Original Author/link
Originally Described by Adam Rifkin (Rifkin1994), with a separate description by Michelle Moore (Moore2000). (Bachelis1994) also presents the sort as a “compareexchange sort”. We extrapolate on (Rifkin1994), since it is well described.
No weblink to independent description available. However, (Sivilotti2003) employed the exercise in a summer workshop for middle school girls, and provided a writeup of the activity and slides associated with the activity at his website:
See papers (Rifkin1994, Bachelis1994, Moore2000, Sivilotti2003) for additional details.
Similiar Exercises:
Sorting: parallelRadixSort, sortingNetwork CardSorting
Other activities by authors
Rifkin1994: parallelRadixSort
(Bachelis1994): ParallelAddition, FindSmallestCard, CardSorting, SieveOfErastothenes
(Moore2000): SieveOfErastothenes, CardSorting, MatrixAddition
Details
(Rifkin1994) designed the activity to take place in the course of the hour,
and was introduced to high school minority students in a workshop format.
Prior to the exercise, students are given an overview of the concept of
sorting, and try to come up with ways to sort a collection of six random
numbers.
The instructor then splits the group into nine teams (of about the same size), with three teams assigned to a separate supervisor. The supervisor will then have one of the three teams perform bubble sort, the second perform oddeventransposition sort, and the last perform parallel radix sort (described in a separate exercise).
Each group under the care of supervisor stands in three rows. Each row has indices noted on the ground, indicating where students should stand, numbered from 0 … n1 where n is the number of students in each row. For oddeventransposition sort, even spots are marked in one color, while odd spots are marked in another.
Each student at index i is handed a random number that corresponds to the same index in a separate row. Each row is then given its own set of instructions, and they are instructed to follow the instructions specifically (without talking) to sort the numbers.
The row in charge of oddeventransposition sort performs the following set of steps:

During the “even” phase, neighbors standing on the same colored spaces denoting “even” compare their numbers to their neighbors on the left. If their neighbor is less than them, they swap spaces with their neighbor.

During the “odd” phase, neighbors standing on the same colored spaces denoting “odd” compare their numbers with their neighbor to the left. If their neighbor’s number is less than them, they swap places with their neighbor.
Students are asked note that the round does not need to be coordinated by group leaders, and to observe that that the list was becoming “more sorted” with each phase. At the end of the exercise, students were asked to consider the strengths and weaknesses of Oddeventransposition sort, and why it was a parallel algorithm, and how it compares to bubble sort.
Variants
(Moore2000)
(Moore2000) describes an example exercise that she presents in a parallel processing lab. It is assumed that students know about the Bubble Sort algorithm ahead of time. Odd Even Transposition Sort is a “parallel” version of bubble sort. In this exercise, students are asked to physically simulate the multiple processors performing the sort. The main difference from (Rifkin1994) is that students stay stationary, while cards move around. This variant may be better for classrooms with students with impaired mobility.

A subset of students stand in line at the front of classroom, and count off to determine if they are odd or even. Each student who is even is marked with a sticker to indicate that they belong to the “even” group. (Note that two colors of stickers can be used in order to ensure that there are no hurt feelings). It is important that “even” and “odd” alternate in the line.

Each student is handed an index card with a unique random number written on it.

During the even phase, all the Evens turn to the left and compare their card with their neighbor. If the neighbor’s card number is smaller than the card they are holding, they swap cards.

During the odd phase, all the Odds turn to their left and compare their card with their neighbors. If the neighbor’s card number is smaller than the card they are holding, they swap cards.

The above two phases are repeated until the numbers are in order.

A separate student (not in line) is responsible for tallying the number of times the odd phases and even phases occur.
The class then has a discussion that OddEven Transposition Sort has a parallel time complexity O(n) when n students are used for sorting. In contrast, the serial algorithm (bubble sort) has a time complexity of O(n2).
Sivilotti2003
Sivilotti performed the activity exactly as described in (Rifkin1994). However, prior to introducing the activity, used an analogy to describe computers as “chefs” and programs to “recipes”. Like programs, recipes are characterized by what their ingredients (input) and the final product (output). A software engineer is thus described as a “recipeengineer”.
CS2013 Knowledge Unit Coverage
Parallel Decomposition
2. Identify opportunities to partition a serial program into independent parallel modules. [Familiarity]
TCPP Topics Coverage
TCPP algorithms

Comprehend Asymptotics: Understand upper (bigO) and lower bounds (bigOmega,); follow elementary bigO analyses, e.g., the O(log n) treedepth argument for mergesort with unbounded parallelism.

Comprehend Time: Recognize time as a fundamental computational resource that can be influenced by parallelism.

Comprehend Speedup: Recognize the use of parallelism either to solve a given problem instance faster or to solve larger instance in the same time (strong and weak scaling).

Know Sorting: Observe several sorting algorithms for varied platforms — together with analyses. Parallel merge sort is the simplest example, but equally simple alternatives for rings and meshes might be covered also; more sophisticated algorithms might be covered in more advanced courses.
Recommended Courses

Moore covers the concept in a parallel processing lab, though it is not clear which course the lab was used in.

K12: (Rifkin1994) successfully introduced sorting concepts to minority high school students in a summer workshop. (Sivilotti2003) successfully introduced sorting concepts to middle school girls.

CS2/DSA: TCPP recommends that topics of sorting can be covered as early as CS2, and that both sorting and algorithmic complexity topics are appropriate for DSA.
Accessibility
This exercise appears fairly accessible to everyone. For students who are blind, the Braille cards are recommended so students can read the number on them. For Deaf students the “Odd” “Even” phases can be signified by holding up a large sign. We do not anticipate any mobility issues, as students can sit in chairs for this exercise, and perform the variant described in (Moore2000). However, some groups may choose to use original description in (Rifkin1994) to engage higher energy, able students.
Assessment
(Rifkin1994) gives a general overview of assessment; 81 students completed surveys, in which they overwhelmingly responded that the workshop as a whole was a positive experience, and that respondents “learned something, had fun, and had a better impression of computer science” (Rifkin1994). However, specific assessment of oddeventransposition sort was not provided.
(Moore2000) discusses the impact of the parallel computing labs in her course. In general, students responded to the labs positively, and felt that labs increased their knowledge significantly.
(Sivilotti2003) reported the sorting activity could be completed in a 45 minute period. Students were asked a number of questions, including rating the exercises. On a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) students rated the parallel sorting exercise as a 4.4. Students also made statements such as “the more ‘chefs’[processors] you use, the faster the program will finish” and “sequential programs are slow” (Sivilotti1999). Students were also asked to evaluate the overall quality of the computer science module on scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), and rated the cs component of the workshop as 4.6. Note that this includes other activities.
Citations

A. Rifkin, “Teaching parallel programming and software engineering concepts to high school students”, In SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 26, no. 1. and Proceedings of the Twentyfifth SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1994, pp. 26–30. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/191033.191044

G. F. Bachelis, B. R. Maxim, D. A. James, and Q. F. Stout, “Bringing algorithms to life: Cooperative computing activities using students as processors”, School Science and Mathematics, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 176–186, 1994.

M. Moore, “Introducing parallel processing concepts”, J. Comput. Sci. Coll., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 173–180, Mar. 2000. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1852563.1852589

P. A. G. Sivilotti and M. Demirbas, “Introducing middle school girls to fault tolerant computing”, in Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’03). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2003, pp. 327–331, [Online]: http://web.cse.ohiostate.edu/~sivilotti.1/outreach/FESC02/. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/611892.611999