-A A +A

ComputingEd

Subscribe to ComputingEd feed ComputingEd
How do people understand computing, and how can we improve that understanding?
Updated: 13 min 4 sec ago

ICER 2018 Call for Participation (I’m co-chairing Works in Progress)

Mon, 01/15/2018 - 07:30

Do submit to ICER 2018 in Finland.  I particularly encourage you to join the Works in Progress workshop, for which I’ll be the junior co-chair as I learn the ropes from Colleen Lewis. I was a participant in the Works in Progress workshop in Glasgow and found it fun and useful.

ICER’18 – Call For Participation

The fourteenth annual ACM International Computing Education Research (ICER) Conference aims to gather high-quality contributions to the computing education research discipline. We invite submissions across a variety of categories for research investigating how people of all ages come to understand computational processes and devices, and empirical evaluation of approaches to improve that understanding in formal and informal learning environments.


Research areas of particular interest include: – discipline based education research (DBER) in computer science (CS), information sciences (IS), and related disciplines – design-based research, learner-centered design, and evaluation of educational technology supporting computing knowledge or skills development – pedagogical environments fostering computational thinking – learning sciences work in the computing content domain – psychology of programming – learning analytics and educational data mining in CS/IS content areas – learnability/usability of programming languages – informal learning experiences related to programming and software development (all ages), ranging from after-school programs for children, to end-user development communities, to workplace training of computing professionals – measurement instrument development and validation (e.g., concept inventories, attitudes scales, etc) for use in computing disciplines – research on CS/computing teacher thinking and professional development models at all levels – rigorous replication of empirical work to compare with or extend previous empirical research results – systematic literature review on some topic related to computer science education


In addition to standard research paper contributions, we continue our longstanding commitment to fostering discussion and exploring new research areas by offering several ways to engage. These include a doctoral consortium for graduate students just prior to the conference, a work-in-progress workshop for researchers following the conference, and poster and lightning talks. This is in addition to the format of conference sessions, where all research paper presentations include time for discussion among the attendees followed by feedback to the paper presenters. Submission Categories ICER provides multiple options for participation, with various levels of discussion and interaction between the presenter and audience. These sessions also support work at various levels, ranging from formative work to polished, complete research results.


Research Papers Papers are limited to 8 pages, excluding references, double-blind peer reviewed and published in the ACM digital library as part of the conference proceedings. Accepted papers are allotted time for presentation and discussion at the conference


Doctoral Consortium 2 page extended abstract submission required and published in ACM digital library as part of the conference proceedings. Students will present their work to distinguished faculty mentors during an all-day workshop and during the conference in a dedicated poster session.


Lightning Talks and Posters Abstract (250 words) submission required and made available on conference website, but not published in proceedings. Accepted abstracts for lightning talks will be given a 3-minute time slot for rapid presentation at the conference followed by a discussion period for all attendees. Posters may either accompany a lightning talk or may be proposed separately using the same abstract submission process.


Work in Progress Workshop This one-day workshop is a venue to get sustained engagement with and feedback about early work in computing education.    White paper submission required but not included in proceedings.


Co-located Workshops Proposals for pre/post conference workshops of interest to the ICER community (i.e., those that aim to advance computer science education research) are welcomed and encouraged. ICER local arrangements personnel will be available to assist with workshop logistics where possible. If interested, contact the conference chairs for more details by April 10th, 2018: Lauri.Malmi@aalto.fi or Ari.Korhonen@aalto.fi.


For more information about preparation and submission, please visit the page corresponding to the submission type of interest. Important Deadlines and Dates
Research Papers
30 March, 2018 – – Abstract submission (250 words, mandator)
6 April, 2018 – – Full paper submission 
1 June – – Notification of acceptance 
15 June – -Final camera ready deadline Other Submission Types
1 May – – Doctoral consortium submissions 8 June – – Lightning talk and Poster proposals
8 June – – Work in progress workshop application
Conference Schedule
Doctoral Consortium, Sunday, August 12, 2018
ICER Conference, Monday, August 13 – Wednesday August 15, 2018
Work in Progress Workshop, Wednesday evening, August 15 – Thursday, August 16, 2018
For more details, see the conference website: http://www.icer-conference.org
Conference Co-Chairs Lauri Malmi, Aalto University, Finland (Lauri.Malmi@aalto.fi)
Ari Korhonen, Aalto University, Finland (Ari.Korhonen@aalto.fi
Robert McCartney, University of Connecticut, USA (robert.mccartney@uconn.edu)
Andrew Petersen, University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada (andrew.petersen@utoronto.ca)


AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date will be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

Georgia Tech Launches Constellations Center Aimed at Equity in Computing

Fri, 01/12/2018 - 07:00

 

The Constellations Center was launched at a big event on December 11.  I was there, to hear Executive Director Charles Isbell host the night, which included a great conversation with Senior Director Kamau Bobb (formerly of NSF).

 

Constellations is going to play a significant role in keeping a focus on broadening participation in computing in Georgia, and to serve as a national leader in making sure that everyone gets access to computing education.

