App-ademics

CSEE professor Nilanjan Banerjee’s new Introduction to Mobile Computing class gives Computer Science students the skills to break into the exploding field of mobile application development.

Today, more than 125 million Americans own a Smartphone. That’s nearly 40% of the 315 million people living in the United States. And, those numbers are only growing.

For these millions of Americans, their phone is so much more than a tool for making phone calls. It’s a personal planner and a video game console; a GPS and an MP3 player. These days you can download Smartphone applications to add almost any type of functionality to your phone. Dr. Nilanjan Banerjee’s new Introduction to Mobile Computing class is inspired by this growing trend. In it, Dr. Banerjee is teaching students how to create helpful and inventive Smartphone applications.

First, the course teaches mobile phone programming essentials like UI programming, data management, localization, and programming sensors like the accelerometer and compass, mobile OS services, and mobile phone games.

Then, students work in teams of two to dream up and build unique applications for the Windows 8 platform and android platform. “Mobile System development requires strong programming skills, knowledge of networking and OS, working with phone sensors, and user interface design,” explains Dr. Banerjee. “I hope that the students will learn how to use these concepts together to build real applications.”

The class is partially supported by Microsoft’s Project Hawaii Initiative. The benefits of this partnership are two-fold. First, it supplies the class with fifteen Nokia Lumia 920 phones for app building. Second, the partnership gives students access to Microsoft’s set of cloud services, which allows students to create more complex smartphone applications. 

“Complex mobile applications like image processing or text-to-speech require computational resources which may not be available on Smartphones,” explains Dr. Banerjee. “Hence, they leverage cloud services—these are services such as a text-to-speech engine resident on powerful backend servers.”

When Dr. Banerjee taught Introduction to Mobile Computing at the University of Arkansas, students produced a range of creative applications. One team created a remote security system for cars (pictured left). The system used a Smartphone to remotely control a video camera placed inside of the vehicle.  

Another student created Project Pond, simple touch-based game (pictured right). In the game, players use their fingertips to create ripples in a simulated pond. As the game progresses, the player must use the ripples to destroy enemies like crawfish, red tadpoles, and dragonflies.

While dreaming up application ideas, the sky is the limit for students. Dr. Banerjee only requires that the applications solve real world problems and use sensors available on the phone.  All the applications must be demonstrated in a Poster/Demo session that will be organized at the end of the semester.

Dr. Banejree, himself an iPhone user who swears by the Maps application, says that knowing how to create these applications is a huge asset for Computer Science students today. “The importance of the field can be seen by the simple fact that smartphone/tablet sales have surpassed desktops now,” he says. “With the advent of more computationally capable phone platforms, integration of sensors in smartphones, and advancements in cloud computing, it is clear that this field is going to grow in importance in the coming years.”

Dissatisfied with her job, Dilys quit and began learning to code. Now she's ready to make the move she wants. » Read more

By Julian Dautremont-Smith
Chief Sustainability Officer
Alfred State College

In an effort to track progress in sustainability education and promote sustainability courses, many colleges and universities have attempted to identify which courses they offer integrate sustainability concepts. As Alfred State is starting to move in this direction, I recently analyzed almost 160 definitions of “sustainability in the curriculum” submitted by participants in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). To enhance the comparability over time and with other institutions, I was hoping to find examples of definitions that are clear, specific, and require little subjective interpretation. At a minimum, I was looking for definitions that were explicit in how to deal with potential grey areas.

Unfortunately, I found many of the definitions to be fairly ambiguous. Perhaps as a result, even institutions that used similar definitions often seemed to interpret them differently when it came time to classify courses. The experience confirmed what a number of STARS users and reviewers have argued - the curriculum data available through STARS do not allow for meaningful comparisons between institutions. This post, the first of a two-part article, summarizes my findings. In Part 2, I’ll actually propose some new definitions for sustainability courses that I believe will generate better and more comparable data.

