Monday, August 25, 2014

Ten Computer Science (CS) & Information Technology (IT) higher education policy changes to improve practice of software development in India

I submitted the following today (25th August 2014), with the same title as that of this blog post, to an appropriate Indian govt. online forum (which is accessible only to its registered users - but any Indian citizen can easily register in it for free):

1) Have two career tracks for CS/IT academics: Research Oriented and Software Development Oriented
2) Like the measure for competence in research for the CS/IT academic is the research publication record, the measure for competence in software development of the CS/IT academic should be the quality and quantity of his/her software contribution record.
3) Change teacher eligibility tests (NET/SLET/SET) for CS & IT disciplines to have 50% weight-age practical test (on computer) involving programming and some amount of design, and 50% weight-age on theory.
4) Allow industry-trained & self-taught professionals who are not academically qualified in CS/IT to become CS & IT Teachers by clearing teacher eligibility tests (NET/SLET/SET)
5) Encourage industry professionals to contribute as well paid visiting faculty/industry consultants.
6) Study CS/IT professional licensure & certification in USA and other technologically advanced countries and explore possibility of introducing similar CS/IT licensing and certification exams in India.

For more on points 1 to 6, see my paper, "Improve the Practice of Software Development in India by Having a Software Development Career Track in Indian CS & IT Academia", http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.1715.pdf

7) Teachers who create course material for a course (as against using course material from other sources) should have their course material reviewed by other teachers just like research papers are reviewed. Appropriate career growth related credit should be given to teachers whose course material gets a good review. The review may include student assignment submissions including source code, so that reviewers get an idea of how students are benefiting from the course.
8) Lab. courses should be evaluated as strictly as theory courses. It should have external examiners like theory courses. There should be no hesitation in failing students who fare poorly in assignment submissions and exams. Administrators should examine lab. course result patterns and compare it with theory course result patterns. Very high success rates in lab. courses contrasted by quite different success rates in theory courses should ring alarm bells and invite investigation.
9) Lab. course credits should be at least equal to theory course credits. Further, the number of lab. courses should be roughly equal to the number of theory courses. [I believe, the typical current ratio is 4 to 5 theory courses and 2 lab. courses in a semester, with theory courses having 3 credits and lab. courses having 2 credits.]
10) The practice of relegating lab. courses to junior teachers must be abandoned. Given the vital importance of practice in CS/IT, senior teachers should teach lab. courses.

For more on points 7 to 10, see my blog post, Concrete Suggestions for Measuring Teaching Quality in Practice-Oriented Computer Science/Information Technology streams, http://eklavyasai.blogspot.in/2013/06/concrete-suggestions-for-measuring.html

No comments:

Post a Comment