I recently attended a sharing session by Prof Hilman on research and teaching technology in Electronic Engineering, and it left a strong impression, particularly in terms of how much care and thought he puts into his teaching.
What stood out most was Prof Hilman’s creativity and long-term commitment to his classroom. Over the years, he has developed a series of learning kits that are used across different levels of the programme, from first year right up to final year. These kits are not one-size-fits-all; instead, they are modular, covering topics ranging from analog electronics and RF to sensor design. You can clearly see that they were built with progression in mind, allowing students to grow into the complexity of the subject rather than being overwhelmed by it.
Having developed teaching kits myself, mainly for mini robotics, embedded systems, and IoT, I found myself very much on the same page. Designing kits for teaching is rewarding, but it also comes with its own set of challenges, especially when it comes to deciding how much to give students and how much to leave for them to figure out on their own.
When I talk about “giving everything,” I’m referring to situations where kits / modules that are highly prepared: dedicated PCBs, predefined functional blocks, and ready-to-use modules. This certainly helps students get started more quickly and reduces frustration. At the same time, we sometimes forget that designing those things, like laying out a PCB or deciding how a circuit or functions (in software programming) should be structured, is also an important part of learning.
On the other end of the spectrum is giving students only the bare minimum and expecting them to build everything from scratch. While this can be very powerful for learning, it is not always easy to manage in a real classroom. Students learn at different speeds, and ensuring that everyone can keep up within a fixed semester timeline can be quite challenging.
This is something I’ve often thought about through the lens of the white‑box versus black‑box approach, which I also discussed in my earlier works on tiered scaffolding approaches in Python Slider Game and the STEMCube platform. Both approaches have their place, and the real question is how to strike the right balance.
During the session, I raised this question with Prof Hilman, and we had a good discussion around it. What I found particularly insightful was his view that modularity helps bridge the gap between these two extremes. By designing kits in modules, we can decide which parts are “given” and which parts students are encouraged to develop themselves. As students progress, more of the system can be opened up to them. This makes the learning process more flexible and helps accommodate different learning paces within the same class.
We also touched briefly on the role of AI in analog design, especially during the early design and optimisation stages. While still an evolving area, it sparked an interesting discussion about how such tools might eventually support both teaching and research in electronics engineering.
Overall, the session was a good reminder that effective teaching innovation doesn’t come from choosing one extreme over another, but from carefully designing learning experiences that evolve with students. Prof Hilman’s modular approach is a practical example of how this balance can be achieved, and it’s certainly something I will continue to reflect on in my own teaching practice.
Nurul – March 9th
