Russell L. Shackelford

Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report

In 2001, the ACM and the IEEE-CS published Computing Curricula 2001 which contains curriculum recommendations for undergraduate programs in computer science. That report also called for additional discipline-specific volumes for each of computer engineering, information systems, and software engineering. In addition, it called for an Overview Volume to provide a synthesis of the various volumes. The Computing Curricula 2004 Task Force undertook the job of fulfilling the latter charge. The purpose of this session is to present the recently completed work of that Task Force, now known as Computing Curricula 2005 (CC2005), and to generate discussion among, and feedback from SIGCSE members about ongoing and future work.

Using software to solve problems in large computing courses

Sometime in recent years, everybody discovered computing. Some combination of cheap. hardware, graphical interfaces, and the World Wide Web has resulted in,a state of affairs that has nearly everyone using, computers for something. As computer science educators, we are faced with the sometimes difficult and often enjoyable task,,of spreading the good news about computer science, of teaching people about the essentials of, “algorithmic thinking” that enables us tom have computers help us do things. : Arguably,: the most important focus of our efforts should be at the introductory level, where most non-CS people will be exposed. If we are able to effectively express the principles of computer science to students in other disciplines, and’cause them to realize how tionderfnl computer science really is, then we might not only find durselves with. some “converts” but also might influence those in other disciplines to better incorporate algbrithmic thinking and problem-solving into their own di sciplines.

Curriculum 2001: interim report from the ACM/IEEE-CS task force

In the fall of 1998, the ACM Education Board and the Educational Activities Board of the IEEE Computer Society appointed representatives to a joint task force to prepare Curriculum 2001, the next installment in a series of reports on the undergraduate Computer Science curriculum that began in 1968 and was then updated in 1978 and 1991. The purpose of this panel is to present an overview of the early work of the task force and to generate discussion in the SIGCSE membership about the directions and plans for the new curriculum.

Computing curricula 2004: the overview project

In 2001, the ACM and the IEEE-CS published Computing Curricula 2001 which contains curriculum recommendations for undergraduate programs in computer science. That report also called for additional discipline-specific volumes for each of computer engineering, information systems, and software engineering. In addition, it called for an Overview Volume to provide a synthesis of the various volumes. The Computing Curricula 2004 Task Force has undertaken a two-pronged strategy to fulfill the latter charge. The purpose of this session is to present an overview of the Task Forces work and to generate feedback from the SIGCSE membership to the Task Force about the direction and plans we have undertaken.

Integrating “depth first” and “breadth first” models of computing curricula

Traditional undergraduate Computer Science curricula have been increasingly challenged on a host of grounds: undergraduate computing education is attracting fewer majors, is not producing graduates who satisfy the needs of either graduate programs or business and industry, and is not effectively responding to the increasing needs for computing education among the larger student population. In the face of such challenges, there has been a recent movement to restructure undergraduate computing curricula. At Georgia Tech we have design (AY 91-92) and implemented (AY92-93) a new computing curriculum that features a radical restructuring of subject matter. During the design and implementation process, we paid close and critical attention to the particulars of both the ACM recommendations and reports from our colleagues at other institutions who had already gained some experience with “Breadth First” approaches. We have conclude that curriculum modernization should integrate key aspects of both “Depth First” and “Breadth First” approaches. Our new curriculum is an example of such integration. We present data (measures of student performance and of student and faculty opinion) that confirm that our approach is viable, and we now believe that it can be a useful model for others. In this paper, we outline the structure of our integrated curriculum and report on key facets of our experience with it.

Educational computing: myths versus methods—why computers haven't helped and what we can do about it

A cursory look at the history of educational computing shows that the great majority of effort has been devoted to bypassing the teacher. We estimate that in excess of 99% of educational software development has focused on products for use by students. In this respect, the profession of Education appears to be aberrant: it is the only profession known to us which has deployed nearly all of its computing resources for client use rather than forpivfissiond we. Why is this so? We believe that this has very little to do with educators themselves. We see educators as being in an unfortunate bind: on the one hand, they are increasingly pressured to make use of computer technology; on the other hand, they are limited to choosing from available produots, products which have not demonstrated much positive impact on the educational process. In this sense, educators are more the “consumers” than the “producers’ of educational computing, and they have suffered due to the dearth of truly powerful and useful products available to them. Moreover, we believe that educators have been trapped between the hard facts of daily reality and various myths of educational computing. In this paper, we shall examine these myths and propose responses to them.

A synthesis and ontology of all of computing

In recent years, the discipline of computing has matured to the point of having distinct sub elements, each of which is developing curriculum recommendations, accreditation criteria, conferences, professional societies and publications. In particular, five distinct curriculum projects range in status from completed some time ago Computing Curricula 2001: Computer Science (CS-2001)[4] and IS 2002 Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems (IS-2002)[1]), through almost completed as of the writing of this special session proposal, and very likely to be published by the time of SIGCSE 2005 Computing Curricula 2004: Software Engineering [2] and Computing Curricula: Computer Engineering [5]) to one that will likely be finished in late 2005 or early 2006 Computing Curricula: Information Technology). More broadly, recent work in the UK to identify the variety of computing related programs currently offered in British universities identified 2,400 distinct program names [3].We are making an interim report on, and seeking input into, a project to keep the family of computing related disciplines together. This project is partially funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF grant 0338546, Special Project: All in the Family: A unified representation of the computing and information related disciplines), and is being run by a joint task force from several professional societies, with ACM taking the lead.Very roughly, the goals of the project are to provide a synthesis of all that is computing, and various ways of organizing and visualizing that synthesis. This project began in late 2003, and got started in earnest in early 2004. We anticipate completing the work late in 2005 or early in 2006. Thus SIGCSE 2005 is the perfect time for us both to report on our work to date, and to get valuable feedback from the community.

Curriculum 2001: bringing the future to the classroom

The discipline of computing encompasses the understanding, design, and use of computers and computational processes. The breadth of the discipline is emphasized in the following quotation from a report issued by the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board. [1]The discipline ranges from theoretical studies of algorithms and computability to practical problems of implementations in terms of computational hardware and software. Thus, the discipline spans both advancing the fundamental understanding of algorithms and information processes in general as well as the practical design of efficient reliable software and hardware to meet given specification[s] h. [I]t includes theoretical studies, experimental methods and engineering design in all disciplines.Computing draws on the methodologies of both science and engineering. Theoretical work has done much to advance the state of the art. At the same time, computing does not separate the discovery of new scientific knowledge from the application of that knowledge to solve practical problems. The intimate relationship between theory and practice endows the discipline with much of its strength and vitality. This same connection between theory and practice, however, also means that the body of knowledge associated with computing changes very quickly as technology evolves.