::'''As a "follow-up" to this "flow":'''<br /><br />

::* For debugging, I would stress common problems that students have made in the past, and a general suggestion that the student take to remedy the situation. Careful "check-points" should be indicated (perhaps with a '''"check-point icon"''' (a good "gaming" connection) to have students CAREFULLY confirm their contents with the suggested output, and then direct them to debugging. I would NOT recommend YouTube videos for fixing the problem (that should still be "hands-on" and text-based), but videos for confirmation checks... and call over instructor for major difficulties...<br /><br />

:::I really like this course! '''I totally get the importance of "learning how to learn". On the other hand, just posting up links to content may "turn-off" students. I recalled, that I created some "slide-shows" for students to know where to focus on the important things. I would think this is the challenge to engage the students to "learn how to learn", but not get "overloaded" in too many details...''' On the other hand, alternative media can be used to foster this. I recall Chris that you once pushed for students to use graphical editor to break that "older concept of traditional cli editor. I think the same applies for learning contents. In the future, more emphasis on demonstrations. For example, we could demonstrate using '''gtk-recordmydekstop''', upload and link desktop recording to a YouTube of what the output from commands should be. Perhaps, this can reduce the "text-overflow". I did find that using YouTube greatly reduced the size of the "Sample Run" specifications of the OPS435 course immensely!<br /><br />

::*I'm a big believer that if students are left to complete those "review questions" at the end of the lab, they won't. Why not change the perspective a little? We seem to be very good at programming the practical test results, '''can't we program mark the labs?''' I'm assuming that you guys may have thought of this already, but probably a BIG TASK (I understand and respect this). But if can be done, then I would think this would reduce a lot of checking from the instructor to "sign-off" at the end of the lab. Have it done by having instructor verify from automated lab submission. '''Perhaps shift of focus on "instructor checking" could be done at the check-points. I'm getting the impression that if we are going to go in for "adjustments", let's make a few more, and really make a great product!''' I'm willing to completely test, write (i.e. total rewrite labs - YIKES FOR ME!!, but I'm geared up for it!!!), as long as someone wants to automate the lab submission, and perhaps as a bow on top, '''build a quiz blank with questions asking random questions with immediate feedback'''.<br /><br />The only problem would be that students don't get their lab sheets checked manually by instructor, but they these marks would be updated at the end of the week my instructor, and should know where they stand...<br /><br />