus Offering • This talk: course structure for on-campus offering + evaluation • Companion talk: transformation to hybrid on-campus/DL format + evaluation • Key challenge: rapidly evolving area • Want balance between fundamental principles and current trends • Course Structure: 1) Lecture, 2) Topic Exploration, and 3) Paper Critique
Course Philosophy • Balanced Instruction • Basic underlying principles of multimedia QoS networking • Fundamental development constraints • Main, widely accepted approaches and protocols • Current Trends and Development • Up-to-date overview of research • Identify open issues, develop own res. topics • Accessible with Introductory Networking course
Lecture • Approx. 40% of class contact time • Focus: fundamental underpinnings, also some research methods. • Research Methods: lit. search, technical writing. • General MM netw. Concepts: QoS constraints, timing constraints • General QoS netw. Concepts: IntServ, DiffServ, CDNs • Appl. Layer: RTP, RTCP, RTSP, SIP • Transp. Layer: Stream Control Trans. Protocol • Netw. Layer: multicast routing, traffic engineering • Link Layer: packet sched., wireless link sched.
Topic Exploration • 30% of class contact time • Mostly current trends/developments, also some expansion on basic principles • Components: • Topic Exploration Paper • Student Presentation (22-25 mins) • Instructor-led Discussion (relate to underlying principles from lecture) • Topic Expl. Review and Assessment (quiz completed be presenter’s fellow students)
Paper Critique • Components, 1 paragraph each: • Summary of paper • Contributions to state-of-the-art • Strengths of paper • Weaknesses of paper • 3 addl. Refs. Paper could/should have cited + justification • Select papers from cross-section of current research (plus a few seminal papers on fundamentals)
Paper Critique Discussion • Approx. 30% of class contact time • Aligned with paper critique structure • Opening statement by one student • Instructor-moderated follow-up • Foci: • relationship of critiqued paper to existing literature • areas/question unexplored
Evaluations • Fall 2003, on-campus, 8 students • Fall 2004, hybrid, 12 students • Course Survey • 5-point Likert scale • strongly agree = 5, strongly disagree = 1 • Also, official school course survey, student interviews, evaluation of student work
Course Activities • Writing paper critiques, M = 4.81, SD = 0.39 • Writing Topic Exploration paper, M = 4.76, SD = 0.44 • Instructor lecture, M = 4.71, SD = 0.59 • Discussion of paper critiques, M =4.65, SD = 0.61 • Presentation of Topic Expl., M =4.53, SD = 1.07 • Solving Topic Expl. review set, M = 4.0, SD = 1.06
Course Structure • Key: <10% = 1, 20-40% = 2, 40-60% = 3, 60-80% = 4, > 80% = 5 • Instructor lecture, M = 2.41, SD = 0.62 => approx. 38% • Paper critique discussion, M = 2.0, SD = 0.61 => approx. 30% • Presentation of Topic expl., M = 1.94, SD = 0.66 => approx. 30%
Course Delivery &Learning Resources • Emphasize face-to-face + online reading/assignments, M = 4.0, SD = 1.0 • Exclusive face-to-face, M = 2.88, SD = 0.7 • Entirely online, M = 1.59, SD = 0.87 • Course notes handout, M = 4.35, SD = 0.49 • Sample paper critiques, M = 4.24, SD = 0.75 • Instructor slides (content), M = 4.18, SD = 0.81 • Textbook, M = 3.76, SD = 1.15
Content, Instructor, Peers • Worthwhile class, M = 4.71, SD = 0.47 • Useful for M.S./Ph.D. thesis, M = 4.53, SD = 0.72 • Quality of instruction, M = 4.76, SD = 0.44 • Discussions with peers, M = 4.12, SD = 0.60 • Learned from peer interaction, M = 3.47, SD = 1.12 • Workload, F’03: M = 1.0, F’04: M = 1.27
Open-ended comments from N = 17 students • Liked Best • In-class discussion of critiqued papers, 9 • Topic exploration, 4 • Intro to research methods, 3 • Overview of wide range of current research, 3 • Liked Least • Scheduled class time (early morning), 2 • Online communication, 1
Conclusion • Design and assessment of course on Multimedia QoS Networking • Balance between underlying principles and current research trends • Assessment confirms preference for 40% lecture, 30% student presentation, 30% critique discussion structure • Useful structure for courses integrating current research