Overall, I found that the definitions of sustainability in the curriculum that institutions provided could be organized into 4 main groups:

• Roughly a quarter repeat the definitions of “sustainability-focused” and “sustainability-related” courses from the STARS Technical Manual almost verbatim.
• About 17 percent provide only a general definition of sustainability (often the standard Brundtland definition) and don’t say anything directly about what it means in the curriculum.
• Another 30 percent define sustainability education, but do not distinguish between sustainability-focused and sustainability-related courses.
• The remaining 28 percent provide an institution-specific definition of sustainability-focused and sustainability-related courses that went beyond upon the generic definition provided in the Technical Manual.

Disconcertingly, this means that although classifying courses as sustainability-focused or -related is necessary to earn many of the curriculum points in STARS, almost half (47%) of STARS participants submitted definitions that are clearly inadequate for this task. And, almost half of those who did distinguish between sustainability-focused and -related courses just used the definition supplied by STARS, which was intended as a starting point rather than a complete definition. Even many of those institutions that took the time to develop their own definitions ended up with definitions that contained substantial wiggle room and left a lot to individual judgment.

Given the room for interpretation in many definitions of sustainability in the curriculum, it’s no surprise that STARS participants ended up with quite different approaches when applying the definitions to their course lists. For example, some institutions seemed to take a very inclusive approach to classifying “sustainability-focused” courses - including courses that seemed to be about a more traditional topic e.g. Meteorology, Swine Production, Principles of Accounting, American Economic History, Petroleum Geology, Family Resource Management, Fundamentals of Marketing, Contemporary China, Beginning Tai Chi Chi Kung - while others took a more conservative approach, basically only including only courses with “sustainability” in the title. As a result, the scores on ER Credit 6 “Sustainability-Focused Courses” range from 0.03 to 10. The situation is similar for ER Credit 7 “Sustainability-Related Courses,” where scores range from 0.05 to 10.

This is a serious problem for STARS.˚ ER credits 6 and 7 are worth 20 points collectively. Choices about which courses to classify as sustainability-focused or related could easily bump an institution up a whole rating. The large number of points involved, subjective nature of the definitions, and difficulty of determining if a course has been correctly categorized without reviewing a syllabus or talking to the professor, may tempt institutions to over-report their numbers of sustainability-focused and -related courses. Over time, it’s easy imagine that this dynamic could result in the course count figures becoming more and more inflated and less reflective of the real trends in sustainability education. At a minimum, wide differences in approaches to course class classification make meaningful benchmarking on this issue almost impossible.

This analysis suggests that the campus sustainability community would be better served if AASHE were to offer greater guidance on this matter rather than asking campuses to define terms themselves. Less than a third are really taking advantage of the flexibility for participants to develop their own definitions offered under the current version of STARS anyway. A key question then is how broad such a definition should be or, put another way, how many dots should we connect in our course classifications. I’ll provide my answer to this question in Part 2.

˚Admittedly, as one of the original creators of STARS and current chair of the STARS Steering Committee, I deserve a sizable share of the blame for this problem. I hope this post is a step towards remedying it.

Why Work for CTY?

At CTY you will work with an exceptional group of students, make contacts and friendships with dynamic colleagues, and gain valuable experience in a rigorous academic community. CTY has consistently been named as one of the top internships in leading publications. We have a network of past employees now working in positions ranging from heads of school to deans of students to university professors.

The starting salary for instructors ranges from $2,400-$3,000 per 3-week session, depending on education and experience. Teaching assistants earn $1,150 per 3-week session, and residential assistants earn $1,350 per 3-week session. Salaries for administrators vary by position. Room and board are provided at residential sites.

Core Dates for 2013

Session 1: June 20 - July 13, 2013
Session 2: July 13 - August 3, 2013

Please note that the dates for some sites vary from those listed above. Visit our Site Locations and Dates page for specific employment dates at each site.

Resources for Summer Employment Applicants

• How to Apply
• Site Locations and Dates
• Positions Available
• Courses Offered
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Summer Programs and Diversity

If you have questions about summer employment with CTY, write to us at ctysummer@jhu.edu or call 410-735-6185.