Contextual Computing for Engineers

Computing skills are vital not just for computer scientists but for people of all disciplines ranging from art to zoology. It assumes even greater prominence in more quantitative fields such as physical sciences and engineering. For example, the Nobel Prize in Physics this year (2021) was awarded to three researchers for understanding complex systems using chaos theory across a wide range of scales (atomic to planetary) and understanding climate change. This work would not have been possible without computers and as an interesting factoid, one of the winners’ Syukuro Manabe used a computer with 0.5 MB RAM (yes one-half megabytes) to create a climate model that proved some early findings by stalwarts like Arrhenius and Fourier.

One can look through the glowing roster of Nobel Laureate’s in many disciplines to see the vital role computers have played in advancing their science. Another thing to note is also that most of these winners were not classically trained as computer scientists and their training in computer programming was limited to a few classes at best and none many times. While Nobel Laureate’s provide a visible example, a great number of working engineers and scientists routinely write code to automate boring tasks, get more precise calculations, visualize and present their results and finding.

 Computing is at the very core of all engineering endeavors.  Naturally, undergraduate engineering curricula across the world have at least one programming course in them. 

Questions such as – 1) What is the best way to teach introductory programming courses to engineers? and 2) Who should be teaching these classes (classically trained computer scientists or computationally-oriented engineers?) come to fore.

Given their discipline-specific training, one would argue that computer scientists are best suited to teach these courses. While this argument indeed passes the academic rigor test, does this academic expertise necessarily translate into teaching the programming skills that engineers need?

Computer science tends to be application agnostic. After all, many algorithms such as sorting, nearest neighbor search and others can be applied in a wide range of applications. Thus, computer scientists are classically trained learn the workings of the algorithm more so than their application to a specific problem.

Engineering students on the other hand view programming as another skill-set that is needed to achieve their goal. A student might want to become a civil engineer and build skyscrapers, to her, computational analysis is a means to achieve that goal. It is likely that as a first year student, she may not come into the introductory programming class with an understanding of how computational analysis may be even useful to fulfill her dream of building skyscrapers. An abstract presentation of programming methods, therefore may leave this student dissatisfied and provides no bridge to make connections to their chosen field of study.

Contextual computing is the idea of teaching computer programming in context. Programming concepts and algorithms are put in context of an application (say solving an engineering analysis or design problem). This approach is clearly not the way to teach introductory programming classes to computer science majors who need to focus on the algorithm more so than an application. Contextual programming may actually preclude computer science majors from seeing the algorithm and techniques in an abstract form. On the other hand, contextual computing is perhaps the best way to teach programming to engineers. As students take introductory programming courses before courses in their chosen discipline. This approach not only leads to better engagement but also tells them that programming is an important skill-set to have for pursuing their dreams. This makes them focus on programming courses more than they would if it were to be presented in an abstract form.

I incorporate elements of programming and computing in all my classes (both undergraduate and graduate level). Students often tell me that they should have paid more attention to learning programming but did not feel it was necessary as it did not seem connected to what they wanted to study. This course was a box they wanted to check and move on to real exciting stuff. A contextual computing course would likely made them pay more attention and learn programming better.

If one were to accept that contextual computing approach to teach introductory programming is better suited for engineers and certainly preferred over abstract presentations. The next logical questions is who should be teaching introductory programming to engineers? On one hand, computer scientists lack application knowledge and engineers are not rigorously trained as computer scientists.

Ideally, a collaboration between an application-minded computer scientist and a computationally-oriented engineer would make a perfect team to teach such a course. They could complement each other to create exciting content. However, creating such teams in siloed university settings is often difficult. This means either computer scientists have to make an effort to learn enough engineering to excite first year engineering students in their class or engineers must know enough computer science and draw context to help engineers understand the value of computer science.

From a strictly practical viewpoint, I think an engineering with sufficient programming skills is better suited to teach introductory programming courses to engineers than a computer scientist foraying into the application domain and contextualizing programming lectures.

