::* 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" to have students CAREFULLY confirm their contents with the suggested output, and then direct them to debugging. I would NOT recommend YouTube videos, since this is where the students would benefit most from "learning" and "calling over the instructor"...<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), it 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 />

::: My $0.02