Georgia Tech’s College of Computing has launched the Constellations Center for Equity in Computing with the goal of democratizing computer science education. The mission of the new center is to ensure that all students—especially students of color, women, and others underserved in K-12 and post-secondary institutions—have access to quality computer science education, a fundamental life skill in the 21st century.

Constellations is dedicated to challenging and improving the national computer science (CS) educational ecosystem through the provision of curricular content, educational policy assessment, and development of strategic institutional partnerships. According to Senior Director Kamau Bobb, democratizing computing requires a “real reckoning with the race and class divisions of contemporary American life.”

See more here.


Tagged: BPC, Constellations, NCWIT, NSF

Analysis of 2017 AP CS exam participation from Barbara Ericson

Mon, 01/08/2018 - 07:00

Like last year, I’m pleased that we can rely on others to write the blog post on Barbara Ericson’s annual AP CS exam data analyses.  The College of Computing at Georgia Tech just wrote a nice description of the findings here: Positive Signs, But Diversity Still Lagging in AP Computer Science Exam Participation, and quoted in part below. Barb’s detailed analyses can be found here, and her detailed gender and race analyses are here.

Barb has been doing more visualizations of her data.  The GVU Center at Georgia Tech produced this nice summary of 20 years of AP CS A data, by state. Of the images she’s produced, this is the one that I find most compelling — the number of exam-takers per 100,00 people in the state.  There are some big goose eggs and many single digit numbers out there.

Increasing female & minority access

According to Barbara Ericson, Georgia Tech research scientist and author of the analysis, the introduction this year of a new AP CS P course and exam contributed to the increases.

“This is exactly what we hoped for. The CS principles course is on par with a college-level intro course for non-CS majors, so it is more accessible to more people,” said Ericson.

Officials had estimated nearly 20,000 AP CS P exams would be taken this year. However, Ericson said the actual number topped 40,000.

“Although overall growth in female and minority participation in the AP CS A exam was relatively flat this year, we’re hopeful that the introduction of the P exam will help swell A exam participation rates in the next few years.”

AP Computer Science A

Despite marginal growth among underrepresented students, overall participation in the AP CS A exam grew by 11.2 percent year-over-year in 2017. A record 60,519 U.S. high school students took the exam with an overall pass rate of 61.8 percent, up more than a percentage point from the previous year.

“It’s great to see growth across the board, but there’s still a long way to go before AP computer science is as available in U.S. classrooms as, say, AP Physics or Calculus,” said Ericson.

More than 170,000 students took the AP Physics 1 exam this year, while more than 316,000 took the AP Calculus AB exam.


What universities can do to prepare more Computer Science teachers? Evidence from UTeach

Fri, 01/05/2018 - 07:00

UTeach has published a nice blog post that explains (with graphs!) the ideas that I alluded to in my Blog@CACM post from last month.  While currently CS teacher production is abysmal, UTeach prepared CS teachers tend to stay in their classrooms for more years than I might have expected.  More, there is evidence that suggests that there is significant slice of the CS undergraduate population that would consider becoming teachers if the conditions were right.  There is hope to imagine that we can making produce more CS teachers, if we work from the University side of the equation.  Working from the in-service side is too expensive and not sustainable.

Michael Marder, Professor of Physics and Executive Director of UTeach, and Kim Hughes, Director of the UTeach Institute, write…

The number of computer science and computer science education teachers prepared per year is smaller than for any other STEM subject — even engineering and physics — and while estimates vary, it is safe to say it is on the order of 100 to 200 per year, compared to the thousands of biology or general science teachers prepared. 

The U.S. has around 24,000 public and 10,000 private high schools. Only 10% to 25% have been offering computer science, so to provide all of them with at least one teacher at the current rate simply looks impossible.

Source: What universities can do to prepare more Computer Science teachers


Tagged: computing education, CS teachers, high school CS, K12, public policy

Do we really want computerized personalized tutoring systems? Answer: Yes

Wed, 01/03/2018 - 07:00

An excerpt from Mitchel Resnick’s new book Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play is published below in the Hechinger Report.  Mitchel argues against computerized personal tutoring systems, because they are only good for “highly structured and well-defined knowledge.”  Because we don’t know how to build these tutoring systems to teach important topics like creativity and ethics.

Agreed, but we are not currently reaching all students with the “highly structured and well-defined knowledge” that we want them to have. We prefer students to have well-educated teachers, and we want students to learn creativity and ethics, too. But if we can teach topics like mathematics well with personalized tutoring systems, why shouldn’t we use them?  Here in Atlanta, students are not learning mathematics well (see blog post referencing an article by Kamau Bobb). We have good results on teaching students algebra with cognitive tutors.

Here’s my concern: Wealthy schools can reject computerized personal tutoring systems because they can afford well-trained teachers, which means that there is less of a demand for computerized personal tutoring systems. Lower demand means higher costs, which means that less-wealthy schools can’t afford them. If we encourage more computerized personal tutoring systems where they are appropriate, more of them get created, they get better, and they get cheaper.

