TEE BEE’ELGFMENT OF A CQMPUTERHED MODEL
FOR TEKCHING EfiGENEERING STATECS

A Dissefloflon
§or Hie Degree of p}! D.

EICBiGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
John William Johnson

19174

 

 

 

 

' ‘I
I

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled‘ .

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A comerfikgm MODEL

FOR TEACHING ENGINEERING STATICS

presented by

JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PHD' degree in HIGHER EDUCATION

 

   

divé/ ;

Major professor

Date 42114127?”

0-7639

 

 

 

 

 

l girl/I

 

that
rapic
anal)

indiv

ABSTRACT

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTERIZED MODEL
FOR TEACHING ENGINEERING STATICS
BY

John William Johnson

A.means was sought in this study of demonstrating
that a digital computer could be employed to make a
rapid, thorough, and efficient check of a student's
analysis and synthesis in problem-solving courses with
individualized feedback.

It was the purpose of this study to develop a
computer related instructional model capable of checking
a student's analysis and synthesis of a broad range of
statics problems on an individualized basis. The research
was guided by the following objectives: (1) the devel-
0pment of the model would follow a systems analysis and
design approach which would serve as a basis for the
development of additional models for other problem-solving
courses; (2) the student would be given the opportunity
to address his attention solely to the analysis and
synthesis portions of problem-solving by being relieved

of the mechanics of calculations; (3) selection of the

computer
tranSpor
evaluate
The
educatio
in its c
an IBM 3
would ac.
core ava.
be used,
able for
required
and eithc
Ext]
model to
and SYStE
(3) the E
(4) the F
statics,
The
Statics F
was Fermi
for the S
meending

Called th

JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON

computer and computer language would be based on maximum
transportability of the model; (4) the model would be
evaluated for preper operation and educational impact.

The model was developed so it could be used by any
educational institution with a relatively low investment
in its computer hardware system. It was developed on
an IBM 360-22 computer, but any digital computer which
would accept Basic Fortran IV and had 16K(decimal) of
core available for the model plus system overhead could
be used, with minor modifications, if means were avail-
able for overlaying subroutines. No terminals were
required, any standard statics textbook could be used,
and either the vector or scalar approach was permitted.

Extreme caution was taken in the development of the
model to be certain that: (1) data capture was simple
and systematic; (2) very little keypunching was required;
(3) the program could easily be debugged by the student;
(4) the program would not interfere with the learning of
statics.

The model was a simulation of the solution of a
statics problem. Any two- or three-dimensional problem
was permitted if only one free-body diagram was required
for the solution, except problems with friction at
impending motion. The student entered pertinent data and

called the appropriate subroutines to perform the required

calculati
gave the
in the fc
synthesis

It V
student \
and/or a
students
consiste
in an en
computer
Populati
Student:
not Com:

St

Culty

JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON

calculations. The computer then solved the problem and
gave the student feedback (both positive and negative)

in the form of diagnostics concerning his analysis and

synthesis.

It was assumed that the model could be used by a
student with no previous experience with a keypunch
and/or a computer. Therefore, two pOpulations of
students were used in testing the model. One population
consisted of eight sophomore engineering students, enrolled
in an engineering statics class, who had completed a
computer course in Fortran IV programming. The second
population consisted of twenty-seven freshmen technology
students, enrolled in a technology statics class, who had
not completed a computer course in Fortran IV programming.

Students' attitudes toward the computer related
instructional model were measured by administering a
pre-test and post-test to both populations.

Engineering and technology students agreed that:

(1) little keypunching was required; (2) no previous
experience with a keypunch was necessary to effectively
use the model; (3) previous experience with a computer
was necessary or at least desirable; (4) the model did
not interfere with the learning of statics.

The engineering students experienced little diffi-

culty using the model, considered the diagnostics to be

valuable,
themodel
a valuable
mieffect:
tematic ll
not agree
items.
When
who taugh
were cert
from the
probleuns
Students,
Addi
model has
fricthn
two 01. NC
experimer
an exper:
mEnt eff,
Shou1d b.
area of .
groups a
Should b

achierm

JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON

valuable, found the program easy to debug, considered
the model a good teaching tool, considered the model

a valuable asset to learning, and considered the model
an effective means of helping them to become more sys-
tematic in problem-solving. The technology students did
not agree with the engineering students on any of these
items.

When the experiment ended, both faculty members
who taught the technology class emphasized that they
were certain their students would have gained much more
from the model if they had been required to turn in all
problems assigned as was required of the engineering
students.

Additional experiments should be conducted when the
model has been further developed to include problems with
friction at impending motion and problems which require
two or more free-body diagrams for the solution. The
experiments should be designed with a control group and
an experimental group in such a way that the only treat-
ment effect would be the use of the model. An instrument
should be developed to measure achievement in the cognative
area of learning which would be administered to both
groups at the end of the experiments. The test results
should be used to determine significant differences in

achievement of the two groups.

sis. 1’.
compare
using t
if the

from th

JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON

A further study should include a cost-benefit analy-
sis. A cost analysis of the use of the model should be
compared with increases in student achievement when
using the model. The analysis would be used to determine
if the added cost when using the model could be justified

from the added benefits the students would realize.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTERIZED MODEL

FOR TEACHING ENGINEERING STATICS

BY

John William Johnson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1974

Chapter

I

II

III

Chapter

I

II

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE P ROBLEM O O O O O O C O O O O O O 0

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statement

of the Problem . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . .

Importance of the Study . . . . . . . .

Operational Definitions . . . . . . . .

Overview .

REVIEW OF

RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . .

Background of CAI . . . . . . . . . . .

Problems Associated with CAI . . . . . .

Recommendations to Improve CAI . . . . .

NSF Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF

Section I:

THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . .

Development of the Model . .

Problem Recognition . . . . . . . .

Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . .

Goals and Objectives . . . . .
Information System's Blueprint
Major Equipment Decision . . .

ii

Page

11
12

14

15

15
l7
19
21

24

24
25
26
26
27

3O

Chapte

Ki?

Chapter

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Implementation Planning . .

Traditional Information System
Redesign - . . . . . . . . . .

Scope and Objectives - - . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . .
Specifications - - - . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation - . . . . . .
Information System Mechanization

Information System Modification -

Section II: Student and Faculty Analysis

Popu1ations o o o o o o o o o . o o
Instrumentation - . - . . . . . .
Data Collection - - . - - . . . .

Analysis of the Data - - - - - -
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . - . .
summary 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page
35

37
37
39
46
50
65
68
68
70
7O
70
72

72

77

89

94

94

97

Chapte

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

Chapter Page

Implications for Further Development
and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

GENEm REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 lo 3

iv

Table

10
ll
l2
l3

14

15

16

17

Table

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

LIST OF TABLES

Estimates of the Volumes of Data Required . . .
Ratings of Computer Systems . . . . . . . . . .

Data Structures Noted in the Function
Flowchart for Stage I of the Analysis . . . .

Tabulation of Data for Concentrated Forces,
Designated: FORCES: Concentrated . . . . . .

Tabulation of Data for Points and Lines,
Designated: PTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tabulation of Data for Distributed Forces,
Designated: DLOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tabulation of Data for Moments and Couples,
Designated: COUPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tabulation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arrays Used in the Information System . . . . .
Student Introduction to Subroutines . . . . . .
Core Required for Subroutines and Main Program

Pre-test Results for Engineering Students
in category 1 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 0

Post-test Results for Engineering Students
in category 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Pre-test Results for Technology Students
in Category 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Post-test Results for Technology Students
in Category 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Faculty Questionnaire . . . . . . .

Page
30

36

44

51

51

52

52
53
55
64
68

69

79

80

81

82

88

Table

18

19

20

21

LIST OF TABLES

(continued)
Table Page
18 Summary of the Analysis of the Data for
Engineering Students' Pre-test and
POSt-tESt o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 90
19 Summary of the Analysis of the Data for

Technology Students' Pre-test and Post-
teSt O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 91

20 Summary of the Analysis of the Data for
Engineering and Technology Students'
Pre-teSt o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 92

21 Summary of the Analysis of the Data for

Engineering and Technology Students'
POSt-teSt o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 93

vi

Figur

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Flowchart of the Solution to a Problem . . . . 7

2 Function Flowchart for Stage I of the
AnaIYSis O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O o O 44

3 Flowchart of All Possiblities When
Subroutine MFGRR Solves the Matrix . . . . . 61

4 Operational Flowchart for Stage I of the
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

vii

Appendi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A Student and Faculty Instruments . . . . . . 105
B User's Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llO

viii

many
of t.
Sali:
use c
and j
perfc
PaYrc
Ancil
simpl
fUnct
Can a
“auth

inst}:

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Background

 

The uses of the computer in support of education are
many, and the field is rapidly expanding. Proliferation
of terminology has been one result of this rapid growth.
Salisbury has suggested three functional areas for the
use of computers by educators: administrative; ancillary;
and instructional. The administrative functions are those
performed in direct support of the administrator such as
payroll, record keeping, scheduling, and counseling.
Ancillary applications are those in which the computer is
simply a tool for problem—solving. The instructional
functions serve the "learner" element of the system and
can augment or replace the "materials," "monitor" and/or
"author-teacher' elements. Salisbury further divides the
instructional applications as follows:

a. Computer-Administered Instruction (CAI): A
man-machine interaction in which the teaching
function is accomplished by a computer system
without intervention of a human instructor.

Both training material and instructional logic
are stored in computer memory. (Also referred
to pOpularly as computer—assisted instruction.)

b. Computer-Supported Instruction (CSI): All
computer applications in support of instruction
in which the computer is used by a human in-

structor to assist him in the accomplishment

1

Comp
written 1
tutorial:
and probl
defines 6

Use
moni
tas}
a p1
This
var:
unde

Salisburj

The
and
mat.
stu«
gen.
rat‘
dri
tut
com

The dial

Con
est
EDd
his

\

. 1A1.
‘AS’I'EQmen

net, 197

2
Te A1 a

3Ibi

2

of his instructional objectives; essentially
all uses of the computer as a classroom
training aid.

Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) programs can be
written in any of the following modes: drill and practice;
tutorial; dialogue, conversational, or socratic; simulation;
and problem-solving. The U. 8. Continental Army Command
defines drill and practice as:

Use of the computer to guide, control and
monitor by repetition a specific task or set of
tasks. The purpose of this mode is to develop
a predetermined level of proficiency in a skill.
This proficiency may be changing under a wide
variety of constantly changing conditions or
under a single set of consistent conditions.2

Salisbury has described the tutorial mode as:

The tutorial mode is more complex than the drill
and practice mode in that more instructional
material is presented and more sophisticated
student responses are often called for. It is
generally used for presenting original instruction
rather than supplemental, as in the case of

drill and practice. More than any other, the
tutorial mode exemplifies the augomation by
computer of the programmed text.

The dialogue, conversational, or socratic mode has been

defined as:

Conversational or socratic systems attempt to
establish a two-way dialog between the student
and the machine and allow the student to chart
his own course through material made available

 

1Alan B. Salisbury, "Computers and Education: Toward
Agreement on Terminology," Educational Technology, Septem-
ber, 1971' pp. 35-40.

2Alan B. Salisbury, "An Overview of CAI," Educational
Technology, October, 1971, p. 48.

 

3Ibid., p. 48.

 

t<
W}
plays 2
options
values
informa
the stu
Th1
a mathe:
algoritl
the com;
compute]
CA]
Gustave
t0 teac}
1959, Dc
of 1111,
designed
that CA]
tiVely,
and more

traditic

to him by the computer.4

When the simulation mode is used, the computer dis-
plays an experiment of some real world situation with
Options for varying parameters. The student then specifies
values of the parameters, and the computer processes the
information and presents the results of the simulation to
the student.

The problem-solving mode is used when the student has
a mathematical problem to solve. The student writes an
algorithm to solve the problem, stores the algorithm in
the computer, and gives values of the variables. The
computer then solves the problem and prints the solution.

CAI began in 1958 with the pioneering experiments of
Gustave J. Rath and Nancy Anderson in which they attempted
to teach binary arithmetic on an IBM 650 computer. In
1959, Donald L. Bitzer and his colleagues at the University
of Illinois began to develop PLATO, a CAI system especially
designed to meet the needs of instruction. It was thought
that CAI might offer instruction more cheaply, more effec-
tively, more patiently, and do so in a less regimented
and more individualized way than instruction presented by

traditional approaches.5

 

4J. A. Howard, P. F. Ordung, and R. C. Wood, "On-line
Computer Systems for Engineering Education—-State of the
Art,” IEEE Transactions on Education, V01. E-l4, No. 4,
November,I§7l, p. 210.

 

 

5Lawrence P. Grayson, "CAI: The Fifteen Million Dollar
Experiment," Proceedings--Third Annual Frgntiers in Edu-
cation Conference, IEEE Cat. No. 73 CHO 720-3E, p. 357.

 

 

 

mpioamnm

0

'9 H“

The faj
tance c
process
Ac
rocess
Diagnos
Cause a
minatio

manner
Systema.
Sy;

by tech]

4

Enthusiasm for CAI quickly developed and re-

mained high throughout the 1960's. Hundreds of

programs were written by hundreds of authors at

numerous centers in dozens of computer languages

on a large variety of computers. Programs were

written to teach a variety of subjects such as

physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering,

foreign languages, psychology. statistics,

economics, and many others. Sixteen years after

its inception, however, the promise of CAI as a

powerful and acceptable educational method had

not been fulfilled.
The failure of these early efforts to recognize the impor-
tance of linking computer applications to the learning
process is well documented.7'8

According to Walker and Cotterman, "The learning
process is, in large measure, the recognition of systems."9
Diagnosis, simulation, decision-making, problem-solving,
cause and effect, if-then, input-output, and the deter-
mination of how or why something would operate in a certain
manner are all essential elements in the development of
systematic problem—solving.

Systematic problem-solving is frequently encountered

by technical students and includes analysis, synthesis,

 

61bid., p. 357.

7E. J. Anastasio and D. L. Alderman, "Evaluation of
the Educational Effectiveness of PLATO and TICCIT," Pro-
ceedings--Third Annual Frontiers in Education ConferEHEe,
IEEE Cat. No. 73 CHO 720-3E, p. 382.

8A. M. Mathis, T. Smith, and D. Hansen, "College Stu-
dent's Attitudes Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction,"
JOurnal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 1, February,
I970, p.‘46.

9T. M. Walker and W. W. Cotterman, An Introduction to
Computer Science and Algorithmic Processes, (Boston: AIlyn
and Bacon, 1970), p. 451.

 

and ca.
one of
and tel
ics an<
rigid i
troubll
I
purpos
free-b
forces
gram.
forces
to zer
T

are:

In

Steps

libriU
EXPQri

lems

5
and calculations. Engineering mechanics is recognized as
one of the core subject matter areas of most engineering
and technology educational programs. The study of mechan-
ics and particularly the application of problem-solving to
rigid bodies at rest (statics) has proven to be extremely
troublesome to students.

In the study of statics, a rigid body is selected for
purposes of analysis, and a diagram or sketch, called a
free-body diagram, is then drawn. All of the external
forces and moments acting on the body are shown on the dia-
gram. Equilibrium exists when the sum of the external
forces and the sum of the external moments are both equal
to zero.

The steps required to solve an equilibrium problem
are:

1. read the problem

2. draw a free-body diagram

3. show all external forces and moments which act

on the body

4. apply the principles of equilibrium

5. perform the necessary calculations
Steps one through three comprise the analysis, and step
four is the synthesis of the problem.

From such a sketchy description of statics, it would
seem that students would have little trouble solving equi-
librium problems; however, students have traditionally
experienced a great deal of difficulty working such prob-

lems. By far the greatest problem has been the drawing of

a corr
and mo
was dr
from t
equili
studen

soluti

at a C
matel;
a stud
know v

most (

SYnth

Wit:

6
a correct free-body diagram showing all the external forces
and moments acting on the body. If the free-body diagram
was drawn incorrectly or if the correct data was not used
from the free-body diagram when applying the principles of
equilibrium, no amount of perserverance on the part of the
student during the calculations would yield the correct
solution to the problem.

According to Figure 1, there is only one way to arrive
at a correct solution to a problem, but there are approxi-
mately twenty ways to arrive at an incorrect solution. If
a student arrives at an incorrect solution, how does he
know where to start checking for his error? Although the
most desirable approach is to first check the analysis of
the problem, most students first check their calculations.
In many problems, performing the calculations is the most
time-consuming part of the solution to the problem. Check-
ing the calculations for the problem is still more time-
consuming and does not help the student to arrive at the
correct answer if an error had been made in the analysis
or synthesis of the problem. Students have become so
oriented to finding the correct answer to a problem that
they have lost sight of the importance of the analysis and
synthesis portions of problem—solving. Having expertise
in calculations is commendable, but it is almost useless
without a thorough understanding of analysis and synthesis.

The ability to perform calculations has always been
an essential ingredient in problem-solving. However, when

the calculations become lengthy and repetitive a great deal

 

 

 

 

UUQHHOU CHOU Cfihm MUQQ ENwQ
no»

BUCK
mm» mm; m0»

[1 r _ _ _ F \
ZOHBDJOW

mZOHBANqHDUwHANU WHWWIPFZCfiMU.

 

 

mHMWKAWHd‘ZdN

Ewanoum m 0» :ofiuoaom on» no uuono3on .H onsmflm

 

OZ

 

 

 

uoouuoocH
mucouuou meowuoasoamuuoamo

mucouuoo moamwocwumucwum

 

 

mucouuou ouooumuoo
mucouuou Emummwoummao

no» no» mMAuooHHOU poomuomom
oz

 

Dzmwma

 

 

 

OZ

 

 

 

oz oz oz oz

 

 

voouuoo . oaoo .cdum sumo poem
no» no» no» no» men

 

 

_ _ _ L _ _ _ _

ZOHBDAOm mZOHaflflbuqflu mHmWEBZMm . meMA<z¢

 

of time ‘
at consié

Rudl

stud
the

ACCC

expe
is t
intu
ing
to t
the
the
lose
to t
the

taug
able
prot
Of 1

Jame

nineteem

8

of time can be wasted in performing routine calculations
at considerable cost in learning.

Rudberg has stated:

I think we have all found that the more the
student is freed from the computational mechanics,
the more insight he gains into the problem.10

According to Edwards:

One of the main differences between the
experienced professional and the fresh graduate
is that the experienced man has acquired the
intuitive ability to arrive at a workable engineer-
ing compromise. It is impossible (at the present)
to teach intuition, so we must therefore convert
the process to an analytic one if we are to close
the gap. The ”laborious calculation" approach
loses the student among the trees of calculation
to the extent that the forest goes unseen. Enter
the computer. The student can now manually work
an idealized example to acquire the concept being
taught. With the aid of the computer he is then
able to examine the possible solutions of real
problems and thus acquife a better understanding
of real system design. ‘

James Clerk Maxwell, a British physicist of the

nineteenth century, said:

The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is
certainly never exercising its highest functions,
when it is doing the work of a calculating machine.
What the man of science, whether he is a mathe-
matician or a physical inquirer, aims at is to
acquire and gevelop clear ideas of the things he
deals with.1

 

10D. A. Rudberg, "APL: A Natural Language for Engi—
neering Education," IEEE Transactions on Education,
November, 1971.

11E. M. Edwards, "APL: A Natural Language for Engi—
neering Education Part II: The First Programming Language
Suitable for Engineering Undergraduates," IEEE Transactions

 

 

on Education, November, 1971, p. 179.

12H. H. Goldstine, The Computer from Pascal to von
Nuemann, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972),
p. 34.

It is
more insigl
clearer id«
computer I
to relieve

to concent

It is
solving is
evidence 1
into anal}
Computati.
taltion Wi
are direc
analysis
will Prox

eSted in

The
Velop a

Check inc
r
“Se 01

ll

9

It is essential that the students of the future gain
more insight into the problems they must solve, and a
clearer idea of the things with which they must deal. A
computer related instructional model offers the potential
to relieve the student of computational mechanics in order

to concentrate on analysis and synthesis.

Statement of the Problem

 

It is generally recognized that analytical problem-
solving is the basis for engineering analysis. There is
evidence to indicate that students gain broader insights
into analysis and synthesis when freed from detailed
computational methods. There is also need for experimen-
tation with computer related instructional models which
are directly addressable to the learning process. An
analysis and comparison of the method and the information
will provide valuable input to engineering educators inter-

ested in applying innovative instructional techniques.

Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of the proposed study is to de-
velop a computer related instructional model capable of
checking a student's analysis and synthesis of a broad
range of statics problems on an individualized basis. The
following objectives will guide the research:
1. The development of the model will follow a systems
analysis and design approach which will serve as a
basis for the development of additional models for

other problem-solving courses.

10
2. The student will be given the opportunity to
address his attention solely to the analysis and
synthesis portions of problem-solving by being
relieved of the mechanics of calculations.
3. Selection of the computer and computer language
will be based on maximum transportability of
the model.

4. The model will be evaluated for proper operation

and educational impact.

The model will be evaluated at two levels. First, the
basic computer program will be tested to verify that it
will operate as specified. All computer calculations will
have to function properly, the diagnostics will have to
function properly when a student makes an error in analysis
and/or synthesis, and the length of the program will have
to meet the specifications.

Second, the model will be tested to obtain attitudinal
information from two student populations who will use the
model and from faculty members involved in the teaching.
One student population will be composed of engineering
students, and the other will be composed of technology
students. A ten-item questionnaire for faculty members
and a pre-test and post-test for the student pOpulations
will be used to obtain attitudinal information to determine

the educational impact of the model.

In 1:
principle
student t
generally
would lili
errors.
Problems
reproducc
Still Sp:

The
comprehe
of the p
Whether
incorrec
analysis
Calculat

Step in

analy'si
dents t
calcllla
the ana
This CC
transfc
wQUId 3
Peri-Orr

howeVe .

11

Importance of the Study

In problem oriented courses, students are taught new
principles and assigned problems for homework. If the
student has anything with which to check his work, it is
generally simply the answer to the problem. Many students
would like someone to check their work and find their
errors. This is seldom done because of the time required.
Problems can be explained in class or solutions can be
reproduced and given to the student, but the student must
still spend time finding just where his error occurred.

The computer related instructional model will make a
comprehensive check of the student's analysis and synthesis
of the problem. The diagnostics will inform the student
whether the solution is correct (positive feedback) or
incorrect (negative feedback). If the student finds his
analysis and synthesis are correct, he can perform the
calculations for the problem and have a check for each
step in the entire solution.

Faculty members are aware of the importance of
analysis and synthesis. Many would like for their stu—
dents to learn to set-up a problem without performing the
calculations. Setting-up a problem consists of performing
the analysis and synthesis portions of problem-solving.
This consists of taking a problem written in words and
transforming it into mathematical relationships which
would yield a solution when appropriate calculations were
performed. The faculty generally do not have the time,

however, to analyze the solutions of all problems assigned

 

for eacl
check WT
and synt

Alt
portant
technolc
acceptan
Educatio

Des
ass

tyr:
Imp
men
in
to
The
the affe

attitudi

§X§

3161'}, mac
of profile
a phySiC
Program

Ration t

12
for each student. They definitely do not have time to
check what was right and what was wrong in the analysis
and synthesis as well as the calculations.

Although cost and technical sophistication are im—
portant factors when considering the use of an innovative
technology, the effects on achievement and educational
acceptance are crucial. Anastasia and Alderman of the
Educational Testing Service have noted:

Despite substantial prior research in computer-

assisted instruction, instructional systems

typically lack detailed information regarding their
impact upon the educational community. The develop-
ment of delivery systems and course materials has,
in most cases, proceeded without adequate attention
to their educational effectiveness.1

The collection of detailed information concerning

the affective domain of learning will provide important

attitudinal information related to educational impact.

Operational Definitions

 

System describes any set of interacting and/or inter-
related items, and the dynamic process of interaction
among these system components.

Information system is the interrelationship between

 

men, machines, operations, and documents for the purpose
of processing or reporting information. It is a model of
a physical system, and consists of data structures and

program structures. The program structure is the infor-

 

mation that defines the transformation to be performed

 

13Anastasio, p. 382.

on the 1:
related
form.
A <1
forms tra
An 5
solve a 1
procedurl
A 9
language
The
factors
System,
EELS an
Sl’Stems
A33
“'hOle in
5%
Elements
The
Problem
definiti
Systems
Q
Sir
Q

have be
6

13

on the information, and the data structure is the problem-

 

related information that the program structure is to trans—

form.

A digital computer is a device which stores and per-

 

forms transformations upon information systems.

An algorithm is a procedure which is utilized to

 

solve a problem in a finite number of steps where the
procedure consists of an ordered set of unambiguous rules.

A computer program is an algorithm coded in a computer

 

language.

The systems approach takes into account all of the

 

factors or interrelationships relevant to the subject, or

system, under study. The recognition of critical relation-

 

ships and significant variables is an important part of

 

systems analysis and design.

Analysis consists of the separation of a substantial

 

whole into constituents for individual study.

Synthesis consists of the combining of the separate

 

elements to form a coherent whole.

The function of systems analysis and design includes

 

problem recognition, the formulation of objectives, systems
definition, analysis, design, planning, and control of
systems implementation.

Time-sharing is the concurrent, effective utilization

 

of a single computer by multiple users.

Canned subroutines refers to those subroutines which

 

have been developed for a particular purpose and are

stored 0
needs th
The
is in su
referenc
An

cal loca

A r
instruct
will des
lations.
the data
be pres:
study, a
for fur;

Chapter

l4
stored on the disk of a computer for use by anyone who
needs them.

The output of a computer program is a hard copy if it

 

is in such a form that a person can keep it for further
reference.

An in-house computer is a computer at the same physi—

 

cal location as the user.

Overview

 

A review of literature relating to computer-assisted
instruction will be presented in Chapter II. Chapter III
will describe the design of the study including the popu—
lations, instrumentation, and a brief discussion of how
the data will be analyzed. The analysis of the data will
be presented in Chapter IV. Finally, the findings of the
study, a discussion and recommendations, and implications
for further development and research will be presented in

Chapter V.

The
backgrou
tions to
M50 inc.
tion (NSI

the futu:

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The review of related literature includes a brief
background of, problems associated with, and recommenda—
tions to improve Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI).

Also included is a discussion of a National Science Founda-
tion (NSF) experiment now in progress which may determine

the future of CAI.

Background of CAI

 

On-line computer-assisted instruction became feasible
with the development of the high speed electronic digital
computer in 1945 and the dataphone in 1958. The basic
operational elements of an on-line CAI system are: a cen-
tral computer which provides the executive communications
control and which encompasses the logic, the rapid-access
memory, and the main data-processing facility for the
system; a computer software system for organizing various
teaching, testing, and research strategies and for speci-
fying the language in which directions to the computer are
to be formulated; the individual student console which
provides the "interface" between man and computer (also
referred to as a student terminal or student station);

management and other professional services in the computer

15

based ed
telephor

between

nals.l4'

Cor.
wit
and
bir.
Don
of

esp
It

Che
in

ins

Ent
hig
wer
cen
var
tea
che
lan
man

16
based education system; communication channels, such as
telephone or microwave cables, which carry information

between the computer and the individual student termi-

na15.14.15.16

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) began in 1958
with the pioneering experiments of Gustave J. Rath
and Nancy Anderson in which they attempted to teach
binary arithmetic on an IBM 650 computer. In 1959,
Donald L. Bitzer and his colleagues at the University
of Illinois began to develop PLATO, a CAI system
especially designed to meet the needs of instruction.
It was thought that CAI might offer instruction more
cheaply, more effectively, more patiently, and do so
in a less regimented and more individualized way than
instruction presented by traditional approaches.

Enthusiasm for CAI quickly deveIOped and remained
high throughout the 1960's. Hundreds of programs
were written by hundreds of authors at numerous
centers in dozens of computer languages on a large
variety of computers. Programs were written to
teach a variety of subjects such as physics,
chemistry, mathematics, engineering, foreign
languages, psychology. statistics, economics, and
many others.1

CAI programs may be written in any of several modes
which include: drill and practice; inquiry; tutorial;
dialogue, conversational, or socratic; simulation; and
problem-solving. As late as 1971, however, Salisbury

observed:

 

14Goldstine, p. 225.

15Richard T. Bueschel, "Time-Sharing - A Pragmatic
Approach in the School," Educational Technology, March,
1970, pp. 21-23.

 

16D. Alpert and D. L. Bitzer, "Advances in Computer-
Based Education," Science, March, 1970, p. 1586.

17Grayson, p. 357.

MO!
th4
re.
sic
re;
50-
we:

Alt
improve
Grayson

Nov
prc
air
A It
mos
dra
mat
wer
hav

Com
3 C
ins
the
the
nev
bee
sch
but
of

17

Most of the CAI systems currently in use (beyond
the experimental or develOpmental phases) are in
reality little more than advanced automated ver-
sions of programmed instruction. As such they

represent a logical evolutionary step beyond the
so-called teaching machines, just as the machines
were a step beyond the simple programmed text. 8

Although many groups continued developmental work to

improve the state-of-the-art of CAI in the early 70's,

Grayson and Stetten concluded in 1973:

many

Now, fifteen years since its inception, the
promise of CAI as a powerful and acceptable
educational method still awaits fulfillment.

A majority of the early experiments are over;
most of the commercial organizations have with-
drawn from the field: the sales market has not
materialized; the large number of students that
were projected to have taken CAI courses by 1973
have not even seen a CAI demonstration.1

Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) has been

a commercial failure. It has failed deepite
instructional research that has demonstrated
the effectiveness of CAI, and at a time when
the problems of traditional instruction have
never been more apparent. CAI systems have
been offered by large companies and small, and
school systems have never had larger budgets,
but the dollars flow toward gontinuing support
of traditional instruction.2

Problems Associated with CAI

 

The commercial failure of CAI has been attributed to

factors. Stetten lists: an initial oversell of its

 

Technology, October, 1971, p. 48.

18Alan B. Salisbury, "An Overview of CAI," Educational

 

 

19Grayson, p. 357.

20Kenneth J. Stetten, "Toward a Market Success for

CAI (An Overview of the TICCIT Program)," Proceedings--
Third Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE Cat.
NO. 73 CHO 720-3E' p. 371.

 

capabili
and unre
to the i
ized str
to tens
individu
Alp
not capa
practica
Present
two and
nal.22v2
Acc
Program
and impl
fortY~ei
ex15>ectsz.
and SCie
of Purpo
Wit
COst-ben
to d°cum
\
21S
22 A

24K

neat.

Ed .
10:

18

capabilities; poorly authored educational content; expensive
and unreliable hardware; an educational bureaucracy resistant
to the intrusion of computers in the classroom; the decentral-
ized structure of the American educational system that leads
to tens of thousands of school systems, each having to be
'individually sold on the idea.21

Alpert claims that the technology of the 1960's was
not capable of making a significant and economically
practical contribution to the nation's educational program.
Present CAI systems entail total costs which range between
two and eleven dollars per student-contact hour at a termi-
nal.22'23

According to Zinn, the current state of instructional
programming languages is characterized by proliferation
and implicit assumptions. He presents a list of some
forty-eight different CAI languages, and states that he
expects less progress toward standards than in business
and scientific programming, because of the great variety
of purpose and process in instructional programming.24

With the increased interest in accountability and
cost-benefit analysis, it has become increasingly important

to document the benefits received when substantial amounts

 

21Stetten, p. 371.
22Alpert, p. 1586.
23Howard, p. 216.

24Karl L. Zinn, ”Instructional Programming Languages,"
Educational Technology, March, 1970, pp. 43-46.

of money a

have point
Despi
Assis
lack
upon
deli‘
case:
thei:
Othe:
CAI's ran
use of co
student (3
hours wri
Manj

be done
Of instr
Nev
fi]
“101
re<
ac?
\
2E
26
What NC
Edljcat‘
2‘

2

by
0 an

A)

19

of money are spent on innovations. Anastasio and Alderman
have pointed out:

Despite substantial prior research in Computer-

Assisted instruction, instructional systems typically

lack detailed information regarding their impact

upon the educational community. The development of

delivery systems and course materials has, in most

cases, proceeded without adequats attention to

their educational effectiveness. 5

Other factors include: an uncertainty concerning
CAI's range of application;26 many people thought that the
use of computers in instruction dehumanized the teacher—
student dialogue;27 authors are required to spend too many

hours writing CAI programs,23p29

Recommendations to Improve CAI
Many suggestions have been made regarding what must
be done if CAI is to become an economically feasible means
of instruction. According to Zinn:
New techniques for preparation of curriculum
files must be developed, techniques which are
more powerful in the sense of fewer author hours

required to write and revise materials which
achieve the subject matter objectives intended.

 

25Anastasio, p. 382.

26Erik D. McWilliams, "The $15M CAI Experiment--
What NSF Expects," Proceedin s--Third Annual Frontiers in
Education Conference, IEEE Cat. No. 73 CH5 726-3E, p. 357.

27Howard, p. 210.

28Herbert S. Diamond, "The Writing of a CAI Program

by an Author New to Computers," Educational Technology,
October, 1971, p. 42.

 

29Zinn, p. 44.

Autl:
div:
in e
Diar
for each
a course
language
that auti
used.32
when dev
twenty s
material
Psycholc
ists, a]
Sold 111
zi
more as
that be
ComPUte
waYs.
used Inc
Bt
to Pro-

\
3

20
Authors cannot often afford the luxury of in-
gividually shaping or tailoring each ling of text
n each frame for each kind of student.

Diamond has suggested that the same format be used
for each lesson when developing and writing programs for
a course.31 Alpert suggests the use of an easily learned
language such as Tutor used for the PLATO IV system, and
that authors receive royalties when their programs are
used.32 Stetten suggests a split of strategy and content
when developing courseware. His group has identified
twenty strategies or logics of instruction. The educational
material (courseware) is developed by teams of instructional
psychologists, subject matter specialists, media special-
ists, and programmers. The entire package would then be
sold like textbooks.33

Zinn further advises that projects use the computer
more as a learning tool than a presentation device, and
that benefits are apt to be considerably greater when the
computer does things which could not be achieved in other
ways. Problem-solving and games and simulation should be
used more.34

Boblick suggests that computer simulations be used

to provide learning experiences which might not be available

 

30Zinn, p. 44.
31Diamond, p. 42.
32A1pert, p. 1589.
33Stetten, p. 372.

to stude
cost or
factors
Bit
educatic
estimate
capital
dent hou
of less

the TICC

The
det
pre
wit;
com:
in .
has
fro:
the:
ser‘
Mit:
hav.
TIC1
filing
and.

21

to students because of factors such as safety, equipment
cost or availability, prohibitive set-up time, or other
factors of cost or convenience.35

Bitzer emphasizes that the cost of computer-based
education must become far lower than it has been, and
estimates that when PLATO IV is fully implemented that
capital and operating costs will be fifty cents per stu-
dent hour at the terminal.36 Stetten estimates a cost

of less than one dollar per student contact hour with

the TICCIT system.37

NSF Experiment

 

The National Science Foundation in an effort to
determine the current problems and opportunities
presented by CAI is supporting a major experiment
within the limited, but specific confines of the
community college setting, and to a lesser extent

in elementary schools. The University of Illinois
has received $5 million of NSF funds, and $5 million
from other sources, to complete the development and
then test PLATO, which, in its present design, will
serve up to 4096 terminals simultaneously. The

Mitre Corporation and Brigham Young University jointly
have received $4 million from NSF to develop and test
TICCIT, a CAI system that will serve up to 128 ter-
minals. The total experiment, which will last four-
and-one-half years and will be completed in 1976,

 

35John M. Boblick, "The Use of Computer Simulations in
the Teaching of High School Physics," Science Education,
V01. 54 I NO. 1 ' Jan-Mar I 1970 ' pp. 77-§Io

 

36Donald L. Bitzer, Bruce Arne Sherwood, and Paul
Tenczar, ”PLATO: Everyone's Answer,” Proceeding§--Third
Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE Cat. No.

75—WO - s, p. 366.

37Stetten, p. 371.

 

 

wil
und
con

The
PLATO IV'
widely 5
large sc

The
dis
the
qua
dis
con
jec
F01

Th

hardwar

22

will be evaluated by the Educational Testing Service
under a $1 million grant from NSF. . . . Its oug-
come may very well determine the future of CAI. 8

The two systems differ significantly in many respects.
PLATO IV is designed as a computing utility to serve 4096
widely scattered student terminals simultaneously from a
large scientific computer system.

The heart of the student terminal is the plasma

display panel, a flat sheet of glass upon which

the computer can light up or turn off any of a

quarter-million dots (in a 512 by 512 grid) to

display text, graphs, and line drawings. The
computer can select color photographs to be pro-
jected on the back of the transparent panel.

For technical reasons, this display device rep-

resents a major advance over previous technology,

including the cathode-ray tube. . . . Authors

write their own materials in the TUTOR language

which is powerful yet easy to learn. . . . When

fully implemented it is estimated that capital

and operating costs will be $0.50 per student

hour at a terminal.39

The TICCIT system is designed to serve a single
institution by using relatively inexpensive minicomputer
hardware. Major innovations include: the use of audio
and color TV displays in the student terminals to provide
voice-accompanied multicolored alphanumeric and graphic
displays (200 by 256 grid), as well as full-color movies;
the use of a pair of minicomputers to provide the neces-
sary computer power in a self—contained system of 128

terminals; the capability to deliver CAI and other socially

 

336rayson, p. 357.
393itzer, p. 360.

relevan
anew a
high-qu
control
hardwar‘
than on«

The

Educatic

23
relevant computer services via cable television to homes;
a new authoring system styled to support the production of
high-quality CAI; a new and innovative use of "learner
control" in CAI; a projected commercial cost including

hardware, equipment maintenance, and CAI programs of less

than one dollar per student contact hour.40

The PLATO and TICCIT systems will be evaluated by the
Educational Testing Service.

The scope of these demonstrations will make
possible the collection of detailed information
which reflects not only the cost and technical
sophistication, but also the effects on achieve-
ment and educational acceptance. Thus the NSF
CAI project extends beyond a developmental
exercise to a study of instructional technology's
impact upon the educational institution, upon
students, teachers, and administrators. The
educational component of the PLATO and TICCIT
evaluations will focus upon the consumers of
educational innovations in order to determine
the practical benefits and problems accompanying
computer-based education.4

 

4oStetten, p. 371.

41Anastasia, p. 382.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The Design of the Study is presented in two sections.
Section I describes the development of the computer related
instructional model and the testing required to make the
model operational. Section II describes the collection and
analysis of student and instructor attitudes concerning the

model.

Section I: Development of the Model

 

A systems analysis and design approach was used in
the development of the model to narrow the scope of the
project. (The computer related instructional model will
be referred to hereafter as the information system, which
is consistent with the terminology used in systems analysis
and design literature.) The approach also provides the
potential for developing similar models for other problem—
solving courses.

The systems analysis and design approach was a modifi—
cation of that proposed by Walker and Cotterman42 and was

divided into the following parts:

 

42Walker, pp. 451-477.

24

It i
501ving i
evidem:e
into anal
Computatil
mentation
Whic}, are!
An analyS
ti“ Win

intereste

 

 

25
1. Problem recognition
2. Feasibility study
a. goals and objectives
b. information system's blueprint
c. major equipment decision
d. implementation planning
3. Traditional information system redesign
a. scope and objectives
b. analysis
c. specifications
d. design
e. implementation
4. Information system mechanization

5. Information system modification

Problem Recognition

 

It is generally recognized that analytical problem—
solving is the basis for engineering analysis. There is
evidence to indicate that students gain broader insights
into analysis and synthesis when freed from detailed
computational methods. There is also need for experi-
mentation with computer related instructional models
which are directly addressable to the learning process.
An analysis and comparison of the method and the informa-
tion will provide valuable input to engineering educators

interested in applying innovative instructional techniques.

The
parts: 9

print; n1

Thu
determi:
an info
check c
statics

were:

26

Feasibility_Study

 

The feasibility study was composed of the following
parts: goals and objectives; information system's blue-

print; major equipment decision; and implementation planning.

Goals and Objectives

 

The basic goal of the feasibility study was to
determine the feasibility of designing and implementing
an information system which would make a comprehensive
check of a student's analysis and synthesis when solving
statics problems. The objectives which guided the study
were:

1. The development of the information system would
follow a systems analysis and design approach
which would serve as a basis for the develop-
ment of additional systems for other problem-
solving courses.

2. The student would be given the Opportunity to
address his attention solely to the analysis
and synthesis portions of problem—solving by
being relieved of the mechanics of calculations.

3. Selection of the computer and computer language
would be based on maximum transportability of
the system.

4. The system would be evaluated for proper Opera—

tion and educational impact.