My reasoning for this is simple, we have great many examples of people who have learned programming either informally or semi-formally (think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs) and carved out successful careers using programming. Many students from a variety of STEM disciplines get into programming jobs every year.

However, it is next to impossible for a non-engineer to work in an engineering field. In most instances you are explicitly prohibited by law to do so!! Resources to learn programming are plenty in both formal and informal settings (You Tube, Coursera, a plethora of books and other resources). In addition, computationally-oriented engineers have not only had formal training in programming intensive computational courses but constantly use them in engineering applications and research. So they have both the background and access to resources to continue to learn programming. On the other hand, engineering resources are not as easy to find to help Computer Scientists contextualize their teaching.

The learning curve for a Computer Scientist to contextualize programming is definitely steeper than for a computationally-oriented engineer to keep up-to-date with programming principles and concepts.

Therefore, it might be best for engineers to be teaching introductory programming courses to engineering students. I am not advocating that computer scientists be completely removed from the process. For example, Computer Science faculty can help computationally-oriented engineers stay current on programming trends by conducting workshops and introducing them to newer ideas and programming methods. They can serve as peer-reviewers and add academic rigor. They can play a key role in enhancing undergraduate engineering programming by working with engineers to integrate cloud computing. They can provide resources to students interested in learning more. I think such steps will help towards a more transformative teaching paradigm that results from fruitful collaborations between computer science and engineering faculty and benefit the students in the long run. Universities must strive to create opportunities and rewards to foster such collaborations, value and reward out-of-the-box teaching paradigms.

Getting Back to Online Modality?

With Covid-19 Delta variant numbers on the rise, especially in young adults, academic institutions once again are facing the grim reality of getting back to the online modality. Our university and especially my college is doing the best it can to limit face to face (F2F) interactions in non-academic activities, in an effort to prolong and hopefully circumvent the need to get back to an online modality of instruction. While these efforts may pay off, the variants lose their steam or vaccination rates continue to rise to combat the spread of infections, it is best to be prepared to face the eventuality of returning back to the online modality at least for some part of this semester.

What is the best way to be prepared for getting back to the online teaching modality is a question, that I have been looking into for sometime now as part of a COVID-19 Task Force of our college. Clearly, there is no silver bullet and no one size fits all solutions. However, a few points are worth mentioning.

• Have a plan in place to deal with this eventuality. You know what has worked for you and not worked for you in the past. You are the best person to have an idea of how your course would be affected by a transition to the online modality.
• Have the contact information of key personnel handy. This includes IT and distance education staff who are often in-charge of media software and hardware that you might need for successful transition.
• Start working towards your transition plan now. This could include recording lectures, finding useful online material to share with your students and working towards building quizzes and assignments into to your LMS systems. These instruments will enhance the student learning experiences, even if we continue to work in the F2F modality.
• Keep an eye out for students with special needs. Compliance with American Disability Association (ADA) guidelines require that your videos and audios are properly transcripted. There are some technological tools such as Otter.AI that is integrated into Zoom or in-built transcription services in Microsoft Teams. These come in handy in a pinch but will require some polishing. Most universities employ third-party transcription services that will take some time for getting back your transcriptions. So starting early is critical. Work closely with the student and student services office to ensure students who are given special considerations are not left behind or end up having less than optimal educational experience.
• Create redundancies when and where possible. Sudden transitions often tend to overwhelm computer servers that are used to support LMS and video sharing. Think of alternative methods (One-Drive or dropbox) may be useful alternatives and come in handy to share files if things start to unravel quickly.
• Think of alternative testing instruments in case of a transition. Traditional in-class testing methods are not completely suitable in an online mode. Use of testing software (e.g., Protorio) may be challenging in large classes and may place undue burden on students. Bandwidth issues can crop up and disrupt tests. It is important to have a plan B, especially in courses that rely heavily on exams for student assessment. There is a growing body of literature that highlight the utility of labor-based or contract grading to improve student experiences. See if this modality will work for you.
• Keep students in the loop. It is important that any modifications to evaluation strategies be explicitly be made known to students well in advance. If possible, it is best to add it as an addendum to the syllabus as early as possible (preferably when the syllabus is first handed to the student).
• Ensure students have access to technology. It is important that students known upfront what the hardware and software requirements would be in case of a transition to online modality. It would also be worthwhile to emphasize this point several times during the semester, especially in tune with any guidelines that may be put out by the university administration.
• Clearly spell out your absence policy in the syllabus. Reiterate or Provide in Writing any changes when there is a change in modality. To avoid any misgivings later on, it is important that students know your policies. This becomes especially true when there is a change in modality. If nothing changes, it may be still useful to say so. If you change your policy make sure it is documented.
• Provide informational resources to students. Ensure students know the resources they have available through the university for them to be successful. In particular, changes to tutoring or other services provided on-campus might be useful to help students navigate the semester successfully. In a similar vein, how will your office hours be handled is also valuable to the students.
• Manage student expectations. Let students know what you are doing to ensure as smooth a semester as possible. Discuss with them the time it takes to make videos and presentations. Be proactive and include student in the decision making process as much as possible. However, it is important to be clear that you will not alter your expectations and cannot let students determine it.

