1 / 23

Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013

Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013. Steve Roach (IEEE-CS) and Mehran Sahami (ACM). Steering Committee. ACM Mehran Sahami, Chair (Stanford) Andrea Danyluk (Williams College) Sally Fincher (Univ. of Kent) Kathleen Fisher (Tufts) Dan Grossman (Univ. of Washington)

talen
Download Presentation

Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013 Steve Roach (IEEE-CS) and Mehran Sahami (ACM)

  2. Steering Committee • ACM • Mehran Sahami, Chair (Stanford) • Andrea Danyluk (Williams College) • Sally Fincher (Univ. of Kent) • Kathleen Fisher (Tufts) • Dan Grossman (Univ. of Washington) • Beth Hawthorne (Union County Coll.) • Randy Katz (UC Berkeley) • Rich LeBlanc (Seattle Univ.) • Dave Reed (Creighton) • IEEE-CS • Steve Roach, Chair (UT, El Paso) • Ernesto Cuadros-Vargas (Universidad Católica San Pablo, Peru) • Ronald Dodge (US Military Academy) • Robert France (Colorado State) • Amruth Kumar (Ramapo College of NJ) • Brian Robinson (ABB corporation) • RemziSeker (U. of Arkansas, Little Rock) • Alfred Thompson (Microsoft)

  3. CS2013 Charter To review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computer Science volume of Computing Curricula 2001 and the accompanying interim review CS 2008, and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2013 that will match the latest developments in the discipline and have lasting impact. The CS2013 task force will seek input from a diverse audience with the goal of broadening participation in computer science. The report will seek to be international in scope and offer curricular and pedagogical guidance applicable to a wide range of institutions. The process of producing the final report will include multiple opportunities for public consultation and scrutiny.

  4. Working Groups Since December • Two conference call of whole committee • Established regular monthly calls • Divided existing Knowledge Areas from CS2001/8 • Created subcommittees for each area • Chairs for each subcommittee is on steering committee • Each subcommittee also includes two other steering committee members • Committees empowered add additional members • Many of them have already done so

  5. Initial Knowledge Area Reviews • Subcommittees tasked with an initial review of existing CS2001/8 Knowledge Areas • Identify topics to update • Identify needs for reorganization • Identify new Knowledge Areas/topics • Reviewed survey results with committee • To understand uses of existing curricula documents • To gain insight on need for new Knowledge Areas

  6. Survey Background • Developed survey to gather data for CS2013 • Reviews usage of CC2001 and CS2008 • Rating of importance of existing knowledge areas • Rating of principles (e.g., importance of stylized classes) • Suggestions for new topics of import/knowledge areas • Survey released at start of December as Google Doc • ~1500 US department chairs/directors of UG education • ~2000 International department chairs • 201 responses

  7. Review Survey Results

  8. Use of CC2001/CS2008

  9. Anticipated Usefulness of CS2013

  10. Importance of Knowledge Areas

  11. Importance of Topics

  12. Suggested Topics (% of suggestions)

  13. First Face-to-Face Meeting of Comm. • Working groups to discuss • Uses of CS2013 • Constituents of CS2013 • Principles/Themes • Provides top-down perspective • Reviewed Knowledge Areas (subcommittee work) • Google Docs as working documents for each KA • Each subcommittee presented results of review • Large variation in amount of work each area requires • Also re-evaluating Learning Outcomes in each area • Bottom-up persepctive

  14. Principles • Changes to CS2008 • “fundamental skills and knowledge” and “sensitive to new changes in technology” most important • Drop CS2008 principles relate to “crisis” in computing • Change “well defined models of courses” to “exemplars of courses” • Change what students “must” know to “should” know • Change undergraduate “curriculum” to “experience” • New principles • Diversity: curriculum should attract full range of talent to field • Be outcome driven • Providing realistic, adoptable recommendations that support new and innovative curriculum designs as well as support the evolution of existing curricula

  15. Restructuring BOK Guidelines • The notion of core and elective too restrictive • Not every CS program covers every hour of Core • Adopted three tier notion • “Preliminaries”: Small set of absolutely essential material • Generally, prerequisite material • What every student must see • “Foundations”: Set of important material, most of which is covered • Preliminaries + Foundations = Core • But allows local customization (not every hour of foundations need to be included in every CS program) • “Electives”: Set of additional material to complete the curriculum • Suggestions for alternative wording/terms?

  16. Restructuring BOK Guidelines II • “Learning objectives”  “Learning outcomes” • Adopting understanding of difference (more ABET consistent) • Using simplified Bloom’s taxonomy to characterize depth of understanding • Knowledge, Application, Evaluation • E.g., Iteration • Knowledge: know what it means • Application: can write the code to use it • Evaluation: can select the appropriate method of iteration in different situations • Cross-references between topics in different Knowledge Areas

  17. Key Issue: Programming Fundamentals • Programming Fundamentals and Programming Languages • Both Knowledge Areas still maintained • “Programming Fundamentals” is not “Introductory Courses” • There were substantial unresolved issues from CS2001/8 • Fundamentals reorganized across PF, PL, and AL • PF: Language/paradigm independent concepts • PL: Paradigm-specific concepts (e.g., OOP, Functional) • AL: Includes more implementation rather than client usage • E.g., implementing hash table vs. using a map

  18. Key Issue: Security • Security and Information Assurance • New Knowledge Area • Cuts across multiple areas • OS: Operating Systems • AR: Architecture • AL: Algorithms • IM: Information Management

  19. Key Issue: Systems • Outcomes based review of OS, AR, NC to identify common themes • Realized several themes cut-across all areas • Creating new “Systems Fundamentals” Knowledge Area • Incorporates “Preliminary” material from OS, AR, NC • Net-Centric Computing  Parallel and Distributed Systems • New Knowledge Area will incorporate portions of • OS: Operating Systems • AR: Architecture • AL: Algorithms

  20. Planning the Strawman Draft • Plan for Strawman draft by end of 2011 • First draft available for public comment • Summer 2011 meeting to finalize Knowledge Areas • Survey at SIGCSE-11 (in conjunction with panel) • Draft will include • Introduction • Principles • Characteristics of CS graduates • Constructing a complete curriculum • Preview of coming attractions (Course exemplars, Major changes from CS2008) • First complete draft of Knowledge Areas (16 KAs)

  21. Long-term Planning • 2010 December Kickoff • 2011 Feb Face-to-Face • 2011 Aug Face-to-Face • 2011 October Strawman Draft • 2012 Feb Face-to-Face • 2012 April Revisions to Strawman • 2012 Summer Extended Committee workshop • 2012 November Stoneman Draft • 2013 March Ironman Draft (SIGCSE) • 2013 August Final release

  22. Additional Issues • Need to launch web page for CS2013 effort • Hosted on Ensemble • “Computational Thinking” • Not part of our charter to define • Still, curricula document will speak to the role of computing more broadly (e.g., for non-CS majors and multi-disciplinary programs) • I.e., It will be a chapter of text, not a list of topics • Cognizant of needs of AP CS, liberal arts colleges, Two-year colleges • Believe new structure (i.e., preliminaries, foundations) will help support work these areas • External support for larger meetings (e.g., NSF)

  23. Questions/Feedback

More Related