The
general c
for the 2
steps we:
along wit

One
the info:
items we:
courses \
ments on
with any
taught w:
SYSteUl we
become t1
Scientif:
gnages tn
System We
be aVail.
of COmpu‘
frOm Ver:
Signed f<
be avail:
Many Sta1

becauSe c

27

Information System's Blueprint

 

The blueprint of the information system documented the
general design envisioned and provided a general outline
for the systems analysis and design. General processing
steps were determined, and data structures were specified
along with an estimate of the volume of each.

One of the primary purposes of the study was to make
the information system as transportable as possible. Six
items were considered. Since textbooks used in statics
courses vary from campus to campus and even between depart-
ments on the same campus, the system was designed for use
with any standard statics textbook. Statics classes are
taught with either the vector or scalar approach, so the
system was designed for use with either. Fortran IV has
become the most universally used computer language for
scientific calculations, but a large number of CAI lan-
guages have been develOped for use with a terminal. The
system was designed using a computer language which would
be available at many educational institutions. The sizes
of computer installations in educational institutions vary
from very small to extremely large. The system was de—
signed for use on a relatively small computer so it would
be available to a large number of educational institutions.
Many statics courses are taught primarily in two dimensions
because of the great amount of time required for calcula-
tions when using three dimensions. Since the principles

are the same for either case, the system was designed for

use with
system re
so a new
pemittin
practical
of perfor
system wa
statics p
The
to read a
external
rectangul
designate
the axes ,
RECESsaI-y
finally t
OD Comput
Many
of the Or

the direc

28
use with either two- or three-dimensional problems. The
system required no calculations on the part of the student,
so a new dimension could be added to statics courses by
permitting the student to analyze and synthesize many
practical three-dimensional problems without the necessity
of performing lengthy and repetitive calculations. The
system was also designed for use with a wide variety of
statics problems.

The person using the information system was required
to read a problem, draw a free-body diagram showing all
external forces and moments acting on the body, show a
rectangular coordinate system on the free-body diagram,
designate the location of the origin and the direction of
the axes, take the data from the free-body diagram
necessary to arrive at a solution to the problem, and
finally tabulate the data in suitable form to be punched
on computer cards.

Many textbooks have problems showing the location
of the origin of the rectangular coordinate system and
the directions of the axes, so the system was designed
leaving these items to the discretion of the student.

The information system was developed in three stages.
The first stage was to develop an information system which
would perform the necessary functions to solve the desired
types of problems. The second stage consisted of modifying
the system so that it could easily be debugged by students.

The third stage consisted of modifying the system so it

would mak
ysis and

through t

Stage I
The
following
couples,
lations
the resu
Point ar
forces :
DOments
equatig
knOWn C.
D.‘

lines
the da
and ar

tYpe <

29
would make a comprehensive check of the student's anal-
ysis and synthesis of the problem. Each stage was taken

through the complete analysis and design process.

Stage I

The information system was required to perform the
following functions: read data for forces, moments or
couples, points, and lines; perform the necessary calcu-
lations to transform the data into vector form and store
the results; calculate the moment of a force about a
point and store the result; calculate the sum of the
forces and store the result; calculate the sum of the
moments and store the result; fill a matrix with the
equations of equilibrium; solve the matrix for the un-
known quantities; present the solution.

Data for forces, moments or couples, points, and
lines could be given in various ways. Table 1 shows what
the data was for, the types of data that were permitted,
and an estimate of the elements of data required for each

type of data.

Stage II

Several write statements were included to show the
student just where in the program the execution was being
performed in case the program was prematurely terminated.
The data was read in and then written out for the student

to check whether the data had been entered correctly.

Data for

 

Concentre
Distribut
Moments c
Points
Lines

Stage II]

Seve

check the

The
Campus w
System I

COm

Lan

LOc
SYStem 1

Con

jLat

10c
SYstem J

Ccnw

liar

L0<

30

TABLE 1

ESTIMATES OF THE VOLUMES OF DATA REQUIRED

 

 

Elements of
data required

 

 

 

 

Data for Types for each type
Concentrated forces 6 7
Distributed forces 4 9
Moments or couples 3 3
Points 1 3

Lines 2 6

Stage III

 

Several diagnostics were built into the system to

check the student's analysis and synthesis of the problem.

Major Equipment Decision

 

The computer facilities available at the Fort Wayne
Campus were very good and included the following:
System I:

Computer--IBM 360-22

Language--Basic Fortran IV

Location--Fort Wayne, Indiana (In-house)
System II:

Computer--CDC 6500

Language--Fortran IV

Location--Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
System III:

Computer--CDC 6600

Language--Fortran IV

Location--Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

System IV
Comp
Lang
Loce

System V
Com
Lar
LO<

System ‘

Co

31

System IV:

Computer--CDC 6500 (The PLATO system)

Language--Tutor

Location--University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois
System V:

Computer--CDC 6500

Language-~PLANIT

Location--Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
System VI:

Computer--CDC 6600

Language--PLANIT

Location--Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
System VII

Computer--CDC 6600

Language-~APL

Location--Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

The investigator has had experience writing programs
in all of the computer languages of the seven systems
except the tutor language for the PLATO system. Basic
Fortran IV and Fortran IV have been used when writing
many programs requiring scientific calculations, programs
to process student records, and programs to plot output.
CAI simulation programs concerning heat loss calculations,
which required a mathematical model, were written in APL.
Several CAI simulation programs, which did not require a
mathematical model, concerning trouble-shooting of refrig—

eration systems were written in PLANIT. In the programs,

the stude
finding t
eration 5
union app
trouble—s
an exciti
technicia
The

the advaz
When deve
universa.
PEOple i
sllbl’outi
many Cal
cards ca
into thc
COmDute
Cards a
A}

but th.
Main p
r011tir
jLEI-Ogre
be en

temi

debut

prob

32
the student was permitted to practice his reasoning in
finding the cause of a given malfunction in a refrig-
eration system. Instructors in the local steam fitters
union apprentice program were very impressed with the
trouble-shooting programs. They felt the programs added
an exciting new dimension to the training of refrigeration
technicians.

The following are the investigators views concerning
the advantages and disadvantages of the computer languages
when developing an information system. Fortran IV is the
universal language for scientific calculations, and most
peOple in the scientific field are familiar with it.
subroutines can be called from the main program to perform
many calculations. When a program is being develooed,
cards can be punched on a keypunch and the program fed
into the computer. The program is debugged from the
computer print-out, and corrections are made by repunching
cards and feeding the program back through the computer.

APL is a completely different language from Fortran IV,
but the programs are similar to Fortran programs since a
main program and subroutines can be written with the sub-
routines called from the main program as needed. When the
program is being developed, however, all instructions must
be entered at a terminal, and the program debugged from the
terminal. Although the APL program can be punched in,
debugged, and tested for prOper operation immediately, a
problem can exist if it is difficult to gain access to a

terminal.

FLA
writing
This can
can be p
computer
debugged
is a dis

Tut
very eaSj
the PLATl
an expen
System 13,
graphics

The
the deVe
of this
PLATO Sy
termirlal
and aCce

in the e

33

PLANIT is another completely different language, and
writing a program consists of writing a series of frames.
This can be very awkward and time-consuming. The cards
can be punched on a keypunch, the program fed into the
computer without a terminal, and then the program can be
debugged from the terminal or by repunching cards. This
is a distinct advantage if terminal access is a problem.

Tutor, used with the PLATO system, is claimed to be
very easy to learn. However, the greatest advantage to
the PLATO system is its graphics capabilities. It requires
an expensive special terminal, however, and the information
system being developed may not require the outstanding
graphics capabilities.

The use of PLATO, APL, or PLANIT posed a problem for
the development and operation of the information system
of this study. Only one terminal was available for the
PLATO system, and it was used almost continuously. Two
terminals were available for the APL and PLANIT systems,
and access to them was limited. Also, the APL system was
in the experimental stage, and it would have been impossible
to use it for the development of an information system such
as the one proposed in this study.

The selection of the computer system to use for the
information system was based on five items: capabilities;
accessability; transportability; hard c0py; the cost to

the department for the use of the system. The questions

considers
CapeI
l .

2.

Acce

 

 

Tra:

34

considered under each item were:

Capabilities:

l.

2.

Did the computer have the required core?
Did the computer have the capability to perform
all of the transformations of information

required?

Accessability at the Fort Wayne Campus:

1. Could the student gain access to the system
without wasting a lot of time on such things
as trying to gain access to a keypunch, waiting
his turn for a terminal, and turn around time
on the computer?

Transportability:

1. Would the computer system be the size that most
educational institutions would have available?

2. Would the computer language be fairly universal?

3. WOuld the computer language be such that most
students and faculty members would be familiar
with it?

Hard Copy:

1. WOuld the output of the system be such that the
student could take it with him for future refer—
ence?

2. If the output were a hard c0py, would it be in

a neat, systematic form?

Cost

1.

2 .
Tabl
system on
received

info rmati

 

 

 

for use 0

Ava

implement,

Lem

35
Cost to the department at the Fort Wayne Campus:
1. WOuld the department be charged anything for
the use of the system?
2. What charges would be made to the department?
Table 2 shows how the investigator rated each computer
system on the various items. The IBM 360-22 computer
received the highest rating, so it was decided that the
information system would be written in Basic Fortran IV

for use on the IBM 360-22 computer.

Implementation Planning

 

A variety of major activities were necessary for

implementation of the system which are listed by stages.

Stage I

. detailed design of each subsystem

l
2. algorithm development and testing
3. installation of the information system
4

. review and evaluation of the system

1. modification of algorithms and testing

Stage III

 

l. detailed design of subsystems

2. algorithm develOpment and testing

3. review and evaluation of the system
4. preparation of written procedures for

faculty and students

36

 

qmfl

 

“mom mm» mm» uoom pom comm oco HH>
8H24Am
nwmm no» new moon com comm UGO H>
9H24Am
Hflmm new we» Moon @000 comm ooo >
Aoamqmcuouse
noon >Hm> oz oz Moog >um> ucmaamoxm comm UQU >H
>H cmuuuom
coco mow no» @006 ucoaamoxm comm U00 HHH
>H cmnuuom
coco new mom coco ucoaaooxm comm coo HH
>H cmuunom
owmmm
ucmaamoxm oz mm» nemaaooxm poom suo> «Nuomm zmH H
MBHAHmdemommz¢ma omomdmu Mmoo MBHAHmHmmmooe mmHBHAHmmmdo mo<awz¢q zmamwm
Bzmzamdmmc omdm cz¢
mmaamzoo

 

 

N mgméfi

mzmamwm mmBDmSOU ho mOZHfidm

37
5. selection and training of faculty members
whose students would use the system
6. training of the students who would use

the system

Traditional Information System Redesign
The Traditional Information System Redesign included
scope and objectives, analysis, specifications, design,

and implementation.

Scope and Objectives

 

The feasibility study was concerned with the design
of a broad overall system. At this point, the objectives

were amplified into specific objectives as follows:

Stage I
l. The student would be given the opportunity to

perform the analysis and synthesis of many
problems which heretofore were impossible or
very difficult due to lengthy calculations.

2. The system would consist of a very simple main
computer program consisting of call statements
for canned subroutines.

3. The student would gain experience in calling
canned subroutines.

4. The system would keep the student involved
with the computer.

5. The system could be used with any computer

which accepted Basic Fortran IV and had a

38
maximum core available for the program of
16K(decimal). The system would thus be very
transportable.

6. The student would be required to address his
attention only to the analysis and synthesis
portions of problem-solving.

7. A wide variety of statics problems could be
used with the system.

8. Very little key-punching would be required
of the student.

9. The system could be used by a person with
little or no previous experience with a
computer.

'10. The system could be used by a person with
little or no previous experience with a key—
punch.

11. Students using vector or scalar statics could
use the system.

12. Use of the system would not interfere with the
learning of statics.

13. No calculations would be required on the part

of the student.

Stage II
14. The system could be easily debugged by the

student.

Stage III

39

 

15.

l6.

17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

The
detailed
informati
and synth

Ther

The system would make a comprehensive check
of the student's analysis and synthesis of
each problem with no faculty time required.
The system would visually bring out points
concerning simultaneous equations with several
variables which would ordinarily only be dis—
cussed in a class or in a textbook.

The system would provide feedback to the
student on an individualized basis.

The system would give several valuable diag-
nostic messages.

The system would be usable as a teaching
tool.

The system would be a valuable asset to the
student in the learning process.

The system would teach students to become

more systematic in problem-solving.

Analysis

analysis of the information system included a
determination of the nature of the existing
on system used to check a student's analysis
esis of statics problems.

e were very few methods available to make a

comprehensive check of a student's analysis and synthesis

in problem-solving courses, and each had severe draw-

backs. P

robably the best method was for the instructor

40
to collect homework and check each problem carefully
and thoroughly. The method, however, required an
enormous amount of the instructor's time.

A second method involved a discussion of each
problem in class. Although the method can be very
effective in teaching students how to analyze and
synthesize problems, it required a large amount of
class time, and the student still had to find just
where he made an error. A third method consisted of
duplicating the solutions to all problems and giving
them to the students. Again, the student was required
to check to find just where he made an error. The last
two methods created a potential hazard, since some
students would not even attempt to work problems if they
knew they would be discussed in class or that the solutions
would be handed to them.

In each of the above methods, the student was re-
quired to complete the calculations for each problem
even though they were repetitive and very time-consuming.

The existing information system was, therefore,
to be replaced by a completely new and innovative type
of system. Walker and Cotterman have described such
an approach as a clinical information system redesign.
One of the most extreme approaches advocated the elimina-

tion of the analysis step. A more moderate variety,

 

 

re;
sy:

51:

re

da

St!

da

d1“

41

represented by the ideal designs of effective and logical

systems concept, reduced but did not eliminate the analysis

step.43

Stage I

For the present study, the analysis was to play an
important role in the develOpment of the information
system. The analysis was to include a description of
the equations to be used for calculations, the data
required, the calculations required to transform the
data into the required form, the development of a function
flowchart illustrating the proper sequence of the basic
steps involved in the process, and a description of the

data structures as noted on the function flowchart.

The vector equations of equilibrium used in statics
are:
Z3F=o Zjfiad
The scalar equations of equilibrium are:
{:Fx=o 23Fy=o 23Fé=0
23Mx=0 22My=0 X3M2=0

 

43Walker, pp. 472-475.

IE
II
d5
Wa

ti.

the

42

The summations include all external active and
reactive forces and moments acting on the body.

The system was to be designed for use with any two-
or three-dimensional statics problem which required only
one free-body diagram. However, problems involving fric-
tion at impending motion were excluded.

Data was required for concentrated forces, distrib-
uted forces, moments or couples, lines, and points. This
data could be given in a variety of ways. The information
system was to be designed to be as general as possible,
but the capacity of the computer imposed limitations.
Therefore, it was necessary to make a decision as to the
types of data the system would accept.

Six types of concentrated forces, four types of
distributed forces, two types of lines, two types of
moments or couples, and one point were selected as shown
in the user's manual, Appendix B, pages 113 through 125.

A number for identification, a diagram, and the data
required are shown.

A point along the line of action of each concentrated
force was selected by the student so the moments of the
forces could be calculated. Distributed forces were given
as a function in the form F(x)=Ax2+Bx+C+Dx'5, and each
‘was replaced by an equivalent force system. The calcula-
tions determined the equivalent concentrated force and

the point where the force intersected the axis. This

 

I0)

'5?

43

point was used to find the moment of the force about
the given point.

All that was required of the information system
at this point was that it should read data, perform
the necessary calculations, and print out the solution
to the problem. Figure 2 shows the function flowchart
which indicates the data structures required. A
description of the data structures is presented in

Table 3.

Stage II

When a long computer program is written with many
calculations, it is very difficult to debug the program
if an error has been made in calculations. Such a situa-
tion can easily be remedied by inserting write statements
after each calculation. In this manner, not only can the
accuracy of the calculations be checked, but the point
of termination can easily be located if the program is
interrupted prematurely.

The same problem could exist with the information
system of this study. Therefore, several write state-
ments were included in the system so the student could
easily locate the point in the program where termination

occurred.

§Eage III
When checking the analysis and synthesis of a

Problem, several items had to be considered:

44

 

Read data for
concentrated forces
(DIl)

J

 

 

 

Process the data

 

 

I

 

Read data for
distributed forces
(DIl)

 

 

 

l

 

 

Process the data

 

 

J

 

Read data for a
point

 

(1)13)

 

 

1

[Process the data

I

Find moments of all
forces about the point

 

 

 

C9

 

Read data for
moments and couples
(DI4)

 

 

J

 

 

Sum the forces

 

 

1

[Sum the moments

J

 

 

Fill matrix with the
equations of
equilibrium

 

 

 

I

[Solve the matrix

I

[Print the solution

Figure 2.Function Flowchart for Stage I of the Analysis

TABLE 3

DATA STRUCTURES NOTED IN THE FUNCTION FLOWCHART

FOR STAGE I OF THE ANALYSIS

 

 

Data Data

Structure for Content Media

DIl Concentrated Alphanumeric Computer
forces card

DIZ Distributed Alphanumeric Computer
forces card

D13 Point Alphanumeric Computer
card

DI4 Moments and Alphanumeric Computer
couples card

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Analysis:

1. Was the free-body diagram drawn correctly?
(Were all active and reactive forces and
moments shown correctly?)

2. Had the correct data been taken from the
free-body to transform the forces and
moments into vector form?

3. Had all forces and moments been included
in the calculations?

Synthesis:

4. Had the correct method been used in calcula-
tions to transform the forces and moments
into vector form?

5. Had the correct method been used to find
the moments of the forces about a point?

6. Had the correct equations of equilibrium
been used? I

Calculations:

7. Were all calculations correct?

8. Was the answer correct?

Since all calculations were performed by the computer,
<only the analysis and synthesis were to be checked. The
computer could not see the free-body diagram, so item 1
could not be checked. The computer calculated the moments
of the forces about a point, so only items 2, 3, 4, and

5 were to be checked.

46

The primary purpose of this study was to force the
student to go back and check his analysis and synthesis
if his answer was incorrect. Therefore, the student was
given the answer to the problems by the instructor, and
the information system checked to see if the correct
number of active and reactive forces and moments were
included, and if the correct equations of equilibrium
had been used. If the student received no error messages
from the program, but his answer was incorrect, then he
had either taken the data from the free-body diagram
incorrectly or he had entered the data in the computer
incorrectly. Thus, if an error existed, the student was
forced to go back to the analysis of the problem and check

for errors.

Specifications

 

Specifications were determined as needed in the

development of the system.

Stage I

In the equations of equilibrium noted in the anal—
ysis, the summations referred to active and reactive forces
and moments. The active forces and moments were known or
fixed, but the reactive forces and moments were unknown or
variables. This presented a problem when using the computer
program, since variable quantities could not be fed directly
into the computer. It was necessary, therefore, to revise

the equations of equilibrium as follows:

47

21:.active + 2Freactive =0
ZMactive + 2:Mreactive =0

2F + 2F :0 :2M + EM =0

xactive xreactive xactive xreactive
215‘ + Zr =0 :2M + £18, =0
yactive yreactive yactive reactive
8F + 2F =0 :2M + [M =0
2 0 z 0 Z 0 Z 0
active reactive active reactive

The active forces and moments were fed directly into
the computer, but the reactive forces and moments were
fed in with magnitudes equal to one. The data was then
transformed into vector form and the results placed in
a matrix, the solution of which determined the values of
the unknowns.

When the data for active forces and moments or couples
was read, suitable calculations were performed to trans-
form the data into vector form or scalar components. The
results of the calculations were stored for future use.
When the point was read, it was placed directly in storage.
Separate storage space was required for forces, moments or
couples, and points and lines.

When data for distributed forces was read, the type
of calculations required was determined by the values
given for the coefficients of the function. The results
of the calculations were placed in the same storage space

as the concentrated forces.

 

 

ch

48

After all active forces and the point were stored,
the moment of each force about the point was calculated.
These moments were stored in the same storage space as
the active moments.

When all active forces and moments were stored, the
sum of the forces and the sum of the moments were calculated
and stored.

Next, the storage spaces for active forces and
moments were zeroed out, since the same storage space
was used for reactive forces and moments.

Reading of and calculations for the reactive forces
and moments were the same as that noted above for the
active forces and moments. The moments of all the reactive
forces were then calculated, but the sum of the forces and
the sum of the moments were not calculated.

.A.matrix was then filled with the rectangular com-
ponents of the reactive forces and moments, and the sums
of the active forces and moments. The matrix was then
solved for the unknown quantities.

