Yeah, myself, Nagamuthu Krishnan. Right now I'm a PhD holder in computer science and right now I'm serving in Sasra DM. City. Tamil Nadu. And, uh, right now I'm involved in teaching and, uh, research. And right now I'm handling. B.Tech courses. B.Tech CSE courses. Assess MSC Computer Science course. And, uh, in that particularly for, uh, B.Tech, I'm handling, uh. A course by name software engineering and for MSA handling. Uh, cybersecurity and previously and, uh, it was also. I'm also involved in. Extensive research and we are supposed to give two publications per year. And all these things are happening. Uh, for the past three years after I joined this particular. Institution. And previously, I was, uh, serving in an institution called US RV College of Engineering in Bangalore. But that was for a period of eight years, almost eight years. And there also, it was a very nice experience, uh. And it was quite good, very, very good experience. And all along I had a very wonderful feedback from students and faculty. And, uh, the research part also went on well. And actually we wrote, uh, so many proposals, uh. With the fellow faculties and it went on well and after that since this is a carry progression for me. I came here and joined this particular institution. To use back. So this is the thing. And particularly the reason for which I'm applying for this version is uh. Career progression. As well as uh, I have heard that VAT is offering. Very good at positive faculty in terms of support to research. And, uh, carrier guidance of those things, carrier progression, all those things. So that is one particular thing, uh, for which, uh. Opportunity with the.

Hello instead of technical.

Thank you for that overview, Dr.. Let's proceed.

Thank you for sharing your background, Dr.. You mentioned handling both software engineering for B.Tech and cybersecurity for M.Sc students—can you describe a specific strategy you use to adapt your teaching approach for these two distinct groups?

Yeah, particularly in cybersecurity, it is a course where there is an equal proportion of theory as well as lab. So the setup was the planning was whenever we complete, let us take, I'm going to handle, uh, international detection system. Right now I'm handling intuition detection system for them. And in that we are supposed to introduce some tools, uh. One particular tool. What, uh, that is being, uh. Interest for them is by by name Nick Nikto. Nikto is a tool that is being used and the demonstration part went on just the last week. The demonstration part went on and actually I took this as a task and I planned for that and went on on this particular action of providing demonstration whenever I complete a theory part. And this went on from Unit 1. Actually we had. 5 units and that, uh, we have 5 units in that particular course and, uh, all along I had, uh, introduced, uh, so many. Tools to them. Whenever a theory part is completed, and this is going to be the very important strategy since, uh, cybersecurity is going to be the uh. The particular thing, what is being considered and it is going to be an Evergreen area so that the student has to get, uh, students have to get uh, very good awareness so that they fit exactly into the industry.

You highlighted the importance of demonstrating tools like Nikto right after covering the relevant theory—can you give a concrete example of how a student’s understanding or engagement noticeably improved after one of these demonstrations?

So that is what?

Got it. Since you emphasize lab demonstrations, can you describe a moment when a hands-on exercise with a tool like Nikto helped a student overcome a specific conceptual misunderstanding in cybersecurity?

Face that was paced planarly and afterwards everything went on well. There is no issue with that.

Thanks for describing that process. When you delegate to those three or four students as peer helpers, how do you ensure they’re reinforcing the material accurately for their classmates rather than introducing new misunderstandings?

You know the actually the students who were trained sat with me for almost 2 weeks with me. And I had AI had already delivered specific materials to them, whichever I wanted to cover. And it was a one to one session. Uh, between them and me? Actually, it's some four students were there and they were given extensive practice. Actually, they will, uh, bring their laptop and sit with me, uh, along with me in the faculty room. And it was uh, one to 1, so. Myself giving instructions, they are doing the instructions and I made sure that the understanding was very clear. As what I have with that particular tool and uh, after confirming that, uh, with all the concerts, what I have supplied to them, they're able to do well. And uh, there were, there were some rehearsals also that went on. With respect to whatever I deliver to the students. Since that was happening, that was already tested it it didn't face. They also didn't face any issue with respect to clarifying the problems, whatever. You know the other people were racing with them.

Understood. Since you’ve integrated significant one-on-one mentoring, how do you balance your time between this individualized support and your broader teaching and research duties?