But I’m skeptical about personalized tutoring systems. One problem is that these systems tend to work only in subject areas with highly structured and well-defined knowledge. In these fields, computers can assess student understanding through multiple-choice questions and other straightforward assessments. But computers can’t assess the creativity of a design, the beauty of a poem, or the ethics of an argument. If schools rely more on personalized tutoring systems, will they end up focusing more on domains of knowledge that are easiest to assess in an automated way?

Source: OPINION: Do we really want computerized systems controlling the learning process? – The Hechinger Report


Tagged: educational technology, mathematics education

Require CS at University in order to Get CS into K-12 (Revisited)

Fri, 12/15/2017 - 07:00

I wrote a blog post in Blog@CACM in 2011: If You Want High School CS, Require Undergraduate CS.  Everything we’ve seen since then makes me more convinced this is a viable path to providing high-quality CS education for every student.

There is a growing body of evidence that every student at University will need computing. The recent report from Burning Glass and Oracle Academy shows how much in demand CS skills are, far beyond just those who will be professional software developers. Teaching everyone about computing would help in addressing Cathy O’Neill’s calls for more people to be investigating the algorithms controlling our lives. The argument for why University involvement is necessary for K12 CS Ed is based on an observation made recently by Code.org: We are not producing enough CS teachers in University. If everyone took CS at University, that would also reach pre-service teachers. That would make it easier for those teachers to teach CS in the future.

Requiring CS at University may help with the bigger cultural and perception problem.  In England, we see that schools aren’t offering CS even if it’s part of the required curriculum, and students (especially females) aren’t taking it (see the Royal Society report from last month).  The problem is that we’re trying to shoehorn CS into a culture that isn’t asking for it, or rather, the students (and schools) don’t perceive a need for CS. This is a form of the same problem that came up when we were talking about getting more formal methods into software development practice. All professionals should understand the role of computing in our society and how to use computing as a literacy: To express ideas, to share ideas, and to use in developing ideas.

Schools follow society. Society is rarely (if ever) changed by schooling. If you want a computationally literate society, convince the adults. If most professionals use computing, the same professionals that students want to be like, then there is a social reason to learn computing. Social demand to prepare K-12 students in that literacy makes it more likely for that literacy to succeed in K-12 education.  Trying to teach all students something that society doesn’t value for everyone is counter to situated learning theory.  Students (even K-12 students) are engaged in legitimate peripheral participation — their “job” is to figure out what is expected of them in society. If they don’t see computational literacy broadly in society, students don’t get the message that it’s important for everyone to learn.

When I make this suggestion to University faculty, I often hear the argument, “Anything you require of students, they will hate.” Then they tell me an anecdote of some student who hated a requirement, or of some personal experience of a class they hated. I know of no empirical evidence that says that this is generally true. We do have empirical evidence that says it’s false. Mike Hewner’s work found that US students take required classes in order to discover what they like, and they make curricular choices based on what they like.

We are already seeing students from all over campus flooding into our classes (see the Generation CS report and the National Academies report). We are already learning how to manage the load. It’s already happening in some Universities that most or all students at University are taking CS. Why not require it so that we get the Education students who we may not be seeing yet in CS classes?

Instead of using Universities to make CS education work, we are pouring money into CS Ed via in-service professional development — a tenfold increase in England, and $1.5B in the next five years in the US.  In general, more money in education alone doesn’t change things. We have to think about systems, policies, and our educational ecosystem. Universities are part of that educational ecosystem.

Universities play a role in K-12 education in all other subjects. We have to involve them in order to create sustainable K-12 Computer Science education.


Tagged: computer science teachers, computing education, in-service, pre-service, public policy, situated learning, teachers

State of Computing Education in the Commonwealth of Virginia: Guest Blog Post from Rebecca Dovi

Thu, 12/14/2017 - 07:00

Rebecca Dovi of CodeVA contacted me soon after my blog post of last Monday, inspired by Virginia’s new CS Education mandate. The story about the Virginia decision was much more complicated and interesting. I invited her to write a guest blog post, and I’m grateful that she agreed. It’s a fascinating story!

In February 2016 Virginia’s legislature passed House Bill 831 making computer science a part of the core instruction that all students in state must learn. The law mandates specifically “computer science and computational thinking, including computer coding,” be integrated into Virginia’s core standards on coequal standing, in the words of Virginia Secretary of Education Dietra Trent, with English and math. (Bill language http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+CHAP0472  )

At CodeVA, core standards had been a “maybe someday” issue on our radar. In terms of strategic planning we were not really considering advocating for core standards until several years out. Then the 2016 legislation cycle started, and with it five separate bills to make computer science count as a foreign language credit.

While standards were not yet something we actively sought, we knew all of these foreign language bills – while well intentioned – were not the means to the end the Virginia Assembly sought to achieve.

Armed with information, CodeVA sought to educate legislators, and in the process was asked instead to propose a substitution. The substitution proposed was the language of HB 831, amending the state’s core education standards enabling legislation. At the insistence of legislators, the bill also originally included a high school mandate and a graduation credit requirement, but CodeVA managed to convince legislators to allow it to use these two items as bargaining chips in negotiations with stakeholders. CodeVA knew these two additional requirements were a bridge too far: previous high school mandates requiring economics and personal finance courses for all high school students still cause issues for many districts around the state already struggling to have enough faculty to teach other subjects.

