1 A Course on Multimedia QoS Networking: Development and Evaluation of On-Campus Offering Martin Reisslein, Jana Reisslein, Patrick Seeling, and Hyo-Sik Yang Arizona State University

2 Multimedia QoS Networking Examples: Audio, Video Streaming over Internet Requires stringent Quality of Service (QoS) from network Active area of research for over a decade Sophisticated understanding of underlying principles

3 On-campus Offering This talk: course structure for on-campus offering + evaluation Companion talk: transformation to hybrid on-campus/DL format + evaluation Key challenge: rapidly evolving area Want balance between fundamental principles and current trends Course Structure: 1) Lecture, 2) Topic Exploration, and 3) Paper Critique

4 Course Philosophy Balanced Instruction Basic underlying principles of multimedia QoS networking Fundamental development constraints Main, widely accepted approaches and protocols Current Trends and Development Up-to-date overview of research Identify open issues, develop own res. topics Accessible with Introductory Networking course

5 Lecture Approx. 40% of class contact time Focus: fundamental underpinnings, also some research methods. 1. Research Methods: lit. search, technical writing. 2. General MM netw. Concepts: QoS constraints, timing constraints 3. General QoS netw. Concepts: IntServ, DiffServ, CDNs 4. Appl. Layer: RTP, RTCP, RTSP, SIP 5. Transp. Layer: Stream Control Trans. Protocol 6. Netw. Layer: multicast routing, traffic engineering 7. Link Layer: packet sched., wireless link sched.

6 Topic Exploration 30% of class contact time Mostly current trends/developments, also some expansion on basic principles Components: 1. Topic Exploration Paper 2. Student Presentation (22-25 mins) 3. Instructor-led Discussion (relate to underlying principles from lecture) 4. Topic Expl. Review and Assessment (quiz completed be presenter’s fellow students)

7 Paper Critique Components, 1 paragraph each: 1. Summary of paper 2. Contributions to state-of-the-art 3. Strengths of paper 4. Weaknesses of paper 5. 3 addl. Refs. Paper could/should have cited + justification Select papers from cross-section of current research (plus a few seminal papers on fundamentals)

8 Paper Critique Discussion Approx. 30% of class contact time Aligned with paper critique structure Opening statement by one student Instructor-moderated follow-up Foci: relationship of critiqued paper to existing literature areas/question unexplored

9 Evaluations Fall 2003, on-campus, 8 students Fall 2004, hybrid, 12 students Course Survey 5-point Likert scale strongly agree = 5, strongly disagree = 1 Also, official school course survey, student interviews, evaluation of student work

10 Course Activities 1. Writing paper critiques, M = 4.81, SD = Writing Topic Exploration paper, M = 4.76, SD = Instructor lecture, M = 4.71, SD = Discussion of paper critiques, M =4.65, SD = Presentation of Topic Expl., M =4.53, SD = Solving Topic Expl. review set, M = 4.0, SD = 1.06

11 Course Structure Key: 80% = 5 1. Instructor lecture, M = 2.41, SD = 0.62 => approx. 38% 2. Paper critique discussion, M = 2.0, SD = 0.61 => approx. 30% 3. Presentation of Topic expl., M = 1.94, SD = 0.66 => approx. 30%

12 Course Delivery & Learning Resources Emphasize face-to-face + online reading/assignments, M = 4.0, SD = 1.0 Exclusive face-to-face, M = 2.88, SD = 0.7 Entirely online, M = 1.59, SD = 0.87 Course notes handout, M = 4.35, SD = 0.49 Sample paper critiques, M = 4.24, SD = 0.75 Instructor slides (content), M = 4.18, SD = 0.81 Textbook, M = 3.76, SD = 1.15

13 Content, Instructor, Peers Worthwhile class, M = 4.71, SD = 0.47 Useful for M.S./Ph.D. thesis, M = 4.53, SD = 0.72 Quality of instruction, M = 4.76, SD = 0.44 Discussions with peers, M = 4.12, SD = 0.60 Learned from peer interaction, M = 3.47, SD = 1.12 Workload, F’03: M = 1.0, F’04: M = 1.27

14 Open-ended comments from N = 17 students Liked Best 1. In-class discussion of critiqued papers, 9 2. Topic exploration, 4 3. Intro to research methods, 3 4. Overview of wide range of current research, 3 Liked Least 1. Scheduled class time (early morning), 2 2. Online communication, 1

15 Conclusion Design and assessment of course on Multimedia QoS Networking Balance between underlying principles and current research trends Assessment confirms preference for 40% lecture, 30% student presentation, 30% critique discussion structure Useful structure for courses integrating current research