Yeah, actually it was off class hours. Actually our classes get over by 5:20 and actually they they also in in some cases the last hour. Uh would be free for them and they also uh, will be uh will be let off after their regular classes. Might be last session would also be free for in all those occasions I asked him to. Come to my cabin and, uh, take their own time in such a way that they could practice those exercises. And this happened apart from the regular classes, what I had and, uh, since I was able to, uh. Give this as a extra part and I also involved. In this particular case, as a extra. Allocation or extra responsibility? I was finding quite uh. Comfortable to and the students also. Cooperated with me. That is the major part. Students also cooperated with me and they saw it, sat with me and they went on uh, with uh, clearly with whatever I instruction I gave to them. And since I was, uh, doing all these things, definitely teaching was not, it went, uh. Along with the teaching and I didn't uh, feel that to be so much of uh, load along with the teaching aspect, what I do regularly.

That makes sense. Given your experience balancing research and teaching, can you share a time when your research directly influenced or improved a course or lab you were teaching?

The that was, uh. You know, on a network security lab. That, uh, I handled in one particular thing, my area of interest and what I did was, uh. Research on network. Security. So actually I had uh done some. I have given some 4 proposals in. Uh, network security and uh. Actually, the, uh, that particular lab was devised by me. And uh, I took all the exercises. Whatever is being practiced by so many training institutes, they are doing the same part. And contacting the same course and since it happened to be research. Area of me, I was able to bring out whatever I have done, whatever I have brought through, whatever I have practiced to the students and the students also were able to get. Quite some, uh. Benefit from this. And at the end of the day or and the end of the. Exam end of the semester, uh, they were able to perform well and they were able to come out with, uh, so much of accolades. So actually, uh, that particular lab was uh. At the end of the semester, that particular lab was uh. Monitored, that is examined by one external faculty. And when that external faculty came and conducted, why? Lima will see with these students, they felt very happy in such a way that they they have a very good awareness on what was the topic thought and practically also they had showed so much of. Improvement and so much of knowledge with respect to the particular course, and we were quite happy with it.

You mentioned designing the entire network security lab based on your own research and external practices—what was one exercise or assignment you created that most clearly reflected your research focus, and how did students respond to it?

Yeah, that one assignment what I had given was. Uh, with respect to distributed denial of service attack. So in that, uh, we had, we created one scenario. Create actually created on scenario and uh, we literally contact, uh, constructed on, uh, botnet. And, uh, that botnet was simulated and, uh. One particular machine was considered as a zombie and uh. Uh, it was simulated in the particular, uh, uh, virtual network that that particular machine is being, uh, targeted and how that particular machine, uh. It affects the entire set of machines in that particular network was, uh, demonstrated and actually it, that was one proposal, uh, for me and how to withstand that botnet attack was own proposal. And that was practically given to them so that they also had a real time experience about distributed any love service. Attack. Particularly in bot Nets.

Interesting approach. What specific indicators or metrics did you use to assess whether students truly understood the concepts behind the botnet simulation exercise, beyond just completing the technical steps?

Yeah, actually, when? When the classes went on, particularly for this course when the classes went down since uh. They we are, we have. Come so, so much. Or we have come. Very advanced in this particular assessments and all there was, uh, there was. So in practice, actually I had that practice. Uh, of, uh, conducting reflections in the class. So that is one particular assessment. And, uh, another thing what I followed, uh, in the classroom was that, uh, online assessment that is a practical online or live assessment. So when such things are given, so actually they, they, they will log in into their system and uh, we both were connected and I will uh. Uh uh, spontaneously provide uh and and video online assessment. Uh, and uh, they are supposed to answer that. Likewise, some, uh, it was conducted for, uh, quite, sometimes, almost some 7 or 8 * 8 times it was conducted. And, uh, I felt, uh, quite happy with the performance what they had. And actually it was considered for, uh, their assignment, uh, evaluation. And, uh, finally, what, uh, I felt to us, that particular thing, that particular way of assessment was quite productive and the students also were able to reap maximum. Us in their assignments. So that is one particular assessment what I what I introduce in my class. In, uh, network security as well as cybersecurity.