In the end, all stakeholders involved in the legislation were pleased with the law that was adopted, with acceptance of the final language from advocates representing the state’s superintendents, PTAs, teacher groups, school boards and from some of the state’s most influential school divisions.

Once the governor signed the bill into law, it was up to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to write standards for the Virginia Board of Education to approve. Virginia has a very prescribed system for developing and maintaining standards. It starts with creating a steering committee of current classroom teachers to act as the primary writing group. Once they have completed drafts multiple review boards give feedback on the standards. The groups weighing in as a part of this formal process include other teachers, educational stakeholders including groups like the Virginia Association of School Superintendents and the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, universities and community colleges and business and industry. Each external review group makes recommendations and the steering committee reviews and responds. Finally all standards go out for open public review, and public meetings are held across the state. The steering committee begin its formal work in March 2017 and the final draft was ready for the VDOE by October 2017.

The final draft went up for a vote by the Board of Education at its November meeting. While the board minutes of this meeting have not yet been posted (as of Dec 11, 2017) you can watch the video here (link: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/index.shtml# ). CodeVA’s executive director begins his presentation to the board at the 46:30 mark, and the board discussion of the CS standards continue from there.

The mandate for instruction by districts exists for K-8 and means computer science will be integrated into the core subjects students learn in kindergarten through eighth grade. The committee that wrote the standards was very intentional about how these are designed, so there are a few key differences between the Virginia standards and the national standards. First, they are defined for each grade, not by band. Second, in kindergarten and first grade they are written so a teacher may have students coding, or that teacher may choose to guide a lesson with small groups. Third, all non-coding standards were specifically placed so that they aligned with topics currently covered in core areas. Lastly, a sixth strand for cybersecurity was added.

The law also mandates creating standards for middle school and high school electives. These were defined, but the courses are currently optional for schools. CodeVA was intentional in advocating for this tiered approach to Virginia’s mandate: A school division where all students learn computer science concepts early as tools in math, science, language arts and other core subjects, and where parents come to expect quality offerings at the secondary level for their children, and where employers anticipate a CS-literate community, are more likely to ensure those elective offerings exist.

While schools certainly may use our virtual system to offer online high school elective courses, and while Virginia has offered CS through this online instruction platform for over a decade, Virginia’s new CS law includes no mandate to do so. And online instruction options were not in any way a part of the design of the law or of the resulting standards.

The idea is that the integration in K-8 allows students an “informed option” as they move from middle school to high school. By learning computer science early, they have a better idea of what they might want to pursue as an elective. The plan is to measure impact for the next few years, then evaluate the need for high school mandate or graduation requirements. If after data is collected and evaluated it is decided that the mandate needs to be expanded to high school  legislators can certainly go back seeking further requirements. Right now we are asking legislators to hold back from trying to move this process faster. Lawmakers in Virginia have reason for their exuberance for this issue: Virginia has the highest concentration of computer science jobs in the country and with the number of open jobs legislators are under enormous pressure from our business community to act.

Steering away from a high school mandate was a practical choice on two levels. First, we are not near capacity for having enough high school teachers to cover a mandate at that level, the average high school in state would need 4-6 full time computer science teachers to cover a graduation requirement, and an example. CodeVA has trained over 400 middle and high school teachers over the past four years, and this summer will be expanding from one central training to four statewide hubs serving up to 600 teachers. While this moves the state closer towards the goal of having one computer science teacher in each of the state’s 700-plus middle and high schools, that still is enough to meet the demand an immediate high school mandate would create.

Second was the general feeling that it is OK for a student to pursue another field in high school and not want to continue with computer science.This is where measuring the impact of the current initiative becomes vital. We first must explore how exposing all students over several years to ongoing computer science instruction shifts landscape in high school and beyond.

For CodeVA the next step is to continue to work with schools and districts to incorporate computer science in daily instruction. Expanding access to professional development by establishing three new hubs across the state is an important first step. These hubs will continue to run the middle and high school training cohorts we have lead since 2014 and add the new Elementary Coaches Academy we are currently piloting. In addition, to support the K-8 mandate we will be working with teams of teachers to create classroom curriculum that reflects the new standards. Finally, CodeVA is launching a pilot of a Computer Science Roadmap project that helps districts collect the information they need to plan the infrastructure needed for implementation.

While two years ago we did not anticipate needing to build a statewide infrastructure to support the implementation of standards Virginia hopes that the lessons learned through this process can inform other states as they move to truly bring computer science to all of their students.

 


Tagged: computing education, ECEP, public policy

Resources for dealing with the Undergraduate CS Capacity Crisis: Guest Post from Eric Roberts

Wed, 12/13/2017 - 07:00
Eric Roberts emailed to SIGCSE-members a note with resources on the capacity crisis. He graciously agreed to let me share it here as a guest blog post. Thanks, Eric!