Remember switching to an online modality due to pandemic is not the same as creating an online course. While perfectionism continues to be an aspirational ideal, it is important that you temper your own expectations on what is possible within the realm of the unforeseen.

Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty – Has the time come?

I have had a few students, over the years, who expressed an interest in pursuing strictly teaching careers at an university. Of course, my advice to them was to focus on their research during their Ph.D. as even small departments with typically large teaching loads, expect some research from their tenure-track faculty and largely make their hiring decisions placing a greater emphasis on research. Historically, teaching only positions, such as adjuncts and instructors, tend to be ad hoc and not permanent.

Teaching, research and service has traditionally been the three requirements of tenure-track full-time faculty positions in the US. However, I have been seeing quite a few teaching only positions being advertised in recent times. While many still tend to be non-tenure track, these positions increasingly appear to have some form of permanency that is not common with adjunct or instructor appointments. Our university recently approved a long-term contract for lecturers who have been with the university for more than six years. They also created a pathway for them to get promoted to senior lecturers. Talks are also underway of “gateway faculty” or tenure-track positions whose primary mission is teaching. Is this emphasis on teaching track faculty the new reality of pandemic or is there a growing recognition that “research” and “teaching” are two distinct endeavors that need people with different skills?

Teaching faculty are being viewed as being at a higher level than an ‘adjunct’ or an ‘instructor’ whose sole purpose is to teach courses which are already designed and well established.  “Gateway Teaching Faculty” are expected to bring teaching innovations into their departments, teach other faculty – how to teach effectively and help with academic administrative tasks such as ABET accreditation.  In addition, there is also an expectation that these faculty will conduct pedagogical research’ and establish an active research program focused on engineering education.  In other words, these faculty will still be evaluated for contributions to teaching, research and service, albeit in a different ratio.    

While the idea of having a separate teaching-oriented track may bring in much needed attention to undergraduate instruction at many research-oriented schools, there are many issues that need to be addressed.  Who is there to mentor these teaching faculty in traditional engineering programs that mostly have faculty who have moved up the ranks by largely demonstrating engineering research productivity?  Will faculty and administrators view engineering education research on the same footing as making discipline specific advancements?  Engineering research may yield much better grants (at least in terms of $$) then educational research which tends to rely on more competitive federal funding from a few agencies.  How will the likely disparity in funded research affect promotion and tenure decisions?  In a similar vein, engineering education research publications tend to have lower impact factors than most top-tier engineering journals.  This again might work against a faculty taking the teaching route. 

There is also a very high risk that these gateway faculty may be viewed as glorified adjuncts and given a larger than normal share of courses to teach or asked to take on courses that entail a higher workload (e.g., capstone or large introductory classes).  This load distribution may affect the research and service components of these faculty.  Finally, will dissertations with an engineering education focus be treated on par with traditional discipline specific contributions?  If not, recruitment and retention of high-quality students would be a major challenge for these gateway faculty. 