The data required for concentrated forces, moments
or couples, and points and lines included a name which
'was alphanumeric, a number to indicate the type which
was integer, and from three to seven elements of data
(given which were numeric-real. The data required for dis-
'tributed forces included a name which was alphanumeric, a
runnber which described the location of the axes which was
integer, and nine elements of data given which were numeric-

real.

 

 

rn

rf

['4'

49
The storage spaces were limited to six forces, six

moments or couples, and five points or lines.

Stage II

The first items printed for each problem were the
chapter number and problem number. When each subroutine
was called, the name of the subroutine was printed so that
the student would know that the call statement was executed.
If data was read in the subroutine, a write statement ex-
plained what the data was for and then printed the data as
read. The student could then check the printout to see if
the data was what he intended it to be. This was a good
check to see if the data had been punched in the correct
columns on the data card. When calculations were performed,
the results were printed only after an explanation of what
the results represented. If arrays were printed, the names

of the arrays were printed first.

Stage III

 

The number of active and reactive forces and moments
entered by the student were counted. These numbers were
checked against the correct numbers entered by the instruc~
tor. The student was told how many of each he entered, and
if he was correct. If he was incorrect, the correct number
was given.

The type of a force system could be coplanar, coplanar—
concurrent, three-dimensional, etc. The equations of

equilibrium available were determined by the type of force

50
system for any particular problem. The type of force
system a student entered was checked against the correct
type for the problem which was entered by the instructor.
The student was told the type of force system he used, the
equations of equilibrium he used, and whether or not he
was correct. If he was incorrect, the correct type of

force system was given.

Design

It was imperative that the data be tabulated in as
simple and systematic form as possible. Therefore, the
data was tabulated by concentrated forces, moments or
couples, points and lines, and distributed forces.
Tables 4 through 7 show the method established for the
tabulation of data along with the designation used for
each. Each designation was selected so that the name
very nearly described the type of data being tabulated.

Since it was very important that the initial data
capture be as simple as possible for the student, Tables
4 through 7 were placed on one sheet of paper and given
to the student so that he would not have to keep looking
through several pages of instructions to find them.
{Fable 8 shows the sheet which was given to the students.
'The table shows the number to select for each type of
data as well as the data required for each.

It was also necessary to provide the student with
(an easy method of tabulation. All the data for each

type of force, moment or couple, point, or line was

51

TABLE 4

TABULATION OF DATA
FOR CONCENTRATED FORCES, DESIGNATED:

FORCES: CONCENTRATED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 F 1 m n x y z
2 F x z x z
1 y1 1 2 Y2 2
3 F xS yS 25 x y z
4 F F F F x y z
x y z
5 F l m x y
6 F F F x y z
x y 2
TABLE 5
TABULATION OF DATA
FOR POINTS AND LINES, DESIGNATED:
PTLINE
Name NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 l m n x y z
2 x y z x y z
1 l l 2 2 2
3

52

 

 

 

 

Mu ‘% N

U U U m

c E H U H
on mm mm vb mm mm Hm oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mamDOU
QNBfiZUHmNQ .mmAmDOU Qz< mazmzoz mom

¢B<Q ho ZOHB<ADQ¢B

h wands

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OZ

 

m2<z

 

 

QQOAQ
“QNB<ZUHmmo .mmUmOh DWBDmHmbHQ mom

«Edd m0 ZOHB¢ADQ¢B

m mamfla

53
TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF DATA

FORCES: CONCENTRATED

- NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 F l m n x

2 F x1 y1 21 x2

3 F x8 y8 zS x y

4 F F F F x y
x y z

5 F l m x y
Fx Fy z x y

PTLINE:

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 l m n x
2

xi y1 21 x2

3 x
COUPLE

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

 

I [1ch Mn!
L LJ J [0.1ch

DLOAD:

 

NAME NO A B C D E

 

[Ill L I ll

 

NO=1 x NO

 

54
included on one computer card. Table 9 shows the sheet
given to each student for the tabulation of data. The
table was divided into columns with a description at
the top of each which matched those in Table 8. As
noted in the specification, column 1 was to be alpha-
numeric: column 2, numeric-integer: and columns 3-11,
numeric-real. At the bottom of the table was listed
the columns on the computer card which corresponded
to the columns in the table along with a note that
columns 3-11 had to have a decimal point.

This develOpment made it possible for the student
to look at the free-body diagram to select the data,
and look at one sheet to see how the particular data
was to be obtained for tabulation on the second sheet.

The next step was to punch the data on computer
cards. It is very discouraging to have to keep record
of exactly what column data is being punched in, so
a card was punched for the drum of the keypunch and
given to each student. Columns 1-4 were for alpha-
numeric for the name, and after punching the name the
skip key was struck which tabulated to column 8 where
the number was punched as integer. When the number was
punched, the card was in column 9 ready for data. The
numeric key was not needed for this number or any
further data on the card. The numbers were struck as
seen on the keyboard, but the decimal point had to be

used which was on the top row of the keyboard instead

55

TABLE 9

TABULATION OF DATA
NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

A B C D E G R R1 R2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 45 89 1617 2425 3233 4041 4849 5657 6465 7273 80

F DECIMAL POINT i‘l

 

 

56
of the one at the bottom. All numbers in columns 3-11
were left-justified and had to include the decimal point.
When the student wanted another column, he merely hit
the skip key which tabulated to the next column for
another piece of data. All data was punched to be read

with the F format.

Stage I

It was next necessary to specify algorithms which
would read the data and perform the necessary calcula-
tions. Because of the limitation imposed by the size
of the computer, subroutines were required to perform
the functions. The process was broken into steps
with the use of subroutines, the names of which des-
cribed, as nearly as possible, the function being
performed.

When data was read for concentrated forces, moments
or couples, and points and lines, the name was entered

as SAM, the number to describe the type as NO, and the

data describing the particular type was entered in a
one-dimensional array F(I) with seven elements. Several
write statements were included to assist in checking the
calculations performed by the subroutines during the
developmental stage.

The following is a list of the subroutines which
gives the name of the subroutine as well as the functions

which they performed.

57

Subroutine FORCES read the data for concentrated
forces and performed the calculations necessary to
transform the data into vector form. The results were
stored in two arrays called FNAM and FORC. FNAM was a
one-dimensional array with six elements for the names of
the forces, and FORC was a 6x6 two-dimensional array for
storing the rectangular components of the force and a
point the forced passed through. After all the concen-
trated forces were stored, the arrays FNAM and FORC
were printed.

Subroutine COUPLE read the data for moments and
couples and performed the calculations necessary to
transform the data into vector form. The results were
stored in two arrays called SMNAM and SMOM. SMNAM was
a one-dimensional array with six elements for the names
of the moments and couples, and SMOM was a 6x3 two-
dimensional array for storing the rectangular components
of the moments and couples. After all the moments and
couples were stored, the arrays SMNAM and SMOM were
printed.

Subroutine PTLINE read data for points and lines
and performed the necessary calculations. The results
were stored in two arrays called PTNAM and PTLN. PTNAM
was a one-dimensional array with five elements for the
names, and PTLN was a 5x6 two-dimensional array for the
data. After all points and lines were read, the arrays

PTNAM and PTLN were printed.

58

Subroutine DLOAD, which stood for distributed load,
read the data for distributed forces or loads, and per-
formed the necessary calculations to transform the data
into vector form. The results were stored in arrays
FNAM and FORC with the concentrated forces. After all
distributed forces had been stored, the arrays FNAM and
FORC were printed giving only the information for the
distributed forces.

Subroutine MOMPT calculated the moment of each
force in array FORC about the point in array PTLN and
stored the results in arrays SMNAM and SMOM with the
moments which had been read. The subroutine then
printed the moment of each force about the point.

Subroutine SUMFOR summed all of the forces in array
FORC and stored the results in a 1x3 one-dimensional
array SM. The number of forces and the sum of the forces
were then printed.

Subroutine SUMMOM summed all of the moments in array
SMOM and stored the results in a 1x3 one—dimensional
array SM. The number of moments and the sum of the
moments were then printed.

Subroutine ZFORC zeroed out array FORC and blanked
out array FNAM.

Subroutine ZSMOM zeroed out array SMOM and blanked
out array SMNAM.

Subroutine ZPTLN zeroed out array PTLN and blanked
out array PTNAM.

Subroutine ZARR zeroed out array ARR.

59

The solution of each problem required more than one
subroutine. The first in the sequence was called SOLVE
which filled a matrix with the equations of equilibrium.
The array was called ARR and was a 6x7 two-dimensional
array.

Subroutine EQUA presented the equations of equili-
brium in equation form, the same form the student would
arrive at if he had worked the problem himself. All
terms which were zero were eliminated.

Subroutine MFGRR was the only subroutine in the
information system which was not develOped by the inves-
tigator. The solution of the 6x7 matrix required a
method which was as efficient as possible to eliminate
computer errors. The subroutine was included in a
scientific package furnished by IBM for the IBM 360-22
computer. The subroutine performed the following
calculations on the rectangular 6x7 array ARR:

1. It determined rank and linearly independent

rows and columns of the matrix.

2. It expressed a submatrix of maximal rank as

the product of triangular factors.

3. It expressed nonbasic rows in terms of basic

ones.

4. It expressed basic variables in terms of free

ones.

The rank was determined by the standard Gaussian

elimination technique with complete pivoting. This

60
implied that the rows and columns of the 6x7 matrix were
interchanged at each elimination step if necessary. The
interchange information was recorded in two integer per-
mutation vectors IROW and ICOL. The results were returned
in matrix ARR.

There were many possibilities of outcomes when the
6x7 matrix was solved. Therefore, subroutine DUMPIT
was written so that all of the information from the
solution in subroutine MFGRR could be written out to be
certain the system was operating prOperly. It was very
helpful in determining what had to be done in the next
subroutine, FINISH, which determined which situation
existed and printed the results.

Subroutine FINISH determined which possibility
existed from the output of subroutine MFGRR. Figure 3
shows a flowchart of the possible outcomes when the
6x7 matrix was solved, which was used in the development
of subroutine FINISH.

If there were the same number of equations as
unknOwns, the subroutine printed the solution to the
problem. If there were linearly dependent equations,
the subroutine showed the relationships among the equations.
If there were more unknowns than equations, the subroutine
showed some variables in terms of free variables.

There were six possible error messages which were

given as ERROR I. An explanation of each follows:

61

Remus: ecu mm>H0m

"~ng @GHUDOHQQW G053 uwflUflHdnHmmom HHAN HO UHfl£O30Hh .m OHfiOflh

Amco«umamu oumuzc
mcowuooom xcmuH
mczocxc: H+xcmuH

coflusaom
ucaum

Amcoflumamm ouwu3c
mcomumovm xcmuH
assassin HSEMHH

Amcowuoaou ouwuzv coauoaom
macauopom xcmHH ucwum
mczocxcc ~+xcouH

Amcowumamm mamas.
moofiuoocm xcmun

masocxcc ~+xcoHH vummma

O"

 

0V 2| 0A
xcmuH

eanMH

wflmmmH

 

 

mcowumoom ucmocomoo aduoocwa oz

mummmH

 

xcmmuxamua
oceoaoonz

mzomuz mummma
ozmomq

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

ncowumoom ucmocomoo hammocwq

 

Y NHMMMH

OA xcmuH 0v HummmH

 

.. . 3:1... . 1.2%....» u .— -..... $54....

62

1. No rows or columns in the matrix.

2. The zero matrix.

3. The number of equations is less than the
rank of the matrix.

4. More equations than unknowns.

5. All sums are zero for the active forces and
moments. Therefore, the body was in equilibrium
without any reactive forces or moments.

6. Inconsistent set of equations.

Figure 4 shows the operational flowchart for

stage I of the design, and Table 10 lists the arrays
used.

Stage II

 

All items noted in the specifications for Stage II
to help make the system easily debugged by the student

‘were included with Stage III.

Stage III

 

Five additional subroutines were necessary to make
a check of the students' analysis and synthesis.
Subroutines FILKME, FILKMC, AND FILKMM were written
so that answers to certain parts of the problem could
be entered by the faculty members. Each subroutine
contained the answers to five problems. For each problem,
data was entered for chapter number, problem number,
number of active forces, number of active moments, number

of reactive forces, number of reactive moments, and a

CALL ZFORC

CALL ZPTLN

CALL ZSMOM
L ZARR

[READ CHAPTER AND PROBLEM NUMBERS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

CALL PTLINMALL COUPLFH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CALL FORCES CALL DLOAMALL COUPLE]

3

[CALL MOMPT ]

L

ICALL EQUA I

CALL MFGRR

[CALL DUMP IT]

1

[CALL FINISH]

Figure 4. Operational Flowchart for Stage I of the Design

 

64

 

 

H HRH omumnmndaa Hoonom mom
me viH HMOHIUwMOEdz xmuumz m
h nxa ummmucwuomumeoz xwuume mo mcEsHOU AOOH
m mxa Homoucauomumsdz xfiuume mo mzom zomH
n bxa HomoucwnofiumEdz xwuume mo mcESHOO OzomH
m mxH ummmucflIOfiuoeoz anume mo mzom zzomH
n th ummmucwnownossz xwuuoe mo mCEdHOU 02
m mxH Hummucwuowumeoz xmuume mo m3om mz
n hxa Hometowuoesz sumo mcwooom m
mucoeoe
v Nxm umooucHIOfiumEoz one mOUHOm mo mumnesz 4232
mm hxm nomoucwuomumsoz muo3mcc 2x
m mxH owumeocmcmad mmemz z<z<
we hxm ammunowuoeoz xmuumz mac
m mxa omumsscmgmfla meow meow
m mxH amounowuossz mucmeoe «0 sum 2m
m mxH Hmouuomumssz moouOu mo sow mm
m mxa canoeocmcmad mmeocumocwa can mucwom zmzsm
om mxm amounoaumeoz momma can mucwom zqam
m mxa canoescocmad masocummamooo can mucweoz Edzzm
mm mxm Hoouuomuoedz mmamooo cam mucosa: 202m
m mxa Uwumescocead masocnmoouom Edzm
mm mxm ammunofiuoEdz moouom omom
mucmewam mcofimcmea some Mom oEoz

 

 

Smamwm ZOHB€ZMOKZH NIB

ca mqmda

ZH Gama madmmd

65

number which represented the type of force system.
Subroutine TYPSYS was used to check the equations
of equilibrium used by the student.
Subroutine CHECK was used to check the numbers of
active and reactive forces and moments entered by the

student.

Implementation

 

Stage I

When the information system was placed on the computer,
it was necessary to use a system called LOADER. The
system was develOped by the computer center personnel, and
its purpose was to overlay the subroutines so that only
one subroutine and the main program were in Operation at
any given time. The subroutines were placed on the disc,
and the maximum size of the system was determined by the
size of the main program and the largest subroutine. It
was not possible to call any subroutine from another sub-
routine, so the subroutines had to be called in the order
in which they were needed. It was necessary to include an

additional series of control cards when using LOADER.

Stage III

 

A user's manual, Appendix B, was developed for the
students and faculty members. The objectives of the
information system and some assumptions concerning
problem-solving were given. The equations of equilibrium

were presented in both vector and scalar form, and it was

66

noted that it was necessary to separate the forces and
moments into active and reactive when using the system.
The types of data to be used were listed with examples
of each, and the method of tabulating the data was
specified. Simplified flow Charts and diagrams showing
the relationships between subroutines and arrays were
presented. The main program was described as consisting
of a series of call statements for subroutines which
would read the data and perform the required calcula—
tions. The deck of cards which the students would be
given was discussed, and a computer print—out of the
deck was included. The students were instructed where
to insert the main program and the data cards in the
deck. The method of filling an array with answers to
the problems was included for faculty members.

The deck of cards given the students included all
the control cards needed; all necessary common, dimension,
equivalence, read, and format statements for the main
program; and all data cards required for the read state-
ments. The deck of cards had no printing on them except
a number. The complete deck was numbered in order so
that if the student accidently dropped the deck it could
easily be put back in order. The students were also
given all of the required call cards for the subroutines
and the read and format cards for reading the chapter and

problem numbers.

67

The Classes selected for the experiment were an
engineering statics class, taught by the investigator,
and an engineering technology statics class taught by
two other faculty members. Before the experiment began,
a meeting was held with the two faculty members teaching
the technology class for instructions concerning the use
of the information system. The user's manual was thor-
oughly discussed, and they were shown some print-outs of
the system. Each was given a user's manual and a deck
of cards like the students would use. A statics problem
was discussed, they punched the data cards, and the
program was run through the computer.

During the second week of the semester, the investi-
gator gave each class a brief introduction to the infor-
mation system, discussing the purpose of the system and
why it had been developed.

Later, when the students had studied forces in their
statics classes and had worked several problems, each
student was given a user's manual and a deck of cards.
These items were discussed at length, and a few simple
problems were discussed. The students were shown how
to tabulate the data, select the call statements needed
for the main program, and where to insert the main
program and the data in the deck.

All that was discussed at the time was how to get
concentrated forces into the computer and how to sum

the forces. The students were then to punch the cards

68

and run the program. As the students progressed through
the classes, they were shown how to use the other sub—
routines. Table 11 shows the subroutines to which they

were introduced according to what they were studying in

 

 

 

class.
TABLE 11
STUDENT INTRODUCTION TO SUBROUTINES
Studying in Class Subroutines introduced
Concurrent forces FORCES, SUMFOR
Moments and couples PTLINE, COUPLE, MOMPT, COUPLE
Distributed loads DLOAD
Equilibrium The remainder of the

subroutines

 

Information System Mechanization
The subroutines developed in the design, pages 59
through 68, were written in the Basic Fortran IV computer
language and debugged. Table 12 lists the core required

for the subroutines.

Information System Modification

The system was modified as follows:

Stage I

It was necessary to modify the information system

to make it easily debugged by students.

Stage II

 

It was necessary to modify the information system

so that it would make a comprehensive check of a student's

69

TABLE 12

CORE REQUIRED FOR SUBROUTINES

AND MAIN PROGRAM

 

 

 

Subroutine Common Core ‘ Core
ZFORC 1028 416
ZSMOM 1028 360
ZPTLN 1028 360
ZARR 1028 328
FORCES 1028 2148
DLOAD 1028 2400
PTLINE 1028 1500
COUPLE 1028 1216
MOMPT 1028 952
SUMFOR 1028 600
SUMMOM 1028 616
SOLVE 1028 2256
EQUA 1028 1584
FILKMC 1028 448
FILKME 1028 448
FILKMM 1028 448
CHECK 1028 1640
TYPSYS 1028 1704
MFGRR 0 2568
DUMPIT 1080 960
FINISH 1080 2600
MAIN PROGRAM 1080 1632

 

analysis and synthesis.

Stage III

 

When the students began using the system, they soon
became aware that sending one problem through the computer
at a time was much too time-consmming. The main program
was, therefore, modified into a pat program for the stu-
dents in the form of a do loop so that five problems
could be sent through the computer at one time and still

have their analysis and synthesis checked. A computer

70
print-out of the revised main program was included in

the user's manual, page 147 of Appendix B.

Section II: Student and Faculty Analysis
A description of the populations, instrumentation,
procedures used in the data collection, and the analysis

of the data are presented in this section.

Populations

 

Two populations were included in the study which
consisted of students enrolled in statics Classes during
the 1974 spring semester at the Purdue University Regional
Campus at Fort Wayne, Indiana. One population consisted
of eight sophomore engineering students, enrolled in an
engineering statics class, who had completed a computer
course in Fortran IV programming. The second population
consisted of twenty-seven freshman technology students,
enrolled in a technology statics Class, who had not com-

pleted a computer course in Fortran IV programming.

Instrumentation

 

Two versions of an instrument developed by Brown43

were used to measure students' attitudes toward the computer
related instructional model. The instrument was developed

by Brown to measure expressed attitudes toward computer-

 

43B. R. Brown, "Experimentation with Computer-Assisted
Instruction in Technical Education," (Semi-annual Progress
Report, Project No. OEC-5-85-074), University Park, Pa.,
The Pennsylvania State University, December 31, 1966.

71
assisted instruction. The instrument was used in its
original past tense form to measure reactions to the model
for a post-test, Appendix A, and the contents were placed
in the future tense so that a prc-test, Appendix A, could
be given to measure prior attitudes of the students toward
the model. Some of the items on the Brown scale were
omitted and others were added by the investigator. The
principal modification of the items was that Computer-
Assisted Instruction was replaced with the Computer Program.