Everyone,

A month ago, I sent out an announcement of the report from the National Academies entitled “Assessing and Responding to the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments,” which is available on the web at the following URL:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24926/assessing-and-responding-to-the-growth-of-computer-science-undergraduate-enrollments/

SInce it’s hard to wade through a 184-page report (especially since our massive enrollments leave most of us with little free time), I’ve put together a web page of resources to help institutions meet these capacity challenges, which you can find here:

http://cs.stanford.edu/~eroberts/ResourcesForTheCSCapacityCrisis/

In particular, I created a PowerPoint presentation that offers background data and annotations for the nine findings from the National Academies report. That slideshow is linked from my resources page but is also accessible directly as

http://cs.stanford.edu/~eroberts/ResourcesForTheCSCapacityCrisis/files/AnnotatedFindings.pptx

A few of the slides contain animations that I have found to be more effective than text or graphs, most notably on the slides titled “Classrooms are Overflowing” (slides 9-10), “The Challenge of Faculty Recruitment” (slide 15), and “Locking the Clubhouse” (slide 43). Feel free to use any of these slides in your own presentations. I hope you find these materials useful in making the case for increased resources.  And please send me any comments you have along with suggestions for any additional information that you would find helpful. Sincerely, Eric Roberts Charles Simonyi Professor of Computer Science, emeritus Stanford University
Tagged: computing education, undergraduate enrollment, undergradutes

How the Imagined “Rationality” of Engineering Is Hurting Diversity — and Engineering

Mon, 12/11/2017 - 07:00

Just a few weeks ago, Richard Thaler won the Nobel prize in Economics. Thaler is famous for showing that real human beings are not the wholly rational beings that Economic theory had previously assumed.  It’s timely to consider where else we assume rationality, and where that rational assumption may lead us into flawed decisions and undesirable outcomes.  The below article from Harvard Business Review considers how dangerous the Engineering “purity” argument is.

Just how common are the views on gender espoused in the memo that former Google engineer James Damore was recently fired for distributing on an internal company message board? The flap has women and men in tech — and elsewhere — wondering what their colleagues really think about diversity. Research we’ve conducted shows that while most people don’t share Damore’s views, male engineers are more likely to…

But our most interesting finding concerned engineering purity. “Merit is vastly more important than gender or race, and efforts to ‘balance’ gender and race diminish the overall quality of an organization by reducing collective merit of the personnel,” a male engineer commented in the survey. Note the undefended assumption that tapping the full talent pool of engineers rather than limiting hiring to a subgroup (white men) will decrease the quality of engineers hired. Damore’s memo echoes this view, decrying “hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for ‘diversity’ candidates.”

Google and taxpayer money, Damore opines, “is spent to water only one side of the lawn.” Many male engineers in our survey agreed that women engineers are unfairly favored. “As regards gender bias, my workplace offers women more incentives and monetary support than it does to males,” commented one male engineer. Said another, women “will always be safe from a RIF [reduction in force]. As well as certain companies guaranteeing female engineers higher raises.”

Source: How the Imagined “Rationality” of Engineering Is Hurting Diversity — and Engineering


Tagged: BPC, computing for all, computing for everyone, NCWIT

Advancing Computational Thinking Across K-12 Education, across Many Disciplines – Digital Promise #CSEdWeek

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 07:00

New report on coding, computer science, and computational thinking has just come out from Digital Promise.  I have been critical of some definitions of computational thinking (as I described in my book). I like the way Digital Promise defined them, and particularly how they connect CT to learning in other disciplines.

Advocating for computational thinking throughout the K-12 curriculum does not replace or compete with efforts to expand computer science education: on the contrary, it complements them. Where computer science is not yet offered, integrating computational thinking into existing disciplines can empower educators and students to better understand and participate in a computational world. And schools already teaching coding and computer science will benefit from weaving computational thinking across disciplines in order to enrich and amplify lessons that are beyond the reaches of computer science classes.

We offer a number of recommendations to move this work forward. Among them are advocacy campaigns, curriculum and resource development, professional development for teachers and administrators, and continued research.

Source: Advancing Computational Thinking Across K-12 Education – Digital Promise


Tagged: computational thinking, K12, public policy

NSF funds FLIP Alliance to diversify CS professoriate #CSEdWeek

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 07:00

This is an exciting new project from Valerie Taylor (University of Chicago), Charles Isbell (Georgia Tech), and Jeffrey Forbes (Duke University). It’s based on an observation that Charles has made before, that we can diversity CS faculty by impacting just a handful of schools.

The goal of the NSF-funded FLIP (Diversifying Future Leadership in the Professoriate) Alliance is to address the broadening participation challenge of increasing the diversity of the future leadership in the professoriate in computing at research universities as a way to achieve diversity across the field.  In particular, the problem that we address is stark and straightforward: only 4.3% of the current tenure-track faculty in computing at these universities are from underrepresented groups.