Reflecting on your use of online live assessments, can you share a specific instance where a student struggled during one of these assessments and how you addressed it in real time?

We had some disruptions in the network. And it went on in the middle. And they were taking, uh, uh, that was, uh, that happened to be quite challenging. So they were on to the exercise and suddenly this thing went on. So how it was handled was immediately. We I had a provision of having uh. Uh, Wi-Fi adapter in my laptop immediately I separated, uh, that particular thing and actually I didn't, uh, separate so that I had, uh, as a immediate measure so that, uh. They could be able to gain. The, the network immediately and they could be able to continue with that assessment. And that instance was uh, particularly due to the disruption in the network. What, uh. They had. And after that it went on well and, uh, in few other occasions. They were stuck up with some questions and some clarifications were there with respect to specific question in that cybersecurity course and that had been a challenge and actually. Some delay was introduced so that I I went uh. Above the time allocated for me and I requested with the. One other faculty member who followed me. But, or followed my session and, uh, actually I was able to come up with that particular particular issue and, uh, uh, they completed that assessment, uh, later on and the doubts were clarified and, uh. Finally, he got the outcome.

Thank you for explaining that situation. Given your experience handling technical disruptions and clarifying student doubts, how do you document or reflect on these incidents to improve your assessment process for future classes?

So. Uh, everything. So what I, uh, do was whenever, uh, uh, something, some aspects are being done. I do screen recording and I also record my. Uh, many time it'll record me. Classes. So what I do is whenever a class is over, I'll just take a documentation of this, whatever the issues I faced in a particular session, particularly with these assessments, and I make a note of it. And actually when I conducted similar, I repeated those assessments. I look into the documentation. What, uh problems I had face failure. All those things. And I had a. I, I gave, I I prepared. With myself and went to the class and immediately it resolved that it particularly happened in that cyber security course itself. So that, uh. I documented whatever I had immediately after every class and whenever I met with such situation immediately in the future, I got immediate solution for that. So that the problem could be rectified.

That’s a thorough approach. When you review your documentation before repeating an assessment, can you give a specific example of a problem you preemptively resolved the second time around based on your earlier notes?

Comfortably and they come out with the solution.

Understood. When you replaced the ambiguous question on knowledge bases, how did you later verify that students had genuinely understood the concept rather than just answering a more familiar question?

Actually, that particular scenario, that particular thing. Was not, uh, just a knowledge based thing actually, uh, when we do assessments, uh. We we follow. Reverse Bloom Bloom's Taxonomy, where it goes for several levels. So mostly when when we put such questions in the question bank. It will be in such a way that they apply their consoles, whatever they have learned in the class and uh, they reflect that in answering the question. So it was, uh, in, so most of the questions were in Level 3. It is uh uh application. So since that application part is there in each of the questions, what I interest for them? Yeah, if if they feel a particular question to be unambiguous and they're able to answer, it obviously means that they are quite comfortable with the concept and if at all they have answered correctly. Uh, particularly, even, uh, that particular, uh, intrusion, uh, detection I'm telling. Yeah, I actually it was a scenario based question and this instance, this scenario was properly understood. Definitely the students, uh, has it has gone well with the student and the student are able to.

Uh, have a complete understanding.

Thank you for clarifying your use of scenario-based application questions. Thinking about your broader assessment approach, how do you ensure fairness and consistency when assigning alternate questions from your question bank to different students during live assessments?

Thanks for explaining your approach to scenario-based assessments. When students apply their knowledge in these scenarios, how do you provide feedback that helps them deepen their understanding rather than just correct their answers?

Yes. Uh, might be uh, in might be a scenario, so. Uh, let us take a scenario of, uh, collecting, uh, our, uh, tracing the input traffic. So we had. Tools like uh in map and all uh to. Trace the input traffic or collect and store the traffic. And. Then there was one particular question. Uh, which was based on. In map, so when uh the. Further, uh analysis was there with respect to the. Data gathered out of nmap. They umm, they were able to practically feel with what data they are operating upon. And what is going to be the outcome of that particular thing and. You know it, it was actually a live data what happened or what was traced in our Wi-Fi network. So since they practically did that and they were able to since they were able to take or read from the data what we gathered in a typical live network.