The original form of the Brown scale was reported as
having an internal consistency reliability coefficient of
.89. Mathis, Smith and Hansen44 also used a modified
version of the Brown scale and reported a Kuder-Richardson
Formula 20 reliability of .82 for 158 Florida State under-
graduates.

A ten-item faculty questionnaire, Appendix A, was
developed by the investigator to be filled out by the two
faculty members who would teach the technology class.

The questionnaire added to the assessment of the model
by providing input from faculty members who had not

previously been exposed to the model.

 

44A. M. Mathis, T. Smith, and D. Hansen, "College
Student's Attitudes Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction,"
Journal of Educational Psycholong Vol. 61, No. 1,
February, 1970, pp. 46-51.

72

Data Collection

 

The pre-test was administered in class to both
populations before the experiment began. The post-test
and faculty questionnaire were administered in class at
the end of the experiment. All items on all instruments
were scored as follows: l-strongly disagree; 2-disagree;

3-no opinion; 4-agree; S-strongly agree.

Analysis of the Data

 

The specific objectives for the study, as listed on
pages 38 through 40, are of two types. One type concerns
the Operation of the model, and the other concerns
students' attitudes toward the model. The first type
includes objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, and
17 which were satisfied when the model was operational.

The results of the students' pre-test and post-test were
used to determine if the second type had been satisfied.

The means for each item of both the pre-test and
post-test were calculated for each pOpulation and indicated
as being either positive or negative toward the model.

The items on the tests were then divided into twelve
categories to check the second type of specific objectives.
The categories were as follows:

Category 1 consisted of all 34 items of the tests
and was used to determine the over-all attitude of the

students toward the model.

73

Category 2 was used to determine the attitudes of

the students concerning the value of the diagnostics in

the model.

3.

10.

11.

13.

29.

Test items included were:

I was not concerned about missing a problem
because I knew I would receive diagnostics
describing errors in my analysis.

I knew whether my analysis was correct or
not before I was told.

I felt as if I had a private tutor while
using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I was aware of efforts to suit the diagnostics
specifically to me.

Diagnostics were given in the COMPUTER PROGRAM
which I felt were not relevant to the material.

I found the diagnostics given in the computer
program to be very poor.

Category 3 was used to determine if the model could

easily be used by students whether or not they used vector

algebra in their statics class. Test items included were:

15.

17.

28.

30.

32.

33.

34.

While using the COMPUTER PROGRAM I had a great
deal of trouble keypunching.

I felt frustrated while using the COMPUTER .
PROGRAM.

I had a great deal of trouble finding my pro-
gramming errors while using the COMPUTER
PROGRAM.

I found it very confusing shuffling call cards
for subroutines in the main program.

I feel the punched card for the keypunch drum
was very helpful.

I found it difficult to organize the data when
preparing to punch data cards.

I found it difficult to understand how to use
the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

74
Category 4 was used to determine if the model inter-
ferred with the learning of statics. Test items used were:
2. I was concerned that I might not be under-
standing the material in the statics course

because of the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

4. I tried to get the COMPUTER PROGRAM run rather
than trying to learn statics.

8. I was more involved in understanding the COMPUTER
PROGRAM than in understanding statics.

12. I found it difficult to concentrate on statics
because of the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

Category 5 was used to determine the value of the
model as a teaching tool. Test items included were:

14. The COMPUTER PROGRAM is an inefficient use of
the student's time.

18. The COMPUTER PROGRAM approach was inflexible.

19. Even otherwise interesting material would be
boring when using a COMPUTER PROGRAM.

21. In view of the amount I learned, I feel that
the use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM is superior
to traditional instruction.

22. With a course such as I am taking while using
the COMPUTER PROGRAM, I would prefer the
COMPUTER PROGRAM to traditional instruction.

23. I am not in favor of the COMPUTER PROGRAM
because it is just another step toward
depersonalized instruction.

25. The COMPUTER PROGRAM was boring.

Category 6 was used to determine if the students felt

the model was a valuable asset to learning. Test items
included were:

1. While using the COMPUTER PROGRAM I felt
Challenged to do my best work.

75

6. I guessed at the method of analysis when using
the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

7. As a result of having used the COMPUTER PROGRAM,
I am interested in trying to find out more about
statics.

9. The COMPUTER PROGRAM made the learning too
mechanical.

16. The COMPUTER PROGRAM made it possible for me to
learn quickly.

21. In view of the amount I learned, I feel that
the use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM is superior to
traditional instruction.

26. The use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM made me more
systematic in problem-solving.

Category 7 was used to determine if previous exper-
ience with a key-punch was necessary to use the model.
Test item 24 was used.

24. Previous keypunching experience is necessary

in order to perform easily while using the
COMPUTER PROGRAM.

Category 8 was used to determine if the model taught

the students to become more systematic in problem-solving.

Test item 26 was used.

26. The use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM made me more
systematic in problem-solving.

Category 9 was used to determine if previous
experience with a computer was necessary to use the
model. Test item 27 was used.
27. Previous experience with a computer is necessary
if a student is to benefit from the COMPUTER
PROGRAM.

Category 10 was used to determine if it was easy for

students to debug the program. Test item 28 was used.

76

28. I had a great deal of trouble finding my pro-
gramming errors while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

Category 11 was used to determine if the students
felt that too much keypunching was required. Test item
31 was used.

31. I found there was too much keypunching required
while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

Category 12 was used to determine if the students
felt that the punched card for the keypunch drum was
helpful. Test item 32 was used.

32. I feel the punched card for the keypunch drum
was very helpful.

An overall mean was then calculated for each category.
The Chi-square and Fisher tests were used to determine if
there were significant differences in attitudes between
pre-test and post-test for each population for each
category, and between engineering students and technology

students for each test for each category.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Two populations, engineering and technology students,
were tested in the study, so there were four groups of
data as follows: pre-test for engineering students; post-
test for engineering students; pre-test for technology
students; post-test for technology students. Each group
vof data consisted of thirty-four responses to the items on
the pre-test or post-test. Each response consisted of a
number from one through five as follows: l-strongly
disagree; 2-disagree; 3-no opinion; 4-agree; S-strongly
agree. All of the responses were coded so they were
readily addressable to computer programs.

Each group of data was divided into twelve categories,
as described in the Design of the Study, to check the
specific objectives of the study. To facilitate the
calculation of an over-all mean for each category of the
items on the tests, it was necessary to adjust the student
reSponses to some of the items. For some of the items a
response of five was very positive toward the model, and
for others a response of one was very positive. The
responses were, therefore, adjusted as follows: l-very
positive; 2-positive; 3-no opinion; 4—negative;
5-very negative. As a result of the adjustment, all

77

78
means for items and categories were positive if
l-mean 3 and negative if 3 mean-5.

The chi-square and Fisher tests were used to determine
if there were significant differences in attitudes between
pre-test and post-test for each pepulation for each
category, and between engineering students and technology
students for each test for each category. When the tests
were used, it was necessary to collapse the data into
2x2 contingency tables due to the small number of students.
Therefore, the student responses were placed in one of two
mutually exclusive classes, positive toward the model
(for a response of one or two) and negative toward the
model (for a response of four or five.)

A computer program was develOped by the investigator
to be used on an IBM 360-22 computer which sorted the
data according to population, test, and category. Com-
puter print-outs from the program are shown in Tables 13
through 16 for category 1, overall attitude, for engineer-
ing and technology students' pre-test and post-test.
Student responses to each test item were tabulated, and
the mean was given with a plus or minus sign indicating
if the response was positive or negative toward the
model. An asterisk indicated that the data had been
adjusted. The number of students who were positive or
negative was also listed for each item. The number of
students tested, an overall mean for the category, the

numbers of students with overall positive and negative

79

TABLE 13

PRE-TEST RESULTS FOR ENGINEERING

STUDENTS IN CATEGORY 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJUSTED SCORES NUMBER
ITEM 1“ 2_“3__4~_§_~ _ MEAN POSIIIME. Neonr1vg_
1 1 4 3 0 O. 2.250+ 5 O
___2. _ .2 .2 3, _1 -10 2-3154’ _ ,4 to __1
3 o 3 3 2 0* 2.875+ 3 2
4 1 3 1 3 0 2.750+ 4 3
5 o 4 2 2 0' 2.750+ 4 2 -
6 1 6 1 0 O 2.000+ 7 0
7 0 1 5 2 04 3.125- 1 2
LB. , O 4 3 1._9 2.625+ _4 “1
9 2 3 2 1 O 2.250+ 5 1
1o - o o 6 1 1- 3.375- 0 2
11 O 2 6 o o» 2.750+ 2 c
12 1 3 3 1 0 2.500+ 4 1
13 o 2 5 1 o 2.875+ 2 1
.14 -_ _ 3 ‘3 1 1 _9 ,2-099: 6 _. 1
15 1 6 1 o O 2.000+ 7 0
16 0 2 3 3 0* 3.125— 2 3
17 1MW4HHZ 1 O __ 2.375+ 5 _11”_mg
18 O 4 3 1 O 2.625+ 4 1
19 0 6 2 o O 2.250+ 6 0
20_ g 1 4 3 o 0* 2.2504; 5_ 6_
21 1 3 4 o 0! 2.375+ 4 O
22 O 3 5 o 0* 2.625+ 3 o
23 o 6 2 o OWHM_2.250+ 6 U
24 O 4 3 1 O 2.625+ 4 1
25 1 4 3 0 O 2.250+ 6 0
26‘ 0 6 2 ,0 0* 2.2504 6 c
27 1 3 4 0 0 2.375+ 4 c
28 0 5 1 2 o 2.625+ 5 2
29 O -11.- ‘6 1 o ___};000 ___-__-__M_1 “1-... 1 _ _
3O 1 4 2 1 o 2.375+ 5 1
31 O 2 4 2 0 3.000 2 2
32 O 3 5 0 0o 2.62§+ 3 6
33 o 7 1 0 O 2.125+ 7 L
34 O 7 1 O O 2.125+ 7 0
8 STUDENTS
8 POSITIVE o NEGATIVE

OVERALL MEAN=2.522

m.- , ._- ..._-———.._——-_ ___—___ m.W—+ ,_

"— AWTUITEHC}

80
TABLE 14

POST-TEST RESULTS FOR ENGINEERING

STUDENTS IN CATEGORY 1

ADJUSTED SCORES ”h I V F-NUMHER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__-_LT " M _____,___1- _- 2 .43.- 4__ -6 .5 ___-.- “MEAL- ___ Pflilllyf. 1.1'1LQAIL1IL
1 3 3 2 0 0* 1.875+ 6 0
2 l 6 0 l_ 0‘ 2.125+ 7 l
3 0 2 0 5 1* 3.625- 2 O
4 0 5 0 3 0 2.750+ 5 3
-5 2 2 4 0 0* _m2.250+ _ 4 _ 0 _,_
6 5 3 O 0 0 l.375+ 8 0
7 O 0 7 l 0* 3.125- O 1
8 l 5 1 l 0 2.250+ 6 l
9 2 5 1 O 0 l.875+ 7 U
10 0 4 2 2 0* 2.750+ 4 2
fl__11~__-_1_,5"_2 0 0t“ 2.125+ 6 0 _
12 2 5 0 l O 2.000+ 7 1
13‘ 3 5 0 0 O 1.625+ 8 0
14+ .5 2 l 0” 0H 1.500t, 7 O
15 l 6 0 l 0 2.125+ 7 l
16 0 4 3 l 0* 2.625+ 4 1
“__ll__-_..____ _.1._ .3 ___..2._..2_Q-_,_.,_ 2 . 62 5+ 1- _-4_.-_ __ 2 i
18 2 5 0 l 0 2.000+ 7 l
19 3 4 1 0 0 1.7SO+ 7 0
20 3 5,,0 O 0* 1,625+m 8 0
21 0 4 3 l 0* 2.625+ 4 1
22 3 1 2 2 0* 2.375+ 4 7
13 L 5 Q... L) 0 14625+ 8 £1-_
24 2 3 2 0 1 2.375+ 5 1
25 l 7 0 O 0 1.875+ 8 0
26 2 6 0 0 0* l.750+ 8 U
27 1 5 2 0 0 2.125+ 6 0
28 2 6 0 0 0 l.750+ 8 C
_--_.2_?_._ -__2 __.‘é.___l_ -._Q._19 _____ 1. 875+ L I; _
30 5 3 0 0 0 1.375+ H 0
31 5 3 0 0 0 l.375+ 8 0
32 5 2 O 1 0* 1.625+ 7 1
33 3 5 0 0 0 1.625+ 8 L
34 4 3 l O 0 l.625+ 7 I
8 STUDENTS
8 POSITIVE 0 NEGATIVE_

OVERALL MEAN=2.059

' 47117005” 4

PRE-TEST RESULTS FOR TECHNOLOGY

81

TABLE 15

STUDENTS IN CATEGORY 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJUSTED SCORES NUMBER

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 __- MEAN POSITIVE NEGATIV£__

l S 19 2 1 0! 1.963+ 24 1
.2, _ ._.3 .12. 10 __1 -1- 24444:- V. 15.3! - _2_

3 0 11 7 8 1* 2.963+ 11 9

4 2 17 6 2 O 2.296+ 19 2

5 0 7 16 4 0* 2.889+ 7 4

6 5 12 9 1 O 2.222+ 17 1

7 1 12 12 2 0! 2.556+ 13 2

8 ’0 l6 10__l 0 29954t1 l6 _lfl

9 2 17 6 1 1 2.333+ 19 2
10 1 6 11 9 00 3.037- 7 9
11 0 8 19 0 0* 2.704+ 8 c
12 3 19 5 0 O 2.074+ 22 0
l3 0 8 18 1 0 2.741+ 8 1
14* 3 15_ 7 -2.-0.. .2129Qt- 18 -_ _2“_
15 4 8 15 0 0 2.407+ 12 u
16 l 8 17 1 0* 2.667+ 9 1
l7 2 9 16 0 0 _M2.519+ 11 0
18 0 7 19 1 0 2.778+ 7 1
l9 1 16 10 0 0 2.333+ 17 0
.201 . 4 17_ 6A_0 0* 2.074t_ 21 C
21 1 4 18 3 1! 2.963+ 5 4
22 l 1 20 3 2* 3.148- 2 5
23 4 19 4 O 0 2.000+ 23 C __
24 2 6 15 4 0 2.778+ 8 4
25 3 9 15 0 0 2.444+ 12 c
26* 3 16 ,8 0f 0* 2.185+ 19 0
27 1 13 12 1 0 2.481+ 14 1
28 0 7 20 0 0 2.741+ 7 O
29 0 .11291_9- 0 2.741+ 7 0 1_
30 1 6 19 1 0 2.741+ 7 1
31 l 10 15 1 0 2.593+ 11 1
32 1 6 20 O 0* 2.7044, 7 C
33 0 5 18 4 0 2.963+ 5 4
34 0 10 14 3 0 2.741+ 10 3

 

27 STUDENTST

26 POSITIVE

OVERALL MEAN=Zo558

-mo—c—c

"£171100E“ #473

 

1 NEGATIVE

- ___. 4 ._ ___. .12.____ r..._‘. .... ,2.

82

TABLE 16

POST-TEST RESULTS FOR TECHNOLOGY

STUDENTS IN CATEGORY 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJUSTED SCORES NUMBER
_J- I_§M-_-- J.-. 2---}.--- -9. -5_-_._--.___ MEAN 80§.I_.L11LIE__..LLtLiAll_1/l
1 2 6 7 7 5* 3.259- 8 12
2p 4..8 -6 .8- 1. 2.778+_1 12- _ 9
3 0 6 ll 10 0* 3.148- 6 lo
4 7 ll 3 5 l 2.333+ 18 6
5 i. 3.12 16 2* 3.556- 4 18 -
6 1 12 7 7 0 2.741+ 13 7
7 0 2 8 13 4* 3.704- 2 17
8_ ‘3.13 4 5 _2 2.630+_v .m 16 M , 7-
9 2 8 7 7 3 3.037- 10 lo
10 0 1 7 14 5* 3.852- 1 19
L]. Q 5 l9 3 0* 2 . 926+ 5 3
12 l 10 5 5 6 3.185- 11 ll
14* z 5 7 8_.5 , 3.333- _ _ 7 13
15 3 15 1 7 l 2.556+ 18 8
16 0 0 7 20 0* 3.741- C 20
..HLT_--_MQ.-41_7”121.4.1_.34593:_w.,u--m4__ _m 16
18 0 3 l9 5 0 3.074— 3 5
l9 1 9 12 3 2 2.852+ 10 5
20- 4 6 9 7_ 1*- 2.815+ , 10 8
21 0 2 5 13 7* 3.926- 2 20
22 l l 4 12 9* 4.000- 2 21
__ _2}..--__2_1.Q 8 7 (L... ZJ‘LIJ l 2 J _-
24 2 13 1 9 2 2.852+ 15 ll
25 2 7 8 8 2 3.037- 9 10
-26- 0 4 10 131.0* 3.3331”, _ 4 . 13.
27 l 10 7 6 3 3.000 11 9
28 O 7 4 13 3 3.444- 7 16
-_1JEL_~_-_Q“101111 5 .1 24889+ 10 6 -1-
30 1 10 4 10 2 3.074- 11 12
31 3 15 7 2 0 2.296+ l8 2
32 3 12 3 6‘ 3* 2.778+ 15 7 9
33 1 4 5 12 5 3.593- 5 17
34 2 6 9 7 3 3.111- 8 10
27 STUDENTS
9 POSITIVE 16 NEGATIVE

OVERALL MEAN=3.125

Afr-1700 E 4-

83
attitudes, and the overall attitude of the groups were
listed at the bottom of the table.

A second computer program was develOped by the
investigator to be used on an IBM 360-22 computer which
determined if there were significant differences in
attitudes, at the .05 level of significance, between
pre-test and post-test for each population for each
category, and between engineering and technology students
for each test for each category. The results of the
calculations were included in Tables 17 through 20.

The overall attitudes of both engineering and
technology students were positive toward the model on
the pre-test. Engineering students became more positive
on the post-test, but the change was not significant.
Technology students became negative toward the model on
the post-test, and the change was significant. Although
the engineering students were more positive than the
technology students on the pre-test, there was no signifi-
cant difference. There was, however, a significant
difference in attitudes on the post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students toward the value of the diagnostics built into
the model were positive on the pre-test. Engineering
students became more positive on the post-test, but the
change was not significant. Technology students became
negative on the post-test, and the change was significant.

Although the technology students were more positive than

84
the engineering students on the pre-test, there was no
significant difference. There was, however, a significant
difference in attitudes on the post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
assumption that the model could easily be used by all
students. Engineering students became more positive
on the post-test, but the change was not significant.
Technology students became negative on the post-test,
and the change was significant. Engineering students
were more positive than the technology students on the
pre-test, but there was no significant difference. There
was, however, a significant difference on the post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
assumption that the model would not interfere with the
learning of statics. Engineering students became more
positive on the post-test, but the change was not signifi-
cant. Technology students became less-positive on the
post-test, and there was a significant difference.
Technology students were more positive than engineering
students on the pre-test, and there was a significant
difference. Engineering students were more positive on
the post-test, but there was no significant difference.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the

value of the model as a teaching tool. Engineering

85
students became more positive on the post-test, but the
change was not significant. Technology students became
negative on the post-test, and there was a significant
difference. Although engineering students were more
positive than the technology students on the pre-test,
there was no significant difference. There was, however,
a significant difference on the post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
assumption that the model was a valuable asset to
learning. Engineering students became more positive
on the post-test, but the change was not significant.
Technology students became negative on the post-test,
and the change was significant. Technology students
were more positive than engineering students on the
pre-test, but the difference was not significant.

There was, however, a significant difference on the
post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
assumption that previous experience with a keypunch was
not necessary in order to use the model. Engineering
students became more positive on the post-test, but the
change was not significant. Technology students became
less positive on the post-test, but the change was not
significant. Although engineering students were more

positive than technology students on the pre-test, the

86

difference was not significant. The differences on the
post-test were significant.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
assumption that the model would help students become
more systematic in problem—solving. Engineering students
became more positive on the post-test, but the change
was not significant. Technology students became negative
on the post-test, and the change was significant. Al-
though technology students were more positive than
engineering students on the pre-test, the difference
was not significant. There was, however, a significant
difference on the post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
assumption that previous experience with a computer was
not necessary in order to use the model. Engineering
students became more positive on the post-test, but
the change was not significant. Technology students
became less positive on the post-test, and the change was
significant. Although the engineering students were
more positive than the technology students on the pre-
test, the difference was not significant. There was
also no significant difference on the post-test.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the

assumption that the model could be easily debugged by

87

students. Engineering students became more positive on
the post-test, but the change was not significant.
Technology students became negative on the post-test,
and the change was significant. Engineering students
were more positive than the technology students on the
pre-test, but the difference was not significant. There
was, however, a significant difference on the post-test.