The FLIP Alliance solution is equally stark and straightforward: we intentionally bring together the very small number of departments responsible for producing the majority of the professoriate with individuals and organizations that understand how to recruit, retain, and develop students from underrepresented groups in order to create a network that can quickly and radically change the demographic diversity of the professoriate across the entire field.

from CMD-IT FLIP Alliance


Tagged: BPC, computing education, diversity, faculty

US National Academics Report Investigates the Growth of CS Undergraduate Enrollments #CSEdWeek

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 07:00

The new National Academies report on the growth of CS undergraduate enrollments came out last month. It’s important because it reflects the recommendations of scholars across disciplines in dealing with our enormous enrollment growth (see Generation CS report for more findings on the surge).

I wrote about this report in my Blog@CACM post for this month, The Real Costs of a Computer Science Teacher are Opportunity Costs, and Those Are Enormous.  The report talks about how hard it is to hire new faculty to deal with the enrollment boom, because the Tech industry is increasing its share of new PhD’s and recruiting away existing faculty.

Eric Roberts at Stanford was part of the report writing, and points out that the committee did not reach agreement that there is a problem with participation by underrepresented minorities. Quoting Eric’s message to SIGCSE-members, “the committee did not find comparable evidence that departmental limitations have historically had a negative effect on participation by underrepresented minorities. In fact, the total number of degrees awarded to students in the largest of the underrepresented demographic groups (African American and Latino/Latina) has roughly matched the percentages at which students from those communities obtain bachelor’s degrees.”  It’s surprising, and Eric’s note goes on to explain why that result is so concerning. The report does say clearly, “Institutions should take deliberate actions to support diversity in their computer science and related programs.”

Since 2006, computer science departments in the U.S and Canada have experienced a surge in the number of undergraduate majors and course enrollments. The resulting strain on departmental and institutional resources has been significant for many departments, especially with respect to faculty hiring and overall workload. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recently addressed the issue with the release a report titled “Assessing and Responding to the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments.”

The NAS report discusses strategies central for managing enrollment and resources, and makes recommendations for departments and institutions. Its findings and recommendations provide much-needed guidelines on how institutions can allocate resources to meet growing student demand and to adequately support their computer science department in the increasingly central role of computer science in education and research. “The way colleges and universities respond to the surge in student interest and enrollment can have a significant impact on the health of the field,” said Susanne Hambrusch, co-chair of the report’s committee and a professor of computer science at Purdue University.  “While there is no one-size-fits-all answer, all institutions need to make strategic plans to address realistically and effectively the growing demand for the courses.”

Source: NAS Report Investigates the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments


Tagged: BPC, faculty, public policy, undergraduate enrollment

Most jobs requiring CS skills do not require a CS degree #CSEdWeek

Tue, 12/05/2017 - 07:00

I am excited about this new report from Burning Glass and Oracle because it provides evidence for the claim that the vast majority of people who need CS skills will not be CS majors.  I will be joining folks from Burning Glass and Alison Derbenwick Miller and others from Oracle Academy in a Twitter chat about the report Wednesday, December 6 at 4 pm PT/7 pm ET.  Hope you can join us.

Only 18% of these jobs specifically request a computer science degree

While many employers are looking for workers with strong computer science skills, they are not necessarily looking only at job seekers with computer science degrees. Only 18% of jobs in the categories listed above specifically request a computer science degree. (Most postings do request a bachelor’s degree generally or a degree in another major.) Programming and data analysis jobs are the only categories that have significant demand for computer science degrees. For all other categories, fewer than 5% of postings request a computer science degree.[1] This means that students in a broad range of education programs can enhance their job market value by including computer science in their education pathways.

Source: Rebooting Jobs | Computer Science Skills | Burning Glass Technologies


Tagged: computing education, cs majors, end-user programmers, jobs, non-CS majors

Prediction: The majority of US high school students will take CS classes online #CSEdWeek

Mon, 12/04/2017 - 07:00

The Washington Post got it wrong when it announced that Virginia is the first state to mandate CS education for all students.  South Carolina has had that mandate for 30 years.  But they couldn’t prepare enough teachers to teach computer science, so they took classes they were already teaching (like “keyboarding”) and counted those as CS classes.

Virginia could fall into the same trap, but I don’t think so.  Instead, I predict that most Virginia high school students will take CS on-line (and that likely goes for the rest of the US, too).  I was struck by how the Richmond-Times Dispatch described the vote to mandate CS (below quoted from here):

The standards, approved unanimously, but reluctantly, by the state Board of Education on Thursday, are a framework for computer science education in the state. Other states have advisory standards, but Virginia became the first to have mandatory standards.

Board member Anne Holton voiced her concern with the grade level appropriateness of the standards before the vote.

“The standards, they seem ambitious to me,” she said. “These are not meant as aspirational standards, they are meant as a mandate that our teachers need to be able to teach.”

“We’re clearly leading the nation and that puts an extra burden on us to get it right.”

Mark Saunders, the director of the Education Department’s Office of Technology and Virtual Learning, led a presentation of the department’s process in adopting the standards.

The presentation satisfied the board enough to vote on the standards rather than delay action until January.

I’m reading between the lines here, but I’m guessing the process went something like this: Board members balked at a statewide mandate because they knew they didn’t have the teachers to support it. Then they were assured that the Virtual Learning system could handle the load, so they voted for it (“reluctantly” as the article says).