The hiring of ‘gateway’ faculty is also another challenging topic.  Traditional engineering programs do not provide much in terms of pedagogical training.  While some engineering education programs exist, they tend to focus more heavily on pedagogical aspects and students in these programs might not have advanced training or specialization often necessary to teach in engineering programs.  It is important that those hired in this track not be viewed as ‘second-class’ in any way nor should the ‘teaching track’ become the pathway for tenure of the ‘regular faculty’ who have a reasonable teaching evaluations but could not build a research program.  Doing so, would be a clear indication that the department and college does not value pedagogical research. Therefore, there is no need to create a pathway that not viewed as being valuable.

Many of the challenges identified above are fixable.  However, it requires creating an environment where pedagogy as a whole (and not simply teaching classes) is viewed as a worthy endeavor.  It will require clear guidelines from the college and department administration on what is expected from these ‘gateway faculty’.  There should be a commitment to provide these faculty with startup funds and other resources to succeed. In particular, create an environment where ‘gateway faculty’ can take risks and try out new pedagogical innovations.  This will require a general change in the mindset where pedagogical contributions are valued as much as research contributions by all faculty in the department. 

Innovative models for dissertation, wherein a student can publish both in ‘engineering’ and ‘engineering education’ fields to meet the requirements of the degree is necessary to support research endeavors of ‘gateway faculty’. This is also necessary to train the future ‘teaching track’ faculty who can play in both engineering and education sandboxes and better integrate the two.  There is definitely merit in creating future ‘pedagogically-oriented’ academic leaders.  However, in the absence of total commitment to this cause, maintaining status-quo is perhaps a better choice.

Student Engagement and Participation in Online Classes

Class Participation in Face-to-Face Settings

The inability to engage in discussions and limited student participation is often cited as a major concern by professors who have traditionally taught face-to-face (F2F) classes but had to switch over to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Faculty have historically relied on verbal and non-verbal clues to adapt their classroom instruction. Even in synchronous online classes, many faculty have wondered if the students are actually present on the other end and if they are – are they in the right mental state and in a conducive learning environment to assimilate the material being presented via zoom or other similar platforms? Traditionally, class participation is viewed as an important component of learning and a strong measure of student engagement. There is however a growing body of evidence that oral participation in the classroom is a weak indicator of student engagement at best and most likely provides no appreciable evidence of how well a student is engaged with the subject matter [1]. Student engagement is multifaceted and comprises of cognitive, emotional and behavioral components that class participation does not fully measure [2].

Student Engagement in Online Settings

If nonverbal communication is a better indicator of student engagement in classes, then are we out of luck in the online modality? Even is fairly small synchronous online classes, it is often not possible to see every student even when they all have their cameras on. There might be really genuine reasons (e.g., bandwidth constraints) why a student might want their cameras off [4]. Doing so might actually help them engage better. When I first started teaching online classes, I insisted students to un-mute their mic and answer questions. As with my F2F lectures, I saw it was the same set of students who took that bait over and over again. I also noticed that some students would send me a “private chat message” rather than answer verbally. Clearly, these were students with “communication apprehension”. They wanted to engage in the class but just not orally.

Education researchers use the word ‘communication apprehension’ to mean students not wanting participate orally in the classroom. The online modality allows for non-oral communication (e.g., private chat) that students find less apprehensive. It took me a little while to find the best way to keep the chat box open and consciously look at it. Yes, it would have been lot easier for me if the students un-muted and spoke, instead of sending private chat messages. But I realized there are greater gains to student engagement if I exploited the technology better rather than have the students confirm to my archaic norms. Private chat helped overcome the “oral communication apprehension” and lead to greater participation and engagement albeit privately and non-orally. I could maintain the anonymity of the student but tell the class what their answer or perspective was to foster additional discussion.