The attitudes of engineering students were neutral
and the attitudes of technology students were positive
on the pre-test concerning the assumption that there
would not be too much keypunching required. Engineering
students became very positive on the post-test, but the
change was not significant. Technology students became
more positive on the post-test, but the change was not
significant. Although technology students were more
positive than engineering students on the pre-test, the
difference was not significant. The difference on the
post-test was also non-significant.

The attitudes of both engineering and technology
students were positive on the pre-test concerning the
value of the card for the keypunch drum. Engineering
students became more positive on the post-test, but the
change was not significant. Technology students became
less positive on the post-test, but the change was not
significant. Although engineering students were more
positive than technology students on the pre-test, the
difference was not significant. There was also no

significant difference on the post-test.

88

A questionnaire was administered to the two faculty
members who taught the technology class to receive input
from faculty members who had not been previously exposed

to the model. The results of the questionnaire are shown

 

 

 

 

in Table 17.
TABLE 17
RESULTS OF FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE
Response

Item 1 2 3 4 w 5
l 1 1
2 2
3 1 1
4 2
5 2
6 2
7 2
8 2
9 1 1

10 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1: Neither faculty member thought the model
interferred with his teaching of statics.

Item 2: Both of the faculty members thought the
model helped their students to become more systematic
in problem-solving.

Item 3: One faculty member was not sure if he would
use the model the next time he taught statics, but the
other one definitely will.

Item 4: Both of the faculty members thought it

was a good experience for their students to be exposed

89

to a model such as the one in the study.

Item 5: Neither faculty member thought the model
was too difficult for their students to understand or
use.

Item 6: Both faculty members thought the model was
a valuable teaching technique.

Item 7: Both faculty members thought the diagnostics
were very good.

Item 8: Both faculty members thought their students
were able to analyze problems which were heretofore
impossible or very difficult.

Item 9: One faculty member noticed some resistance
from his students concerning the use of the model, but
the other had no Opinion on the matter.

Item 10: Both faculty members thought the model

helped students to better understand statics.

Summary

A summary of the analysis of the student data is

given in Tables 18 through 21.

9O

0>Hummmznz w>wuflmomuma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz nosmwm + +m~o.H A h +m~w.~ o m NH
oz Renown + +mbm.H c m ooo.m N N Ha
oz Honmfim + +oms.H o m +m~o.~ N m ca
oz Hannah + +m~a.~ o w +mhm.~ o e m
oz Hocmwm + +omh.a o m +om~.~ o w m
oz Hannah + +mbm.~ a m +m~w.m H w 5
oz Hocmwm + +mha.~ o m +~mv.~ o m m
oz nonmflm + +vom.H o m +mnm.~ o m m
oz Hmnmwm + +Hm~.~ H h +mwm.~ m n v
oz Honnwm + +Hmm.a o m +HNm.N o h m
oz Honnfim + +mnm.~ H h +mmm.~ w v N
oz Hannah + +mmo.~ o m +~Nm.N o m a
moocououmao Home smoE.:fl coo: «z «A com: «z «m huomoumu
unmowmwcowm mocmsu
amounumom unouloum

 

 

 

 

 

Emmalamom QZ¢ Bmflalflmm

.mBZmDDBm UZHMQmZHUZm

MOE flfidd HEB ho mHmwndzd HEB m0 MMdZSDm

0H Nflmda

91

o>wummozuz o>wuwmomuma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz umanm - +mhh.~ m mH +qoa.~ o n «H
oz umanm + +om~.~ N «H +mmm.~ H HH HH
no» uoamHm . -vv¢.m 6H s +th.~ o h oH
mo» umanm . ooo.m a HH +Hme.~ H «H a
no» ouasvm-Hnu . -mmm.m HH 4 +mmH.~ o mH a
oz umanm - +~mw.~ HH mH +man.~ e m n
no» mumsvmano . -Nmm.m mH m +MH¢.~ H «N 6
mm» muunvmano - nom~.m SH 5 +mom.~ H m~ m
no» umanm . +Hmu.~ m mH +mHm.~ H mm 4
no» mumavm-Hao . uqu.m «H NH +mmm.~ H AH m
mm» mumsvmquu . -Hv~.m ow m +ovm.~ a pH N
no» mumsvmano u -mNH.m 6H m +mmm.~ H on H

noocoummwwv amok some SH com: .2 «m :80: «z «m whomoumo

unmonHcmHm «mango

unoulumom umoulmum

 

 

 

 

 

BmQBIBmOm 92¢ Emmalmmm

.mfizmQDBm NUOAOZEUNB

mom dadn was ho mHmHA42< mma ho flmdzzam

mH mflmflfi

92

m>Hummoznz o>HuHmomumo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz noonz ozHuoooHocm .+oon.~ o p +m~o.~ o m «H
oz noonz zooHoozooa +mom.~ H HH ooo.m ~ ~ HH
oz nonon mzHuoooHocm +Hoh.~ o n +m~o.~ n m oH
oz woanm mcHuoochcm +Hmv.~ H «H +mhm.~ o v m
oz nocon zooHoozooa +moH.~ o «H +om~.~ o o a
oz nonon maHuoocHoam +msh.~ o m +m~o.~ H o 5
oz nonon zooHoozooe +nHo.~ H ow +~mo.~ o m 6
oz uoonz ooHuoooHoom +oom.~ H m~ +omm.~ o a n
no» noonz zooHoozooa +mHn.~ H HH +nom.~ m m o
oz nosmHz ocHuoochcm +mmo.~ H AH +H~m.~ o o m
oz nonon zooHoanooa +oom.~ 5 pH +omo.~ m o a
oz nonon ooHuoooHoom +omm.~ H ou +-m.~ o m H
nUUSUHUMMHo puma o>HUHnom cum: «2 on cum: «2 «m muomouou
unmonHcmHm umoz
amoHocnooa msHuoocHucm

 

 

 

 

 

Emmalmmm .mazmabam HUOAOZmUNB 92¢ UZHKHHZHUZH

ON mAm<B

«on «egg was no mHmzqaza was no smazzzm

93

0>Hummozuz o>HuHmomumo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz nozmHz ooHooooHoom +mnh.~ a mH +m~o.H H p «H
oz nozmHz ocHuoooHoom +oo~.~ N oH +mam.H o a HH
mo» nonon ooHuoooHocm -voo.m oH a +omp.H o m oH
oz nozmHz ooHuoooHoom ooo.m a HH +m~H.~ o o a
moz oozmHz moHuooonom -mmm.m «H o +omn.H o m o
no» nozmHz ooHooooHoom +~mm.~ HH mH +m~m.~ H m a
no» nozmHz ooHooooHoom -Nmm.m mH o +ohH.~ o m o
no» uoonz ozHuoooHoom -om~.m SH 5 +oom.H o m m
oz noanz ooHuoooHoom +Hmp.~ m mH +Hm~.~ H a o
no» noanz ooHooocHoom -ooH.m HH NH +H~m.H o o n
no» noanz ocHuoooHoom -Ho~.m om m +m>m.~ H A N
mo» noanz ooHuoozHoom -mHH.m oH m +mmo.~ o o H
moocouomuwc umoa 0>HuHmom com: .2 am com: «2 «m muomoumo
uoooHoHoon oooz
zooHosnoma mcHHomchcm
somauamoo .mazmozam zooqozmoma oza oszmmzHozm

HN mflmdfi

mom dfidd MZE ho mHmNA¢24 NEE ho HMGZZDm

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Chapter V includes a summary of the results of the
student pre-test and post-test, conclusions concerning
the objectives of the study, recommendations for mod-
ifications to improve the model, and implications for

further development and research.

Summary
The primary purpose of the study was accomplished when

the computer related instructional model was operational.
The model was capable of making a comprehensive check of
a student's analysis and synthesis of a broad range of
statics problems on an individualized basis.

A secondary purpose of the study was to evaluate the
model for educational impact. Attitudinal information
was gathered by administering a pre-test and a post-test
to the engineering and technology student populations.

The engineering students were positive toward the
model in all categories of the pre-test except the one
concerning keypunching. These students became more

positive toward the model in all categories of the

94

95
post-test, but none of the changes were statistically
significant.

The technology students were positive toward the
model in all categories of the pre-test. These students
became less poSitive or negative in all categories on
the post-test, and all changes were statistically signif-
icant except those concerning previous experience being
required on a keypunch, too much keypunching being
required when using the model, and the value of the card
for the keypunch drum.

No significant differences were found between
engineering and technology students on the pre—test
except the category concerning the model interfering
with the learning of statics.

Significant differences were found between engineer-
ing and technology students on the post-test in all
categories except those concerning the model interfered
with the learning of statics, previous experience with
a computer was necessary, too much keypunching was re-
quired when using the model, and the value of the card

for the keypunch drum.

Conclusions

 

The development of the model, as outlined in the
Design of the Study, follows a systems analysis and
design approach which will serve as a valuable basis for
the development of additional models for other problem-

solving courses.

96

The model is written in Basic Fortran IV, requires
less than 16K of core including systems overhead, can be
used with any standard statics textbook, and requires
no terminals or telephone lines. These features insure
transportability to other computer systems.

The model provides an opportunity for students to
focus solely on the analysis and synthesis portions
of problem-solving by being relieved of the mechanics of
calculations. The output of the model is a hard copy in
a neat, systematic form which checks the student's
analysis and synthesis. Students may perform the analysis
and synthesis of many three-dimensional problems which
were heretofore impossible or very difficult due to
lengthy calculations. The model visually brings out
important points concerning Simultaneous equations with
as many as six equations and six unknowns, and provides
feedback to the student on an individualized basis.

The model does not interfere with the learning of

statics. Very little keypunching is required, so no
previous experience with a keypunch is necessary to
effectively use the model. However, some previous
exposure to a computer is necessary or at least desirable.

The main computer program is a pat program capable
of working five problems with each computer run. It
consists of call statements for canned subroutines, thus
giving the students experience in calling such subrou-

tines and keeping them involved with the computer.

97
Approximately 2.5 minutes are required on the IBM 360-22
computer for each computer run.

Engineering students experienced little difficulty
using the model, considered the diagnostics to be valuable,
and found the program easy to debug. They also considered
the model a good teaching tool, a valuable asset to
learning, and an effective means of helping them to become
more systematic in problem-solving. Technology students
did not agree with the engineering students on any of
these items.

The design could have been strengthened through the

employment of control and experimental groups.

Recommendations

The student user's manual should be reduced in length.
Plow charts of subroutines and the relationships between
subroutines and arrays should not be included. An inde-
pendent study package should be designed to complement
the manual which would include the use of a slide projector
and tape recorder to provide an explanation of the model.
It would be preferable to have the package consist of
two or three short presentations to be used as the class
progresses through the course. The package would offer
the advantage of reducing the class time required to
introduce the model, and the student could study the
material at his convenience, repeating the material as

many times as desired.

98

Instructors using the model should require the
students to work the problems and hand them in to be
checked.

The technology class was selected on very short
notice since it was the only one available for the study,
and the technology faculty members were introduced to
the model during the beginning of a new semester. It is
recommended that when the model is used again, the faculty
member or members have a much longer lead time to become
familiar with and experiment with the model before attemp-
ting to use it with a class. They should also be
thoroughly familiar with the strategy for using the model.

The pat main program should be made a subroutine
and put on the disk, thus reducing the compiling time
significantly. It is estimated that this could reduce
the time required to work five problems from 2.5 minutes
to a little less than a minute on the IBM 360-22
computer. 'Also, a few of the arrays could be reduced in
size or eliminated, thus cutting down on the total core
required.

When an error in analysis or synthesis is detected
in a problem, a diagnostic message is given and the
program is terminated. The model will be modified so
that when such an error occurs the particular problem
is terminated, but the program will continue to the

remaining problems included in the program.

99

The sheet for tabulating the data will be revised so
that the actual width and columns correspond in length
to those on a computer card. Then when a student punches
a card, he can lay it down on the data sheet to make

certain he punched data in the desired columns.

Implications for Further Development and Research.

The potential for a computer related instructional y
model, such as the one in this study, is almost unlimited.
Any subject area which involves lengthy and/or repetitive
calculations is a possible candidate. Furthermore, many
computer programs have been written over the years for
use by students which relieve the student of the calcu-
lations, but do not have the means for checking the
student's analysis and synthesis with appropriate
diagnostics. A thorough analysis of many of these programs
would probably disclose that means could be incorporated
to perform this added function, thus making them much
more valuable as a teaching tool.

Plans are already in progress to explore the possi—
bility Of modifying the model so its usefulness will be
greatly expanded. Problems with friction at impending
motion will be considered first. Then, the possibility
of including problems which require the free-body diagram
to be broken into two or three additional free-bodies will
be considered. The incorporation of these two items

would increase the power of the model considerably.

100

The model was developed to be used as a supplement
to a regular statics class. Possibilities are being
explored to extend its use to independent study courses,
freshman engineering design courses, courses for the
professional development of graduate engineers, and
engineering review or refresher courses intended to
prepare graduate engineers for professional tests required
for licensing.

Other areas being considered for instructional
models are dynamics, thermodynamics, strength of
materials, engineering design, and cost-analysis for
design-courses.

An experiment should be conducted with the model
when it has been further developed as noted in the
recommendations above. A large population of students
should be selected for the study, all of whom would be
enrolled in the same statics class with one instructor.
Control and experimental groups should be randomly selected
for the experiment in which only the experimental group
would use the model. An instrument should be developed
to measure achievement in the cognative area of learning
which would be administered to both groups at the end of
the experiment. The test results should be used to
determine significant differences in achievement of the
two groups.

A further study should include a cost-benefit analysis.

A cost analysis of the use of the model should be compared

101
with increases in student achievement when using the
model. The analysis could be used to determine if
the added cost when using the model could be justified

from the added benefits the students would realize.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alpert, D., and Bitzer, D. L. "Advances in Computer-Based
Education.” Science, (March, 1970), 360, 1586.

Anastasio, E. J., and Alderman, D. L. “Evaluation of
the Educational Effectiveness of PLATO and TICCIT.”
Proceedings: Third Annual Frontiers in Education
Conference. New York: IEEE Cat. No. 73 CHO 725-3E,
(April,'I§73), 382.

 

 

 

Bitzer, Donald L.; Sherwood, Bruce A.; and Tenczar, Paul.
"PLATO: Everyone's Answer." Proceedings-~Third
Annual Frontiers in Education EOnference. New York:
_IE__EE Cat. No. 73"“c'ao""'7§6-"§z, (April, I973), 360-370.

 

 

Boblick, John M. ”The Use of Computer Simulations in the
Teaching of High School Physics.” §gience Education,
VOl. 54, No. l, (Jan-Mar, 1970), 77-81. ‘

 

Brown, B. R. ”Experimentation with Computer-Assisted
Instruction in Technical Education.” Semi-annual
Pro ress Re rt, Project No.gg§C-5-85-U7Z. University
Parfi, Pa.: TEe Pennsylvania State University, 1966.

Bueschel, Richard T. "Time-Sharing--A Pragmatic Approach
in the School." EducationalTechnologyp (March, 1970),
21-23.

Diamond, Herbert S. ”The writing of a CAI Program by an
Author New to Computers.” Educational Technology,
(October, 1971), 42.

Edwards, E. M. ”APL: A Natural Language for Engineering
Education, Part II: The First Programming Language
Suitable for Engineering Undergraduates." IEEE Trans—
actions on Education, (November, 1971), 179.

 

Goldstine, H. H. The Computer from Paggal to von Nuemann.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, I

 

Grayson, Lawrence P. ”CAI: The Fifteen Million Dollar
Experiment." Proceedings--Third Annual Frontiers in
Education Conference. New York: IEEE Cat. No.

CH6 725-3E, TAprII, 1973), 357.

102

103

Howard, J. A.; Ordung, P. F.; and Wood, R. C. ”On-line
Computer Systems for Engineering Education-~State
of the Art.” IEEE Transactions on Education, VOl.
E-l4, No. 4, (NOvember, 1971), 210,216.

Mathis, A. M.; Smith, T.: and Hansen D. "College Students'
Attitudes Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction.”
Journal of Educational Psychology, VOl. 61, No. 1,
TFebruary,1§75), 43-51.

 

McWilliams, Erik D. ”The Fifteen Million CAI Experiment--
What NSF Expects." Proceedings--Third Annual Frontiers
in Education Conference. New YOrk: IEEE Cat. No.

Rudberg, D. A. "APL: A Natural Language for Engineering
Education." IEEE Transactions on Education, (November,
1971), 183-184T'

 

 

 

Salisbury, Alan B. ”An Overview of CAI." Educational
Technology, (OCtOber, 1971), 48.

 

 

Salisbury, Alan B. ”Computers and Education: Toward
Agreement on Terminology." Educational Technology,

Stetten, Kenneth J. "Toward a Market Success for CAI
(An Overview of the TICCIT Program)." Proceedings--
Third Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. New
YorE: IEEE Cat. No. 73 CHO 725-3E, (ApriI, 1973),
371-372.

 

Walker, T. M., and Cotterman, W. W. An Introduction to
Computer Sgience and Algorithmic Processes. ficston:
Allyn andBacon,197 .

 

 

Zinn, Karl L. "Instructional Programming Languages."
Educational Technology, (March, 1970), 43-46.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Boblick, John M. “Computer-Based Simulation of an
Acid-Base Titration." School Science and Mathematics,
VOl. 71, (January, 1971), 49-54.

Boocock, Sarane S. ”Using Simulation Games in College
Courses." Simulation and Games, VOl. 1, No. 1,
(March, 1976), 67—77.

Burke, J. Bruce: O'Neill, Julia; and welsch, Kay.
"A Humanized Model of a Computer Managed Instructional
System.” Educational Technology, (November, 1972),
31-36 0

104
Deep, Donald. "The Computer Can Help Individualize
Instruction." The Elementagy School Journal,
V01 0 70 ' NO. 7 ' (April ' 1.9—7 ' - o
Gaunt, Roger, N. "Benchmarks May be More Important Than

Trademarks in Selecting Computers." Colle e and
University Business, (June, 1971), 68—70.

 

Gaunt, Roger N. ”Computer Choices: Ignore it, Hire it,
Buy it, or Get Together to Use it.” College and
University Business, (August, 1971), 2fil27,

 

Gaunt, Roger N. "Everything You Always Wanted to Know
About Computers, But Didn't Know Whom to Ask."
College and University Business, (October, 1971).
“-3 6 o

Gaunt, Roger N. "Selection of Computer System Must Start
with Understanding of Hardware-Software Capabilities."
College and Universitnyusiness, (April, 1971),

74-78.

Hansen, Duncan N. and Harvey, William L. "Impact of CAI
on Classroom Teachers." Educational Technology,
VOl. X, No. 2, (February, 1970), 46-48.

 

Jacobson, Milton D. and MacDougall, Mary Ann. "Computer
Management of Information and Structure in Computer-
Supported Instructional Materials." Educational
Technology, VOl. X, No. 3, (March, 1970), 39-427

 

Jamison, D. and Suppes P. ”Estimated Costs of Computer
ASsisted Instruction for Compensatory Education
in Urban Areas." Educational Technology, (September,
1970), 49-57.

Kerr, Eugene G.; Ting, T. C.; walden, William E.
”An Instructional System for Computer Assisted
Instruction on a General Purpose Computer."
Educational Technology, VOl. x, No. 3, (March, 1970),
28930.

Kooi, Beverly Y., and Geddes, Cleone. "The Teacher's Role
in Computer Assisted Instructional Management."

Educational Technology, VOl. X, No. 2, (February,
”76), 42-45.

Proceedings of_a Conferencg_on_Computers in the Under-
fiéraHUate Curricula. The University of Iowa, Iowa

City, Iowa, (June, 1970).

Swartz, G. Boyd. "Using a Small Computer in the College
Mathematics Curriculum." Educational Technology,
VOl. x, No. 3, (March, 1970),31-32.

APPENDIX A

STUDENT AND FACULTY

INSTRUMENTS

9.
10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

105

POST-TEST

While using the COMPUTER PROGRAM I felt challenged to
do my best work.

I was concerned that I might not be understanding the
material in the statics course because of the COMPUTER
PROGRAM.

I was not concerned about missing a problem because
I knew I would receive diagnostics describing errors
in my analysis.