I don’t know that anybody’s tracking this, but my guess is that it’s already the case that most high school students studying CS in the United States are doing it online.  Since we are not producing enough new CS teachers, the push to grow CS education in high schools is probably going to push more CS students online. This is how schools in Arkansas and other states are meeting the requirements for schools to offer CS — simply make the virtual high school CS course available, and you’ve met the requirement. No teacher hiring or professional learning required.  I know from log file analyses that we are seeing huge numbers of students coming into our ebooks through virtual high school classes.

What are the ramifications of this trend?  We know that not everyone succeeds in online classes, that they tend to have much higher withdrawal and failure rates. We know that most people learn best with active learning (see one of my posts on this), and we do not yet know how to replicate active learning methodologies in online classes.  In particular, lecture-based learning (which is what much of online learning attempts to replicate) works best for the most privileged studentsOur society depends on teachers who motivate students to persevere and learn. Does serving high school CS through online classes increase accessibility, or decrease diversity of those who successfully complete high school CS classes?  Will students still be interested in pursuing CS in the future if their only experience is through a mandated online course?  Does the end result of mostly-online high school CS classes serve the goals of high-quality CS education for all students?

 


Tagged: high school CS, online courses, online education, public policy

Where the STEM Jobs Are (and Where They Aren’t): Ignoring health care and end-user programmers

Fri, 12/01/2017 - 07:00

The NY Times linked below attracted a lot of attention because it claims that CS is the only field where demand outstrips supply. There’s a big asterisk on the graph below — the claim that there are more life sciences graduates than jobs “does not include health care occupations.

This report still underestimates the demand for CS in industry. Here at Georgia Tech (and at many other schools, as I read Generation CS), a huge part of our undergraduate course load comes from students who are not majoring in CS, but they expect to use CS in their non-software-development jobs.

“There is a huge divide between the computing technology roles and the traditional sciences,” said Andrew Chamberlain, Glassdoor’s chief economist. At LinkedIn, researchers identified the skills most in demand. The top 10 last year were all computer skills, including expertise in cloud computing, data mining and statistical analysis, and writing smartphone applications. In a recent analysis, Edward Lazowska, a professor of computer science at the University of Washington, focused on the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment forecasts in STEM categories. In the decade ending in 2024, 73 percent of STEM job growth will be in computer occupations, but only 3 percent will be in the physical sciences and 3 percent in the life sciences. A working grasp of the principles of science and math should be essential knowledge for all Americans, said Michael S. Teitelbaum, an expert on science education and policy. But he believes that STEM advocates, often executives and lobbyists for technology companies, do a disservice when they raise the alarm that America is facing a worrying shortfall of STEM workers, based on shortages in a relative handful of fast-growing fields like data analytics, artificial intelligence, cloud computing and computer security.

 


Tagged: computing education, jobs, STEM

CS Teacher Interview: Emmanuel Schanzer on Integrating CS into Other Subjects

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 07:00

I love that Bootstrap is building on their great success with algebra to integrate CS into Physics and Social Studies. I’m so looking forward to hearing how this works out.  I’m working on related projects, following Bootstrap’s lead.

Lots of governors, superintendents and principals made pledges to bring CS to every child, but discovered that dedicated CS electives and required CS classes were either incredibly expensive (hiring/retaining new teachers), logistically impossible (adding a new class given finite hours in the day and rooms in the building), or actively undermined equity (opt-in classes are only taken by students with the means and/or inclination). As a result, they started asking how they might integrate CS into other subjects — and authentic integration is our special sauce! Squeezing CS into math is something folks have been trying to do for decades, with little success. Our success with Bootstrap:Algebra means we’ve got a track record of doing it right, which means we’ve been approached about integration into everything from Physics to Social Studies.

Source: Computer Science Teacher: CS Teacher Interview: Emmanuel Schanzer–The Update


Tagged: computing education, mathematics education, physics education

Universities aren’t preparing enough computer science teachers, and we have no path to get there

Fri, 11/24/2017 - 07:00

Not really a surprising claim, but I still think that we’re not talking enough about this. No K-12 subject is taught nationwide without producing teachers from universities. We simply cannot create sustainable K-12 CS education without universities producing CS teachers (called “pre-service teacher professional development”). Currently, we produce new CS teachers by recruiting existing teachers from other subjects (called “in-service teacher professional development”). None of our models for growing CS nationwide currently have a plan to replace in-service with pre-service (as described in this blog post).

Looking for answers, we examined the state-by-state data on the number of graduates prepared to teach various subjects. We found that in 2016, only 75 teachers graduated from universities equipped to teach computer science. Compare that to the number of graduating teachers prepared in mathematics (12,528) and the sciences (11,917 across general science, biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science).

Source: Universities aren’t preparing enough computer science teachers


Tagged: computer science teachers, computing education, in-service, pre-service

Keeping the Machinery in Computing Education: Back to the Future in the Definition of CS

Mon, 11/20/2017 - 07:00

I’ve been excited to see this paper finally come out in CACM. Richard Connor, Quintin Cutts, and Judy Robertson are leaders in the Scotland CAS effort. Their new curriculum re-emphasizes the “computer” in computer science and computational thinking. I have bold-faced my favorite sentence in the quote below. I like how this emphasis reflects the original definition of computer science: “Computer science is the study of computers and all the phenomena surrounding them.”