As a “GenXer” I had a late exposure to emoticons in life. Over the years, I have actually started using some common ones in informal communications :-). However, Millennials and Gen Z grew up with emoticons as part of their day-to-day vocabulary (especially in online communications such as texts and emails). Video Conferencing platforms (e.g., Teams and Zoom) provide a set of emoticons in their chat feature. These can be used to obtain nonverbal feedback from students (Thumbs up, clapping, sad, frown, etc.). However, there is an apprehension among students that this might be viewed as ‘unacademic’ and as such there is a reluctance to use them to provide feedback in classes [5]. I encourage faculty to check out the range of emoticons available and if you are comfortable, tell your students to post them (or send them privately to you) in chats as a way to provide feedback. Quizzes and surveys can also be easily conducted using video-conferencing platforms. You can use a post-lecture survey to see what concepts were clearer to the students which weren’t. I always put a “You Should Know” slide at the end of my lecture which highlights the main topics I covered and concepts/skills that students should know or take-away. This can easily be turned into a survey to get some feedback. If the vast majority felt the topic was unclear you could add additional material (asynchronously), give them more practice exercises or provide additional reinforcement in the next class. Online technologies not only help overcome what is lost from the classroom setting but also provide new avenues for improving student engagement.

Student engagement in asynchronous online classes is far more challenging than in synchronous settings. Student engagement in this case tends to be heterogeneous and individualized. Therefore faculty must periodically aggregate individual engagement to evaluate overall class-level engagement. Again, it is important to understand that participation and engagement are not necessarily the same and communication apprehension is a real factor that affects participation level even in asynchronous settings. Therefore, participation metrics such as number of discussion posts and length of discussion posts may not be useful indicators. Use of surveys, quizzes and other feedback mechanisms that allow anonymity are useful. An assessment of whether course objectives are being met throughout the semester (rather than in the very end) could be useful to evaluate the nature and extent of engagement and make mid-course corrections as appropriate. Needless to say, student engagement is directly proportional to the faculty engagement and particularly so in asynchronous settings. So faculty should think of ways to stay engaged with the class. Some useful suggestions that I have gleaned and implemented are weekly emails, sending notifications and reminders to the classes on deadlines and due dates. Posting tips and hints to assignments based on questions I got from some students in the class (this way the larger class benefits and has the same information and it might just help an apprehensive student solve that problem).

Taking Online Teaching Lessons into Face-to-Face Instruction

The COVID-19 pandemic gave a lot of faculty to dabble in online instruction. As universities transition from online/hybrid modes of instruction back to the traditional F2F modality, what lessons that we learned from online experimentation are worth carrying forward? In terms of student engagement, online mode offers several nifty widgets to increase engagement, especially from ‘communication apprehensive’ students. I think having a Teams/Zoom chat open during traditional F2F classroom could help students engagement/participation, especially from communication apprehensive students. The quiz/poll features in these video-conferencing services, can replace or serve as a substitute to options such as ‘poll everywhere’ or clickers that many faculty use to get student feedback in class. Chats can be saved and made available to students via LMS to document discussion. Some moderation and setting of ground rules may be necessary prior to their use. Use of standard emojis as a form of communication may help Gen Y and Gen Z students be more open in their online communication but might need some getting used to by faculty who did not grow up with them. It is important to communicate the limits of such usage so students know what is acceptable and what could be considered ‘unacademic’.

Student engagement is key to overall academic success, whether it is traditional classroom instruction or online teaching. Student verbal participation is not the same as student engagement. Interestingly online modality offers some tools and methods to reduce communication apprehension and improve student engagement. It might serve us best to incorporate them even when we transition back to face to face teaching.

References:

[1] Frymier, A.B. and Houser, M.L., 2016. The role of oral participation in student engagement. Communication Education, 65(1), pp.83-104.

[2] Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

[3] Neill, S., 2017. Classroom nonverbal communication. Routledge.Neill, S., 2017. Classroom nonverbal communication. Routledge.

[4] Castelli, F.R. and Sarvary, M.A., 2021. Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive plan to encourage them to do so. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), pp.3565-3576.

[5] Phirangee, K. and Hewitt, J., 2016. Loving this dialogue!!!!: Expressing emotion through the strategic manipulation of limited non-verbal cues in online learning environments. In Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 69-85). Academic Press.