update on computing curriculum computer science 2013 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013

Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013

81 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Update on Computing Curriculum: Computer Science 2013

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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