I tried to get the COMPUTER PROGRAM run rather than
trying to learn statics.

I knew whether my analysis was correct or not before
I was told.

I guessed at the method of analysis when using the
COMPUTER PROGRAM.

As a result of having used the COMPUTER PROGRAM, I am
interested in trying to find out more about statics.

I was more involved in understanding the COMPUTER
PROGRAM than in understanding statics.

The COMPUTER PROGRAM made the learning too mechanical.

I felt as if I had a private tutor while using the
COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I was aware of efforts to suit the diagnostics
specifically to me.

I found it difficult to concentrate on statics because
of the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

Diagnostics were given in the COMPUTER PROGRAM which
I felt were not relevant to the material.

The COMPUTER PROGRAM is an inefficient use of the
student ' s time .

While using the COMPUTER PROGRAM I had a great deal
of trouble keypunching.

The COMPUTER PROGRAM made it possible for me to learn
quickly.

I felt frustrated while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

300

31.

32.

33.

34.

106
The COMPUTER PROGRAM approach was inflexible.

Even otherwise interesting material would be boring
when using a COMPUTER PROGRAM.

In view of the effort I put into it, I am satisfied
with what I learned while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

In view of the amount I learned, I feel that the use
of the COMPUTER PROGRAM is superior to traditional
instruction.

With a course such as I am taking while using the
COMPUTER PROGRAM, I would prefer the COMPUTER PROGRAM
to traditional instruction.

I am not in favor of the COMPUTER PROGRAM because it
is just another step towards depersonalized instruc-
tion.

Previous keypunching experience is necessary in order
to perform easily while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

The COMPUTER PROGRAM was boring.

The use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM made me more syste-
matic in problem-solving.

Previous experience with a computer is necessary if
a student is to benefit from the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I had a great deal of trouble finding my programming
errors while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I found the diagnostics given in the COMPUTER PROGRAM
to be very poor.

I found it very confusing shuffling call cards for
subroutines in the main program.

I found there was too much keypunching required while
using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I feel the punched card for the keypunch drum was
very helpful.

I found it difficult to organize the data when pre-
paring to punch data cards.

I found it difficult to understand how to use the
COMPUTER PROGRAM.

107
PRE-TEST

1. While using the COMPUTER PROGRAM I will feel chal-
lenged to do my best work.

2. I am concerned that I might not be understanding the
material in the statics course because of the COMPUTER
PROGRAM.

3. I am not concerned about missing a problem because I
know I will receive diagnostics describing errors in
my analysis.

4. I feel I will try to get the COMPUTER PROGRAM run
rather than try to learn statics.

5. I will know whether my analysis is correct or not
before I am told.

6. I will guess at the method of analysis when using
the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

7. As a result of having used the COMPUTER PROGRAM, I
will be interested in trying to find out more about
statics.

8. I will be more involved in understanding the COMPUTER
PROGRAM than in understanding statics.

9. The COMPUTER PROGRAM will make the learning too mech-
anical.

10. I will feel as if I have a private tutor while using
the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

11. I will be aware of efforts to suit the diagnostics
specifically to me.

12. I will find it difficult to concentrate on statics
because of the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

13. Diagnostics will be given in the COMPUTER PROGRAM
which I will feel are not relevant to the material.

14. The COMPUTER PROGRAM will be an inefficient use of
the student's time.

15. While using the COMPUTER PROGRAM I will have a great
deal of trouble keypunching.

16. The COMPUTER PROGRAM will make it possible for me
to learn quickly.

17. I will feel frustrated while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

108

The COMPUTER PROGRAM approach will be inflexible.

Even otherwise interesting material will be boring
when using a COMPUTER PROGRAM.

In view of the effort I will put into it, I will be
satisfied with what I will learn while using the
COMPUTER PROGRAM.

In view of the amount I will learn, I feel that the
use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM is superior to traditional
instruction.

With a course such as I am taking while using the
COMPUTER PROGRAM, I would prefer the COMPUTER PROGRAM
to traditional instruction.

I am not in favor of the COMPUTER PROGRAM because it
is just another step towards depersonalized instruc-
tion.

Previous keypunching experience is necessary in order
to perform easily while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

The COMPUTER PROGRAM will be boring.

The use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM will make me more
systematic in problem-solving.

Previous experience with a computer is necessary if
a student is to benefit from the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I will have a great deal of trouble finding my pro-
gramming errors while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I will find the diagnostics given in the COMPUTER
PROGRAM to be very poor.

I will find it very confusing shuffling call cards
for subroutines in the main program.

I will find there will be too much keypunching
required while using the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I feel the punched card for the keypunch drum will be
very helpful.

I will find it difficult to organize the data when
preparing to punch data cards.

I will find it difficult to understand how to use
the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

109

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

l. The COMPUTER PROGRAM interferred with my teaching
of statics.

2. The COMPUTER PROGRAM helped the students to become
more systematic in setting-up problems.

3. I will definitely consider using the COMPUTER PROGRAM
when I next teach statics.

4. It is good experience for the students to be exposed
to the use of a computer with a COMPUTER PROGRAM such
as this one.

5. It is too difficult for the students to understand
the COMPUTER PROGRAM and how to use it.

6. The COMPUTER PROGRAM is a valuable teaching technique.

7. The diagnostics in the COMPUTER PROGRAM were very
good.

8. My students were able to analyze problems which were
heretofore impossible or very difficult.

9. I noticed a great deal of resistance by the students
concerning the use of the COMPUTER PROGRAM.

10. I feel that the COMPUTER PROGRAM helped the students
to better understand statics.

COMMENTS:

APPENDIX B

USER'S MANUAL

USER’S

Objectives . . . . . . . . .
Assumptions .'. . . . . . .
Equations of Equilibrium . .
Data . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tabulation of Data . . . . .
How to Enter Data . . . . .
Flowcharts of Subroutines .
Main Program . . . . . . . .

beekoooo on 000’...

110

MANUAL

Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . . lll
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Computer Print-out of Main Program . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Computer Print-out of the Deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

10.

11.

12.

111

OBJECTIVES

 

Check a student's analysis and synthesis of a
problem with suitable diagnostic messages.

Require no calculations on the part of the student.

Be sure the computer does not interfere with the
learning of statics.

Afford the students an opportunity to analyze and
synthesize many practical problems which heretofore
were impossible or very difficult due to lengthy
calculations.

Give instant feedback to the student on an indivi-
dualized basis.

Require a very simple main program consisting of
call statements for canned subroutines.

Make the program so that it can easily be debugged
by the student.

Require very little keypunching on the part of the
student.

Be usable by a person with little or no previous
experience with a computer or keypunch.

Give the student experience in calling canned
subroutines.

Visually bring out points concerning simultaneous
equations with several variables which are ordinarily
only discussed in class or in a textbook.

Keep students involved with a computer.

ASSUMPTIONS

 

The analysis and synthesis are the most important
parts of problem-solving.

Many of the errors in problem-solving occur during
the analysis of the problem.

Given enough time, most students can make accurate
calculations.

112

EQUATIONS OF EQUILIBRIUM

 

Vector form: 2 i=5 2 i=5

Scalar form: 2 ano 2 Mx=0
.2 Fy=° Z N550
z rz-o .2 Mzao

For this program, the student must distinguish between

active and reactive forces and moments.

Vector form: zFactive+z reactivego

E Mact ive+ ZMreactiveflo

Scalar form: ZFxA +ZFXR =0 zMxA +§MXR =0

ZFYA +2FYR =0 EMYA +§MyR no
ZFZ +2F2R =0 2M2 +242 =0

A A R

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATA
1. Forces:
A. Concentrated
B. Distributed
II. Points:
III. Lines:
IV. MOments:
TABULATION OF DATA
I. Forces:
A. concentrated
Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 F l m n x y z
2 F 81 Y1 21 x2 Y2 22
3 F x8 y8 28 x y z
4 Ff Fx FY Fz x y z
5 F 1 x y
6 Fx FY Fz x y 2
A4 I4 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0
1-4 5-8 9-16 17-24 25—32 33-40 41.48 49-56 57-64
You have a free choice of the coordinate axes.
(Except for NO 5.)
2 Y
Y x x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

 

 

 

2
No. 1 [Fl Given:
Direction c‘giness: l,m,n
1H4x,y,z) Magnitude: Fl
Point: x,y,z
Y
x
Example:
Name=FlO
IFI =100.lb x33.
1 =-o.716f y=0.
m = 0.275 z=4.
n = 0.642
DATA CARD:
Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 56 F7
[_Fio I lllOO. J-O.7lGJO.275 [.642 jra. I I 4. I

 

NOTE: Fl-F7 must have a decimal point
NO has no decimal point.
If a value is zero, leave the columns blank
such as y=0 (F6 above)

 

 

 

No. 2 Given:
y [E] Magnitude: IE]
(XZ'YZ'ZZ’ Two points: From(x1,y1,zl)
. to (x2,y2.22)
x
/4/ //<;4XI'Y1'Z1’
Example:
Ngme= F4 x2=-5.
[Fl a 500.11)f y2=6.
Y1 = -1.
21 a 8.
DATA CARD:
Name NO . F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

 

[ F4 J zlsoo. [2. [-1. [8. [-5. I6. [ l

115
/‘Y37/
521.2 E1222?
2 x32 Magnitude: IFI

"T Slope: x8,y8,zs
' Point: x,y,z

:11.

X ‘leIz)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example:

Ngme=Fll x=3.
IFI =3oo.1bf y=-l.
=2. z=4.
ys =3.

 

Name NO. F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

 

[r11 [ 3[3oo. [2.F2 [3. [-4. [3. [-1. [4. [

NO. 4 [Fl Given:

(x,y,z) Magnitude: IFI

Y Point: x,y,z
Parallel to F1: Fxl'Fyl'le

X, "
IFI=Fx1i+FY1j+lek

 

 

Example :

Name=F

[Fl =250.1bf x=0

Fx1 =3. y=0
z-O

Name No. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

 

 

 

 

[ F [ 4[250. 3. [2. -1o. [ [ J I]

NO. 5

*

 

 

116

(For two-dimensional only)

Y _-
IFI ”(XIY)
O‘

91116.4:
Magnitude: lF'
Point: x,y
Smallest angle F makes
with the x-axis: 6‘ (always
positive)

 

 

x Directions in the x and y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

directions: l,m
Exampl :
Name=F3 lF|=1000.lbf
0:. =30 x =2.
1 =‘1. y 3-40
m =-l.
DATA CARD:
Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
[_F3 [ s[1ooo. 30. [-1. [-1. [2. [—4. [
NO. 5(Continued) Given:
y [Fl Same as above
W‘er)
0‘

x
Example:
Name=F7 lib-100.11:f
¢*' =35 x =4.
1 =-10 y =3.
m =1.
DATA CARD:
Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

LpF7 [ 5[1oo. [35. [-1. [1. [4. [3. [ 7[

 

117

NO. 6 Given:

 

z (x,y,z) FOrce F: Fx,Fy,Fz

Point: x,y,z

 

 

 

 

y
x Fein+ij+sz
Example:
Name=FO x=2.5
Ex :3; 2231'“
F: =12.
DATA CARD:
Name no. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
[F0 [ 6[ [3. [-7. [12. 2.5 [-l.8 [8. ]

 

I. Forces:
B. Distributed

LIMITATION on coordinate axes:

 

Y
NO. 1
x For a given problem, the
z axes must be the same for
z distributed forces, forces,
NO. 2 moments, points and lines.
Y
x

w(x) is the distributed load:
w(x)=F(x)=I=Ax2-l-Bx-:-C-+-Dx'S
In the computer:

Func(x)=A*(x-R)**2+B*(x-R)+C+D*(x-R)**.5

118

LIMITATION on the origin of the axes:

The origin must be at the left end of the member.
LIMITATION on the coefficients of func(x). (A,B,C,D)
All coefficients must be zero except one for each
distributed load.

LIMITATION on R, R1, and R2 shown below:

 

R, R1, and R2 must always be positive or zero as measured

from the origin to the right.

Data Cards:

Name NO. A B C D E G R R1 R2
[[11] I] l1l1]

A4 I4 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0 F7.0

 

1-4 5-8 9-16 17-24 25-32 33-40 41-48 49-56 57-64 65-72 73-80
NOte:
R is the distance the curve has been translated to the

right from standard position.

119

EXAMPLES OF DLOAD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE I:
A > 0 y
Given:
R1 2 R __—
Name=Dl
R2 > R NO=1
=2 .
B=O
C=0
D=0
C=0
Z x G=O
31 R=10.
/ R2 R1311 o
R2=15.
z /
DATA CARD:
Name NO. A B C D E G R R1 R2
E1 1 2. [ [10 [11. [15.1
CASE II:
A) 0 2 Given:
Rl < R Name=D2
NO=2
R2 S R A=1 .
B=0
C=0
‘ D=O
R1 y E-O
R2 GBO
R=8 .
/ R R134 0
DATA CARD:
Name NO. A B C D E G R R1 R2

 

£32 I 2[1. [

 

j [8.

NOTE: A CANNOT BE LESS THAN ZERO.

[4. l6. j

120

 

 

 

 

 

CASE III :
B > 0 2
R1 2 R z=B (y-R) Given:
R2 > R 1 Name=D3
\\\ NO=2
A80
\ B-..
_ _ C=0
R y D=O
./
R1 G=0
R=4 .
/ R2 41-6.
xr R2=10 .

 

 

B <0 y Given :
R1 < R y=B (x-R) Name=D4
NO=1
R2 S R A-O
38.1 o
C=O
x D=0
R1 E=0
R2 G=0
R=12 .
z / R R1=3 .
I R2=10 a

Name NO . A B C D E G R R1 R2

 

 

 

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

CASE V:
C > 0 y
Given :
R1 _>_ R y-C
Name=D5
R2)>R NO=l
7 A80
B=O
C=25 .
R x D-O
E=0
“1 G=0
R=10 .
32 81-10 .
z r R2-20.
DATA CARD:

 

Name NO . A B R1 R2

[05 I 1I I [25. L I I I10.J10. I20. I

NOTE: C CANNOT BE LESS THAN ZERO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE VI: 2
.5 Given:
D>O z=D (y-R) .
-\ Name-D6
R1 2R NO=2
- A=O
R2 >R BIO
C=0
Raf/ Y 333'
G=0
/ R1 R=10 .
l/r R2 Rl=11.
, R2=l7.
x
DATA CARD:

 

Name NO . A B C D E G R R1 R2

I06 I 2] I i J2. L I [10. I11. [17. I

 

 

 

 

CASE VII:
D < 0 z z=D (y-R) ' 5
Given:
m < R ' N D7
7’ ame=
R2 R N082
s y/ M
B80
C80

 

 

D3- 2 o
/_&_/ y E=0
‘ G=O
R2 R=10 .
R

 

/ Rl=5 .

x R2=8 .
r

DATA CARD:

 

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Moments: (Moments or couples)
Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 m 1 m n
2 CK c2 c2
A4 I4 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0
1-4 5-8 9-16 17-24 25-32 33-40 41-48 49-56 57-64
NO. 1 z ’/////:r
M 9.1122:
Magnitude: [CI
///I y Direction cosines: l,m,n
Example: x
Name=C3 [Ola-300. 1=-.716 m=.275 n=.642
DATA CARD:
Name _NO._ F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 _ F7
IC3 I 1I300. I-.716I.275 [.642 I I I I
NO. 2‘ z I I
IE Given:
5: Cx,Cy,Cz
Y
x
Example:
Name=Cl Cx=3. Cy=4. Cz=-5.
DATA CARD:
Name NO. 2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

 

Ic1 I 2I £113.]?

124

II. Points:

III. Lines:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

1 l m n x y z

2 x1 Y1 21 x2 Y2 22

3 x y 2
A4 I4 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0 F8.0
1-4 5-8 9-16 l7-24 25-32 33-40 41-48 49-56 57-64
Maine)

2
(errz) Given:
Direction cosines: l,m,n
Point: x,y,z
‘\ y
x

Example:
Name=Ll x=2.
NO =1 y=4.
1 --.716 z=-3.
m =.27S
n =.642
DATA CARD:
Name NO. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

 

I-.716I.27S

ILl I» III

125

 

NO. 2 (Line) (x2,y2,22)
Given:
2
Two points:
From(x1,y1,zl)
Y
Example:
Name=L4 xZI-S.
NO =2
X1 =5. y2=30
Y1 =30 22--lo
21 =0.
DATA CARD:

 

Name Ro._ F1 i F2 i F3 i F4 F5 F6 _ F7»
IL4 I 2| [5. I3. I I-5. I3. I-1.I

NO. 3 (Point)

 

rh‘rer)

Given:

Y
/// Point: x,y,z

 

Example:

Name=Pl
NO =3
x =5.
y =2.
2 =_3 0

DATA CARD:

Name NO. F1 F2 F3. F4 F5 F6 F7

IPl I 3I I I I I5. [2. I-3. I

 

126

The preceding material has been condensed for your
convenience. All of the data has been placed on one
sheet. You will be given a loose sheet of this form for
use when solving problems. Another special form has been
developed to assist you in tabulating the data. Loose
copies of this sheet will be provided to you as you need
them. Copies of the forms follow.

You will be provided with a special card for the
keypunch drum which will cause the keypunch to tabulate

to the desired column when you strike the skip key.

127

SUMMARY OF DATA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORCES: CONCENTRATED

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 F 1 m n x y z
2 F x1 Y1 21 x2 y2 z;
3 F x8 y8 28 x y z
4 F Fx F_ FZ x y z
5 F l m x y
6 Fx Fy z x y z

PTLINE:

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 1 m. n x z
2 x1 y1 21 x2 y2 z;
3 x y z

COUPLE:

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
1 C 1 m n
2 Cx Czfi Cz

DLOAD:

NAME NOI A B kc c (E G R _R1 R2

 

I 11 l l I l

FOR DLOAD ONLY:
. _ y

 

NO=1

N082

 

128

TABULATION OF DATA

NAME NO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

 

A B C D E G R R1 R2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 45 89 1617 2425 3233 4041 4849 5657 6465 7273 80

 

 

DECIMAL POINT a-I

129

HOW TO ENTER DATA

I. Forces:
A. COncentrated:
Data is read into the computer by calling
SUBROUTINE FORCES
The subroutine continues reading forces (one

force/card) until it reaches a BLANK CARD.

 

LIMITATION: Only SIX FORCES may be read at a

 

 

time. This includes both concentrated and
distributed forces.
B. Distributed:
Data is read into the computer by calling
SUBROUTINE DLOAD
The subroutine continues reading forces (one

force/card) until it reaches a BLANK CARD.

 

II. Points:
III. Lines:
Point and line data is read into the computer
by calling
SUBROUTINE PTLINE
The subroutine continues reading data (one point

or line/card) until it reaches a BLANK CARD.

 

LIMITATION: Only five points and/or lines can

be read at a time.

130

IV. Moments:v
Data is read into the computer by calling
SUBROUTINE COUPLE
The subroutine continues reading data (one moment/

card) until it reaches a BLANK CARD.

 

LIMITATION: Only six moments can be read at
at time.
The following are flow diagrams of the subroutines
and diagrams showing the relationships between subroutines

and arrays .

SUBROUTINE ZFORC

BLANKS OUT ARRAYSA
ANAM AND FNAM

I

ZEROES OUT ARRAYI
FORC

 

FORCES (NF)
EQUAL TO ZERO

SUBROUTINE ZPTLN

BLANKS OUT
ARRAY *PTNAM

ISETS COUNTER FORI

 

‘ ZEROES *OUT TREI
_ARRAY PTLN

 

SETS COUNTER FOR
POINTS AND LINES
(NP) EQUAL T0

 

 

 

ZERO

131

SUBROUTINE ZSMOM

BLANKS OUT
MY SMNAM

 

ZEROES OUT
_ARRAY SMOM'

 

MOMENTS (NM)
EQUAL TO ZERO

SUBROUTINE ZARR

[SETS COUNTER FORI

EROES OUT THE ARRAY

z
[ARR, SF, AND SM

132

SUBROUTINE FORCES

[NRITES:

SUBROUTINE FORCESJI

 

[wRITEs:

 

p—————DJREADS A CARD]

YES
N080 ?

