Having walked through this entire explanation with a professor who teaches OOD this way (and with "students" who did not know OOD), I have a rather interesting perspective on the concept.

I found that it was rather rewarding to the students. [For last years TAs, it was kinda like Ed&Jane's Coffee Maker explanation, except with cards to write down objects on CRC cards and use those to create an OMT diagram.] In addition, we tried to implement it in section, but the methods that the article suggests seem to be an improvement on our idea.

Although the CRC cards seem kinda stupid at first, I found that they were rather useful. Students could see how they redesign and could create a UML diagram on the fly. The graphical mapping, the talking through the design process, the acting out scenerios all affect people differently! Besides, it keeps students awake and up-to-beat about what is happening and that is a good thing. I think that this type of interaction is _ideal_ for sections (or any form of small groups) and can make a lesson much more interesting and appealing to the masses.

One note: you _need_ to find an example that works with the group. CS32 tries a similar thing and alienates a group of people accidentally because they don't know how the inside of an electronic element works. In CS15, the students are introduced to PacMan in the first assignment. Using that as the design discussion brings fluidity to the classroom. I feel as though we can use that example again with the CRC cards and other elements proposed in the paper and have a rather effective class on design!

Andrew

I would like to make a small comment that I think PacMan is a great example as well. I'd be interested in seeing someone write an in-house version of it so we could perhaps show code, etc. and use it as a running example perhaps.