We do not think there can be “computer science” without a computer. Some efforts at deep thinking about computing education seem to sidestep the fact that there is technology at the core of this subject, and an important technology at that. Computer science practitioners are concerned with making and using these powerful, general-purpose engines. To achieve this, computational thinking is essential, however, so is a deep understanding of machines and languages, and how these are used to create artifacts. In our opinion, efforts to make computer science entirely about “computational thinking” in the absence of “computers” are mistaken.

As academics, we were invited to help develop a new curriculum for computer science in Scottish schools covering ages 3–15. We proposed a single coherent discipline of computer science running from this early start through to tertiary education and beyond, similar to disciplines such as mathematics. Pupils take time to develop deep principles in those disciplines, and with appropriate support the majority of pupils make good progress. From our background in CS education research, we saw an opportunity for all children to learn valuable foundations in computing as well, no matter how far they progressed ultimately.

Source: Keeping the Machinery in Computing Education | November 2017 | Communications of the ACM


Tagged: CAS, computing education, curriculum, K12

Parsons Problems have same Learning Gains as Writing or Fixing code, in less time: Koli Calling 2017 Preview

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 07:00

On Saturday, Barbara Ericson will be presenting at Koli Calling her paper (with Lauren Margulieux and Jeff Rick), “Solving Parsons Problems Versus Fixing and Writing Code.”

The basic design of her experiment is pretty simple.  Everybody gets a pretest where they answer multiple-choiced questions, write some code, fix some code, and solve some Parsons problems.  (I’ve written about Parsons Problems here before.)

Then there are three instructional treatments with three different kinds of problem-solving practice:

  • One group gets Parsons Problems with distractors in them — blocks that should not be dragged into the solution.
  • One group gets the same code to fix — same code as in the Parsons Problems but all the distractors are there.  They have to fix the broken code in the distractor to get to the same code as the correct block in the Parsons.
  • One group gets to write the code to solve the same problem.

Then they take an isomorphic (same basic problems with context and constants changed) post-test, go away, and come back one week later for a retention test (which is isomorphic to both the pretest and the first posttest: multiple choice questions, Parsons, fix code, write code).  So we have students who study with Parsons Problems getting tested by writing and fixing code.

Here’s the bottom line from their abstract: “We found that solving two-dimensional Parsons problems with distractors took significantly less time than fixing code with errors or than writing the equivalent code. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in the learning performance, or in student retention of the knowledge one week later.”

That’s it. It’s simple but profound.  Below is the timing table from the paper. The Parsons Problems took effort, but always less time — sometimes they took only half the time of fixing or writing code, and other times it was only a few percentage less. But it was always less.

One takeaway idea is: If Parsons leads to the same learning in less time, why wouldn’t every teacher use more Parsons problems?  A second one that we’ve been thinking alot about is: Can we provide more Parsons problems so that in the same amount of time that students were writing code, they actually learn more? Efficiency matters, as Elizabeth Patitsas’s work suggests — more efficient learning may mean less belief in Geek Gene by CS teachers.


Tagged: computing education research, efficiency, Parsons Problems

Royal Society Report on CS in English Schools: The Challenge of Reaching Everyone

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 07:00

The new report from the UK’s Royal Society is fascinating and depressing. More than half of school don’t offer CS. Because the largest schools do offer CS, 70% of English students are at a school that offer CS — but they’re still not getting into CS classes. Only 1 in 5 CS students are female. The Royal Society recommends a tenfold increase in funding.

We have heard about some of these demographics before (see the Roehampton report and BBC coverage). Here in the US, we’re also talking about dramatically increasing funding (see blog post here about the $1.3B funding from White House and Tech industry).  Are the US and England on the same paths in CS? Is there any reason to expect things to be different, or better, in the US?

report by the UK’s national academy of sciences finds that more than half of English schools do not offer GCSE Computer Science, leaving too many young people without the chance to learn critically important programming and algorithm skills at a crucial stage of their education.

Unless the government urgently invests £60m in computing education over the next five years – a tenfold increase from current levels that puts it on par with support for maths and physics – an entire generation may never unlock the full potential of new technologies such as robotics, artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Key findings from the report include:

  • 54% of English schools do not offer Computer Science GCSE

  • 30% of English GCSE pupils attend a school that does not offer Computer Science GCSE – the equivalent of 175,000 pupils each year

  • Bournemouth leads England with the highest uptake of Computer Science GCSE (23% of all pupils), with Kensington & Chelsea (5%), Blackburn (5%) and City of London coming last (4%)

  • England meets only 68% of its recruitment target for entries into computing teacher training courses, lower than Physics and Classics

  • Only 1 in 5 Computer Science GCSE pupils are female

Source: Invest tenfold in computing in schools to prepare students for digital world, says Royal Society


Tagged: CAS, computing education, public policy

Pages