DATA CARDS FOR FORCES]

 

 

NO

 

WRITES OUT DATA]
JUST READ

YES

o-[WRITES THE ARRAY FORC]

 

WRITES OUT ARRAys/

FNAM AND FORC

 

 

 

    

‘No
ICALCULATES

Fx'FY'Fz
I T

PILLS ARRAYS
FNAM AND FORC

J

 

 

 

ujfwnITEs:

THE MAX. NO.
FORCES IS 6

 

i
Gm. Em)

OF/'

 

 

 

 

133

ARRAYS USED WITH SUBROUTINE FORCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—.I
H.-
A,

 

 

 

 

 

 

.[___.
w ’ I I 1 I 1 I
[CalculateszI Fx I Fy I Fz I I
I

 

 

 

134
SUBROUTINE DLOAD
I WRITES: THE ARRAY FORC
FOR DLOAD ONLY

WRITES OUT ARRAYS
FNAM AND FORC

IWRITES: DATAI CARDS FOR DLOAD] I

NN=N+1

 

8

[WRITESz SUBROUTINE DLOAD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRITES: THE MAX. NO.
OF FORCES IS 6

-H>4READS A DATA CARD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES (CALL EXIT)
NO=0 7 ,
GIVES DIAGNOSTIC
NO ERRORS
WRITES OUT DATA FROM I
CARD JUST READ GALL EXI’D
YES

 

 

 

 

A,B,C,D,E,G,
R,R1,R2,0K?

NO

 

     

NOTE:

Subroutine DLOAD uses
the same arrays as
subroutine FORCES.

 

CALCULATES EQUIVALENT
FORCE AND ITS LOCATIONV

 

FILLS ARRAYS I
FNAM AND FORC

 

 

 

135

SUBROUTINE PTLINE

IWRITES: SUBROUTINE PTLINE]

I

[NRITES: DATA FOR PTLINE]

 

 

I A—JWRITES THE ARRAY PTLN]

F————d~{READS A CARD]

YES

 

 

WRITES OUT ARRAYS
PTNAM AND PTLN

 

 

 

N030?

NO

 

[WRITES OUT DATA JUST REAQ]
[NP=NP+1] I WRITES: THE MAx. NO. OFJ]
POINTS AND LINES IS 5

I
YES (CEALL EXIT:>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NP‘)>5?

NO

 

CALCULATES VALUES TOI
~FILL ARRAY PTLN

I

FILLS ARRAYS PTNAM
AND PTLN

 

 

136

ARRAYS USED WITH SUBROUTINE PTLINE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PTNAM PTLN
Name 1 m n x y z
I I I l I I I

 

Name

 

 

 

 

I Calculates: l

 

 

 

 

 

m n
I I I ‘

Type
NO F1 F2 F3 F4

 

F5

 

F6

 

F7

 

I ,

L

_DATA CARD

1

1

1

l

 

137

SUBROUTINE COUPLE

8

[WRITES: SUBROUTINE COUPLE]

 

[WRITESz DATA ICARDS FOR COUPLE]

I

 

 

 

 

’fizeads a card J . ' IWRITESzrloigRgguglfigny

YES WRITES ARRAYS SMNAM
AND SMOM

no @

[WRITES OUT DATA JUST READ]

 

 

NO=O?

 

 

 

  

WRITES: THE MAXIMUM
NO. OF MOMENTS IS 6

I
(CALL EXITZ)

 

 

CALCULATES VALUES TO FILLI
ARRAY SMOM

IFILLS ARRAYS SMNAM AND SMOM]

J

138

ARRAYS USED WITH SUBROUTINE COUPLE

SMNAM SMOM

‘ __1
Name Mx 5% Mz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LCalculates: Mx My MzJ .

*‘ T f *

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name NO F1 F2 . F3 - F4 F5 F6

 

DATA CARD

SUBROUTINE SUMFOR

139

SUBROUTINE SUMMON

[NRITEs: SUBROUTINE SUMFORJ' [[NRITES: SUBROUTINE SUMMONI

 

SUMs THE FORCES IN FORC—
AND FILLS ARRAY SF

 

[NUML(1,I)=NO. OF FORCE§J

 

[TELLS THE NO. OF FORCES]

GIVES THE SUM OF THE
FORCES: Fx 'FL ,Fz

 

 

 

SUMS THE MOMENTS IN SMOM—
AND FILLs ARRAY SM

 

 

LNUML(112)=NO. OF MOMENTS]

 

[TELLS THE NO. OF MOMENTg]

 

MOMENTS: M xz,M'.y,M

/ GIVES THE SUM OF THE

SUBROUTINE MOMPT

 

 

NAME OF FORCE K GOES]
_IN SMNAM

 

 

_CALCULATES MOMENT OF ]
FORCE K ABOUT POINT J

{

 

[FUTS MOMENT IN ARRAY SMOM]

 

 

WRITES THE FORCE NAME

 

YES

 

 

 

 

AND MX'MY'MZ FOR

EACH FORCE

 

140

ARRAYS USED WITH SUMFOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30:18 SUMS , SUNS

SM 1’!

 

 

ARRAYS USED WITH SUBROUTINE SUMMOM

 

SMOM
M . M H M
_ x y z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMF [ [j

141

 

 

 

 

SUBROUTINE SOLVE SUBROUTINE MFGRR
[WRITES: SUBROUTINE SOLVEj' [SOLVES THE MATRIX ARR]

 

 

e 1

RETURNS THE SOLUTION l

 

l/TELLS NO. OF UNKNOWN

FORCES AND MOMENTS TO THE MAIN PROGRAM IN

* ARRAY ARR
‘NUML(2,1)=NO. OF UNKNOWN FORCES ‘
NUML(2 , 2)-NO. OF UNKNOWN MOMENTsJ

[FILLS ARRAYS ANAM AND ARR]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRITES ARRAYS ANAM, ARR, AND
SUMS WHICH GIVE THE EQUATIONS
OF EQUILIBRIUM IN MATRIX FORM

 

[zEROES OUT ARRAYS SF AND SMJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUBROUTINE EQUA SUBROUTINE TYFSYS.
WRITES: YOUR EQUATIONS [ WRITES: SUBROUTINE TYFSYS 1
OF EQUILIBRIUM

' WRITES THE TYPE OF FORCE
WRITES OUT THE EQUATIONS SYSTEM AND THE EQUATIONS
OF EQUILIBRIUM OF EQUILIBRIUM.YOU

USED.

 

 

 

WRITES IF YOU ARE CORRECT
OR NOT. IF NOT CORRECT,
IT TELLS WHAT IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN.

 

 

ARRAYS USED WITH SUBROUTINE SOLVE

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FNAM FORC SMNAM SMOM
IEEEEI Fx FY Fz x y 2 'FN;;;1 Mk My Mz
I F1 Fxl Fy1 F21 x y 2 M1 M1x Mly Mlz
F2 sz Fyz F22 x y 2 M2 M2x M2? M22
F3 Fx3 Fy3 F23 x y 2 F1 Mle MFlY MFlz
‘ F2 Msz MFZY MF2z
“___-A _ __EE_I MF3x MF3y MF3z
SUMS |SFK|SFY|SFZISMXISMYlst]
SF [SF(1)[SF(2)[SF(3)I
SM [SM(1)[SM(2)ISM(3)] SF
‘ ’ * ‘ ‘ and
ANAM [ F1 [ F2 1 F3 [ M1] M2] vS%L_. 82!? ’
ARR Fx1 F22 Fx3 SF(1) 1SFx=o
Fy1 Fy2 Fy3 SF(2) SFY-o
F21 F22 F23 SF(3) SFZIO
MFIx Msz MF3x MIx M2x SM(1) SMx=o
MFIy MF2y MF3y MJ.y sz SM(2) SMY=0
MFIz MF2z MF3z M1z M2 SM(3) ‘SM2801

 

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUBROUTINE CHECK SUBROUTINE DUMPIT
LWRITES: SUBROUTINE CHECK] [WRITES: SUBROUTINE DUMPIT]
CHECKS THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE WRITES OUT INFORMATION
AND REACTIVE FORCES AND THE INSTRUCTOR CAN USE
MOMENTS YOU HAD. TO SEE WHAT THE OUTPUT OF
‘ § * SUBROUTINE MFGRR WAS.

 

WRITES THE NUMBER OF

ACTIVE AND REACTIVE
FORCES AND MOMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

YOU HAD.
SUBROUTINES FILKMC,
"FTEKMETFTLKMH"‘
NO
comm
YES FILLS ARRAYS To CHECK 1
ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

 

[WRITES THAT YOU ARE CORRECT]

WRITES WHAT THEY SHOULD
HAVE BEEN.

 

 

 

WRITES: CHECK YOUR FORCES
AND MOMENTS.

 

1
(CALL EXIT:)

144

SUBROUTINE FINISH

 

 

 

 

 

_ NO
. 2mm
YES
[WRITES: SUBROUTINE FINISH]
I [WRITES TYPE OF ERROR _I

 

[CHECKS SOLUTION FROM MFGRR]

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

  

LINEARLY
DEPENDENT
EQUATIONS ?

NO

 

 

TELLS'WHAT
THEY ARE

YES

 

 

Y
(CALL 8x19

MORE UNKNOWNS A
_THAN EQ. »

[WRITES SOME VARIABLES

LfiITEs THE RELATIONSHIPS I

[WRITES THE SOLUTION Ja—J

 

 

 

 

 

IN TERMS OF FREE
VARIABLES

 

145

MAIN PROGRAM

 

The main program consists of call statements for
subroutines. All cards for the program will be given to
you. A print-out of the main program, which is to be

used for the solution of five problems, follows.

DECK

 

A deck of computer cards will be given to you which
includes all cards needed to use the computer program
except the calls for subroutines and the data cards.

The cards in the deck will have nothing typed on them
except a number. They will be numbered sequentially

from 2-84 so that you may easily put them back in order
in case you drop the deck. A computer print-out of the
deck follows which shows you what is punched on each card.

The portion of the main program which consists of
call statements for subroutines is to be placed between
cards 26 and 27 and the data cards between cards 83 and 84

of the deck.

146

There are six possible error messages which will be

given as ERROR __. The following is an explanation of

what each error means:

1.
2.
3.

NO rows or columns in the matrix.
The zero matrix.

The number of equations is less than the rank of the
matrix. >

More equations than unknowns.

All sums are zero for the active forces and moments.
Therefore, the body was in equilibrium without any
reactive forces or moments.

Inconsistent set of equations.

25

147

COMPUTER PRINT-OUT OF MAIN PROGRAM

COMMON 5
COMMON PTLN!5.6),PTNAN(5).F(7I95VSTEMI6.6).NRI6I'NCITI
COMMON ARRIvaIoFNAMIOIvSMNAMIOIoSUMSI6Io$CHCIIoANAMIOI
COMMON IRDHELOJIICOLHLII
DIMENSION lROH(6)oICOL(7IoS(42)
EQUIVALENCE (ARRlleIpSIIIIvIIROHM(IIoIROHIIIIo(ICOLMIIIuICOL(III

EDOUBLE PRECISION DUMPIIJFORCES.SUQFQRLPILINELMDMPToSUMMCNLZSMDM

DOUBLE PRECISION lPTLNolFORCQSULVEQZARRoCOUPLEoOLOAOoMFGRRgEQUA
DOUBLE PRECISION IYPSYSOCHECKOFILKHEOFILKHCoFILKMMgFINISH
REAOIIOIIBLANKOISUMSIIIlI'IDOIOSCH

FORMAI‘A406A3OAII

REAOIIoZSII(SYSTEMIIOJIOJ'IOCIOI'IOOI

FORHAIIQLCAQII

REAO‘II5)ZFORCOSOLVEOCOUPLCOOLOAOOMFGRRerUA

REAOIIOSI FORCES'SUMFOR'PTLC~ECHOHPTQSU”MDMQZS"OMQZPTLVOZARR
READ!l.S)TYPSYSJCHECKgflLKMEnFJLKHC.FlLKNMgFlNlSH.DUMPlT
FORMATIIOAOI

OO 50 KKK'Ios -
A aF I
CALL LOADERIZSMOMvNMgBLANK,
CALL LOADERIZPTLNONPOOLANKI
CALL LOADERIZARRI
REAOIIOIOIKOH

IO FORMAII8X9I206X9I3I

66

ll

LAfiBLIEL3g6OIKgfl

FORMATIIHloSXo'CHAPTER',16,5X9'PROBLEN'915)
CALL LOADER(FORCESoNFI

000022

000021
00002‘
000025
OODO;§_

 

21 CALL LOAQ§R(DL0A00NF)

23
31

61
63

CALL LOADERISUMFORgNFI
CALL LOADERIPTLINEUNPI

_CALL LOADERLMUMPTQAIIINFLNH’

CALL LOAOER(COUPLE¢NHI
CALL LOADER(SUMMOH9NM,NFI

___Ah___CALL_LDAQEBILEDRCLNEEHLANKl

SI

63
71

 

CALL LOADER(ZSHOM.NM.BLANKI
CALL LOADERIFORCESnNFI

‘R DLNFL,
CALL LOADERIMOMPToIoIoNFoNMI
CALL LOADER‘COUPLE NM)

91 CA LL LO ADERIFILKHEI

9Q
83

SO

 

CALL LOADERISOLVEVNFDNH NOR, NOCo BLANK.

CALL LOADER(EQUA0NOTI

CALL LOADERIIXPSISDKDMONORI

CALL LOADERICHECKoKoMpMMpNOII

CALL LOAOERIMFGRR,ARR.6,79607O1.05-70IRANKoIROHMuICOLMoSI
CALL.LOAOERIOUMPIIQNOKJNOCLIRANK)

CALL LOADERIFINISHDNORONOC’IRANK’

CONTINUE

CALL EXIT

END

000027
000028

148

COMPUTER PRINT-OUT OF THE DECK

- ~---~..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II 005: OUIPUIvzcoo .w , _ _ “ _ __ _- ,_,_ ,_ 000002 -
II JCH FORCES 00000i

_II CPIIUN LINK.“ _, 000004

9FASL EDRIFAIN.NOCI 000005
[I ExCC FCRIRAN V -7000006.
corch EIECI¢.¢I.srn~IA.31.sr¢31.er31.vas.7I.NUFLI2.2I 000007

COPPCN ptLNIE.LI. PIAANIII. F17).SYSIEP16. 6). NRIAI.NCI7I __ 000000-
COVPLW A0010.71. r'AHICIoSVNAPIOIISUV§16)4‘CHIII. ANA“(6) 000009

DIMENSION INLAILI.ICLLI7I.: I421.IQUUvIUI.ICULrI?I_ 000010__
EDUIVALLNCE (Aflkllo 11.511)1.11wCUFI11.InDuIIII.IICCLMIII. ICCLIIII 000011

, LOUdLE PRECISION ECRCES.SL~EC".PILINE.M0vpt.suw~0M. zsrcw , 000012 _
DOUBLE poECISICN zpan.zEcRC.soLvE.7ARR.CCUpLE.nLOAD.rr0nR.E0UA 000013
DDUULE PNECISICN vasvs.ChCCK.EILNFE.FILAFC.FILNFF.EINI$N "000014.
PSACI1.1)HLAI.K.ISUFSI13.181.63.5CH 000014
___1__ FURNAIIA4.EA3.AII 000010
PEADII..>III$I$IEVII. J1. 4:1. AI.1-1.0I 000017

25 FORVAII316A41) a ____y , 00001! _
pEADI1.5I2EDRC.SDLVE.CCUPLE. DLCAD. PFGRRUECUA 000019
READII.51 FORCFSISLVFUR. PILINF. POPPY. sunnor.zsncv. zFILN. 219R 000020
PEADI1.5I7Ypsvs.CHECN.EILxNE.EILxrc. FILKMF.FIN|$H 000021

5 _FORV_AT(1CAGI 000022__
CALL LDACERIzEDRC.NE.ULAAkI 000023

y, CALL LOADERIISVOPIN”.FLAAKI.- * _ _- g ---H,- _“ -___ _000024 -
CALL LDADCRIszLN.NP.ULANxI "000025

.”. CALL LOADERIZARfi) _ _ p _- --_______ _ - M__ __000020”_
CALL exII 000027

END 000020__
I- 000029

_-IKCLUCE IJYAQXIA_ _ _ _- __ _-_ ."____.___- -“.m0000030._
INCLUDE 1415501 000031
INCLUDE IJISSCNQ.h-h_ _- _- I. a -_ - __ ___“ ”H*______ M000032
[\CLUDE IJISLOC . W00033

__INCLU0E_IIIE59N 000034
INCLUDE IJIARxR 000039

_ PrASE COUPLEoO -h - ___,____ __..._.L. _ -_.UL ”_"___u_______“_~__w___ 000030_
INCLUDE CCUPLE ”000037

_ PtASE SOLVE.CDUPLE,__ ,,.__ _ _"_ __ _-_ ._____u___,_-___“*_ _ -000039 _
INCLUDE SOLVE 000039
_PPASE IEDRC. COUPLE 000040
:INCLUDE ZFCRC 000041

_ PrasE ZARR.COUPLE .h---h “ _ , .-.*n L.-M.-__h.qu-_-..___._. M000042
INCLUDE ZARR 000043"

_ PFASE ISM0~.COUELE ”w _______ __ __ _ - _ * .__*-___,___.__-_____ #000045_
[\CLUDE 2520» #000045-
PrASE zeILN. CCUBLE _ _ _ 000040
INCLUDE zPILN 000047

- PtASE suvvov. CFUPL£._ 7‘,,_a_d -_‘ ,.-.L-L.__.,_-m,4_.-mr---_ --_.L._-°°0°*§p"
INCLUDE surro» 000049

_ PPASE FOPPI.COUPLE _” ‘m‘.~_r _-_ ,__.‘-_ _LA-I_____._,--__I__h._-u 000050~_
INCLUDE POPPY ”“000051

_hPrASE PILlNEo CQUFLE___ ____ 000052
INCLUDE IILINE 000053
PrASE SUPFURICOUPLE‘- -___ I". -7. H.-.A._.L.._L.u__u..__u m_ _ 000054_“
INCLUDE suwsoa 000055
PPASE FORCEs.CDUPLE_m_ _"U__<W‘_-V _M L-.A_,.Lu-,u_____ _____ha_u__ _000056_
INCLUDE ECRces 000057

_ prose ~F0RR.CCUPLE 000050
I- CLUCE PFGRR 0000§§"
PrASE CLOAO.CCUPLE _ _ __ ___~ [000000_A
INCLUDE DLOAD 000001
urns: EQUA.CCUPLE _ - _‘ _.__ _ - _000002
INCLUDE EDUA 000001

__PrASE vasvs.CDUFLE ________ g 030004 _
INCLUDE vasvs 00000!“

. PrASE CNLCK.CCUPLE - 00006A
[\CLUOE CHECK 00006!
prasL FILKVC.COUPLE -_ _ _ _ 500006.

. [\CLUOE EILxNE 000069
__DIAEE EILNNC.COUFLE____ -"__.-1_. 0099]9‘_
INCLULE flLKPC 000071

PEASC FILKVPICCUPLE -_ _ _ _000072.,
I\CLUCE FILKP' 000073
PrhSt EINI$N.CDUPLE _ - _ 000074
INCLUDE EINIsN COOOTS
II Ech LNKCLI _.__ _’«_"“~‘H __N_*. 000070
II EIEC "“"" '" ' 000077
- srxSEYSFISNxsnvsnlC . 00007-
CCPLANAS-CUNCURQENI CONCURRENt-JCIPCASICNAL COPLANAR 000079
pAAALLEL-anINCNEIUNsL CCDLANAR-DARALLEL 3-DIFENSICNAL _000000
zrcnc SDLVE COUPLE DLCAO FEDNR EOUA ‘ 000001
_Ecaccs “SUVVOR FILINE group! surr0n_ Isvnn “ IPIE!"_L{£?E__H_. ____. _00003}

IYrsvs CHECK FILKPE EILKFC’ flLKPP FINISH c0000i“
[- _000084

149

FOR FACULTY MEMBERS ONLY

 

HOW TO ENTER ANSWERS:

Answers are stored in Array KM(5,7) for five

problems as follows:

ARRAY KM(5,7)

 

Chapter
Number

Problem Fa Ma Fr Mr Type

Number System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fa=Number of active forces

Masuumber of active moments

Fr=Number of reactive forces

MraNumber of reactive moments

Type System:
1. Coplanar-concurrent
2. Concurrent-three-dimensional
3. Coplanar
4. Parallel-three-dimensional
5. Coplanar-parallel
6. Three-dimensional

These answers are entered in subroutines FILKME,

FILKMC, and FILKMM. Each time a new set of five problems

is used, 35 computer cards must be punched, and the

subroutine put back on the disk.

 

I! I tl.lltll

 

HICHIGON STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
mWWII!"WWIWINmIWI"1111111“!1|
31293102816661