It went on well with the students and immediately I was able to provide a feedback also for that particular thing in such a way that. What has to be conveyed, whether it has been conveyed properly or not, and if at all there is a problem with their understanding, immediately it was solved. And in such a way that they get, uh, a quite a good, uh, quite a well understanding about how. The particular exercise was framed.

Right, so when students worked with live data from your network using tools like nmap, how did you structure the debrief or discussion afterwards to ensure students could connect their practical findings back to the core theoretical principles?

Appreciate the detail. When you observe students making errors during these practical exercises, what specific strategies do you use in the moment to help them self-correct rather than giving them the solution directly?

Yeah. Hmm. Actually, uh. Uh, in in that same, uh, this thing. Uh, we had so and that particular scenario, one particular scenario, the same thing that, uh, tracing scenario. And the tracing was related to one particular, uh. Analysis that was for. The, uh, what do you call that, uh. DOS Waste attacks. So DOS based attacks was the, uh, related question for that and for the same thing, uh. We I had some. Quite some scenarios, uh. Which go in the same. Same line, but uh, the underlying concept will be same. So what I will do is I will supply an alternate scenario and I will, uh, ask them to approach, uh, uh, with that particular scenario. And I, uh. Get from there input or I just uh. Look at, look on, look onto their work and. Find out that whether they are able to. Solve or whether they are able to come up well with that particular scenario, the same concept, whatever they had. Met with an issue earlier has been solved in this particular scenario also. So I had quite some alternate scenario so that. Uh, whether they are able to? Understand whether they're able to come up with an understanding what they are. They had already. Yes, uh, being tested.

That approach of using alternate scenarios to reinforce understanding is clear. In your experience, have you found any particular type of scenario or context that consistently helps students overcome conceptual misunderstandings in network security topics?

Yeah, that was one particular. Kind what I call it us. That, uh. Introsion. I'm sorry. It's not introsion based. This thing that was, uh, related to phishing kind of attack. So when the concept of phishing, actually it was uh. Related to social engineering toolkit. And particularly uh, uh, when, uh, the different types of uh. Phishing are the various, uh, aspects of phishing are the. Uh included as a uh part are included as a practical part over them. And, uh, it seems different scenarios are introduced to them. They, they came up with, uh, different types of phishing and, uh, they were able to have a look and feel of that particular thing and, uh, understand whatever they are doing. And, uh, it was quite helpful for them to approach in the exam also. And in the exam also, we had so many scenario based questions.

Thanks for sharing how you incorporated practical phishing scenarios with the social engineering toolkit. When students encountered unfamiliar phishing methods during these exercises, what strategies did you use to help them independently recognize and analyze those new attack types?

And. We tried with this particular.

Thanks for explaining your approach to rotating scenarios among students. How do you track and assess whether this method actually improves their independent problem-solving skills over the course of the semester?

Yeah, the. Final assessment. What we have, we have, uh. Uh, so much, uh, for example, we call it as uh, continuous internal assessments. So the continuous internal assessments, uh, is a reverse process. So whatever, uh, we plan to. Give or whatever way we plan to. Take questions for that particular thing or for that particular exam. Uh, We, uh, we provide, uh, so much of input to them and, uh, we provide, uh, so much of alternative to them and all of them together address that particular question. So then they're able to assess this and they're able to answer this particular question in their continuous internal assessment that obviously proves that whatever work they have done in the lab, they have done individually and by seeing their performance in many cases it came on well actually in in the class of 30. Almost 20 people or 25 people like first, actually 25 people who came. The total assessment was for 50 marks. So out of 50, some almost 25 people scored more than 35 and close to 40. It was around 3837 like that. So it proved that obviously what they did in the lab and since, uh, it was, uh, equivalent scenario that was asked in the exam or an equivalent, uh, situation, what was asked in the exam. It clearly means that whatever they have done, whatever work they have done in the lab. They have done genuinely. That is 1.

