The Hatchery: An Agile and Effective Curricular Innovation for Transforming Undergraduate Education

The Computer Science Professionals Hatchery utilizes strong partnerships with industry and a vertically integrated curriculum structure, embedding principles of ethics and social justice and diversity, to create a nurturing, software company environment for students that also provides tools to allow them to take on the challenges of real-life company environment. The goal is to produce graduates who are wellrounded, who have a shorter pathway to full productivity after graduation, who can be leaders, and who can operate as agents of positive change in the companies where they work. 1. The CS Professionals Hatchery The Computer Science Professionals (CSP) Hatchery seeks to transform undergraduate education in Computer Science by replicating the best elements of a software company environment, layering in moral, ethical, and social threads with entrepreneurship and professional skills. The goal is to create a curriculum and environment that produces graduates with the experience, training, and skills necessary to swiftly integrate into software company workflow and influence culture, shortening the path from graduation to being productive and beneficial. While this paper focuses on Computer Science Education, we believe that the Hatchery structure can be adapted to improve student outcomes in any subject area. Computer science curriculum often focuses on technical aspects while relegating ethics to a single course. Issues of inclusivity and teamwork aren’t integrated into the curriculum so cultural problems in the profession continue to be propagated. Industry complains about a lack of responsiveness to rapidly changing technologies, and a corresponding lack of real-world relevance in the curriculum – i.e. students may learn the theory but current technologies and practice are not sufficiently integrated into the curriculum. The CSP Hatchery is an attempt to address all of these problems. The CSP Hatchery utilizes a progressive academic curriculum structure where students at all grade levels work with each other. This structure focuses on three curricular innovations: (1) Infusion of ETHICS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE principles, starting at the first course taken by Freshmen CS majors and continuing throughout the curriculum. Our goal is to inseparably infuse ethical/moral elements into the practice of software engineering for our students, to empower our students to be agents of revolutionary change in reshaping the practice of computer science to be a more just and inclusive profession. (2) Short, narrowly focused, agile courses, which we call HATCHERY UNITS, are threaded with regular course work and are used to infuse foundational concepts and skills at key points into the curriculum. Industry involvement in the design and delivery of hatchery courses ensures that they focus on the skills and capabilities most useful to students in the work that they will actually perform in an industry setting. (3) Vertically Integrated Teaching and Learning (VITaL) curriculum. Instead of being in siloes, students at all grade levels work with and learn from each other on industry-sponsored projects, fostering a strong sense of community amongst students, faculty, and industry. The CSP Hatchery project is currently in the third year of its implementation, with two years remaining. Since the start of the project in Fall 2016, five required and three elective Hatchery courses have been designed and offered. Infusion of ethics and morality and vertical integration is also in the process of implementation.

[1]  Wendy Larner,et al.  On the front line: Organization of work in the information economy , 2000 .

[2]  J. Rawls A Theory of Justice , 1999 .

[3]  D. Schoen Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[4]  Karen L. Tonso,et al.  On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice , 2007 .

[5]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[6]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It , 2011 .

[7]  Herbert Gintis Behavioral Ethics , .

[8]  Joy Buolamwini Gender shades : intersectional phenotypic and demographic evaluation of face datasets and gender classifiers , 2017 .

[9]  Shannon Vallor Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting , 2016 .

[10]  Edward J. Coyle,et al.  Team-Based Software/System Development in the Vertically-Integrated Projects (VIP) Program , 2012 .

[11]  Richard Heersmink,et al.  Distributed Cognition and Distributed Morality: Agency, Artifacts and Systems , 2016, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[12]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance , 2008, Science.

[13]  Catherine Adams,et al.  Teaching Phenomenological Research and Writing , 2017, Qualitative health research.

[14]  Susan M. Barnett,et al.  Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Lotte Bailyn,et al.  A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT , 1999 .

[16]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Distributed Morality in an Information Society , 2012, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[17]  Donna Harawy Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective , 2022, Philosophical Literary Journal Logos.

[18]  Chin-Hui Lee,et al.  On project-based learning through the vertically-integrated projects program , 2011, 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[19]  Nalini Ambady,et al.  Identical applicant but different outcomes: The , 2018 .

[20]  Thomas F. Gilbert,et al.  Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance , 1978 .

[21]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The social structure of free and open source software development , 2005, First Monday.

[22]  Joshua A. Bergamin Being-in-the-flow: expert coping as beyond both thought and automaticity , 2017 .

[23]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder to "Machine Bias: There's Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. and It's Biased against Blacks" , 2016 .

[24]  Maria Lee,et al.  The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future , 2017 .

[25]  R. D. Parslow Vertical integration in group learning , 1980, SGCS.

[26]  A. Applewhite,et al.  Why so few women , 2002 .

[27]  Gayla R. Olbricht,et al.  Assessing Freshman Engineering Students’ Understanding of Ethical Behavior , 2017, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[28]  Jared Bielby Comparative Philosophies in Intercultural Information Ethics , 2015 .

[29]  Robert T. Pennock,et al.  Developing a Scientific Virtue-Based Approach to Science Ethics Training , 2016, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[30]  Deborah N. Brewis,et al.  Social Justice ‘Lite’? Using Emotion for Moral Reasoning in Diversity Practice , 2017 .

[31]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence , 2017, The Journal of Ethics.