That makes sense. When reviewing the results from your continuous internal assessments, what adjustments—if any—did you make to your teaching or lab structure based on how students performed?

So, uh. Uh, in the in one particular case. Uh, what happened was. These student particularly faced some issues. So the situation was student particularly faced 1 laboratory based exercise. So that was. Given uh. One minute that was uh. Uh, given for. Or, uh, excise, which, uh, dealt with, uh.

A particular kind of kind of this thing called us back doors. Yes, it does backdoors. So for that particular thing. When whatever concept I taught in actually it was a demonstration happened for back doors. And since uh. That particular thing was, uh. Asked and uh. Since, uh, they were not. So there's some some 7 or 8 students were not able to. Answer that properly. So what I did was. Uh, any immediate class or whatever followed that particular, uh. Assessment part. I, I, I reiterated that particular point in such a way that. Whatever, uh, they have done.

Understood. Once you noticed students struggling with that particular laboratory exercise, what concrete change did you implement—was it a revision to the instructions, extra demonstration, or a new support material?

Yes, whatever. They were not able to go well with the exam. That point is made clear for them. Whereas the makeup thing that was carried out. Of that particular. Back door issue? What uh. The student space in the.

Thank you for clarifying. After you reiterated the concept of backdoors, how did you measure whether those 7 or 8 students actually improved their understanding in subsequent assessments or activities?

Understood. When you revisited the backdoor topic in class, did you use a different teaching method—such as hands-on demonstration or group discussion—to help those students grasp the concept better?

Yeah, it was a demonstration. It was a red demonstration done. Where there are different scenario? With the same concept of. Hello. And after that we went. The discussion actually, uh. Since it was a problem with respect to. That particular question in the exam. After a demonstration we discussed in the class what was the issue faced with them in the examination and since it is demonstrated using a different scenario. Whether they are comfortable. Whether, if at all, a new scenario is given to them? For tackling the same problem, they'll be able to come up well. So all these things were discussed in the class after demo and, uh, it was quite positive. So that, uh, some and similar instances they face in the. Exam they'll be able to. Come up well since the thing the topic was reiterated in the class.

Thank you for elaborating. When you discussed the issues students faced after the demonstration, did any specific patterns emerge in their misunderstandings, and how did you address those recurring challenges?

Recurring challenges occurred. Uh, in the particular backdoor itself, uh, recurring challenges. And actually some, some actually around 5 people had. Those issues with respect to. Misunderstanding. So what happened was there in that particular class some, uh. Seven students are very bright so that they complete their exercise, uh. Quite ahead. Of the due date. So what I did was. I made those people to. Particularly address their issues so that, uh. They can share my work also with respect to handling the issue or. Making things right with those, uh. Students who had problems and uh. Uh, in a way we manage that situation in such a way that, uh, those students. Uh, who helped me for solving this? Particular issue also came up with the practical thing, what they have learned and the issue was also immediately addressed so that those uh, slow learners. Came up very well with the same.

Session was over.

It’s helpful to hear how you involved advanced students in peer support. For the final wrap-up, Professor, what would you say is your core philosophy when it comes to helping struggling students succeed in technically challenging topics?

It’s helpful to hear how you involved advanced students in peer support. For the final wrap-up, Professor, what would you say is your core philosophy when it comes to helping struggling students succeed in technical subjects?

Yeah, core philosophy, the particular philosophy, I will tell the same. Course. The core philosophy. Uh, whatever you do. Whatever you do, whatever you deliver. Do it in a practical manner. So that things go on well. So cold velocity plus all along. So I have taught so many practical courses and rather than taking extensive theory class, my pattern or my approaches at approach everything in a practical manner. First show a demo and later on. Explain whatever you have showed in it in the demo rather than write rather than starting away with the theory classes 1st and late.

And this particular core approach had we went. Quite well with so many courses, let me tell you, it went. Uh, well, with Python it went.

Thank you for explaining your hands-on approach. When you demonstrate a new technical concept, how do you decide which real-world scenario or example will make it most accessible for your students?

That's clear, Professor. Reflecting on your practical-first approach, can you share a specific instance where starting with a demonstration significantly changed a struggling student's grasp of a complex topic?