Should computer science fulfill a foreign language admissions requirement?

An Atlanta-area PBS station did an article at the end of last year praising Georgia’s stance allowing CS to count as a foreign language: Is Computer Science A Foreign Language? Ga. Says Yes, Sees Boost In Enrollment | 90.1 FM WABE

The GT director of admissions was interviewed about this requirement in Insider HigherEd and had a much more reasonable take:

Rick Clark, director of undergraduate admissions at Georgia Institute of Technology, said he saw value in the steps by Georgia to encourage more study of computer science in elementary and secondary school.

“I like that kids, even in eighth and ninth grade, who are planning their path through school would take these courses, because basic coding and language will set them up for opportunities upon high school graduation that they would not have otherwise,” Clark said.

In fact, he said his concern is that access to computer science is unequal in Georgia high schools. Most of those who not only take a course, but are able to take Advanced Placement in computer science, are in the metro Atlanta area, Clark said. Georgia Tech is worried about these inequities and is exploring ways to use online instruction to make sure those outside the Atlanta area have access.

At the same time, Clark said, the push for computer science should not be viewed as either/or with foreign languages. He said Georgia Tech is “looking for students who demonstrate that international vision and interest,” and that he finds many of those applicants who are taking AP computer science in high school are also pursuing foreign language instruction as advanced levels.

More than half of Georgia Tech students participate in study abroad, he noted, and 10 percent of undergraduates are from outside the United States. “We are intent upon enrolling students who in high school chose to seek out that global perspective,” he said.

Source: Should computer science fulfill a foreign language admissions requirement?

January 22, 2018 at 7:00 am 2 comments

What does it mean for Computer Science to be harder to learn than other STEM subjects?

I made an argument in my Blog@CACM Post for this month that “Learning Computer Science is Different than Learning Other STEM Disciplines,” and on Twitter, I explicitly added “It’s harder.”

In my Blog@CACM post, I thought it was a no-brainer that CS is harder:

  1. Our infrastructure for teaching CS is younger, smaller, and weaker  (CS is so new, and we don’t have the decades of experience to figure out how to do it well yet.)

  2. We don’t realize how hard learning to program is (The fact that the Rainfall problem seems easy, but it’s clearly not easy, means that CS teachers don’t know how to estimate yet what’s hard for students, so our classes are probably harder than we mean them to be.)

  3. CS is so valuable that it changes the affective components of learning (Classes that are stuffed full of both CS majors and non-majors means that issues of self-efficacy, motivation, and belonging are much bigger in CS than in other STEM disciplines.)

The push back was really interesting.  People pointed out that they took CS classes and math classes, or CS and physics, and CS seemed easy in comparison.  They may be right, but that’s self-report on introspection by people who succeeded at both classes.  My point is that we are probably flunking out (or students are giving up, or opting out) of CS at much higher rates than any other STEM subject, because of the reasons I give.  We’re really using two different measures of “harder” — harder to succeed, or harder in retrospect once succeeded.

I only have a qualitative argument for “It’s harder.” I’m not sure how one would even evaluate the point empirically.  Any suggestions?  How could we measure when one subject is harder than another?

It’s not an important question to answer which is harder, CS vs math, or CS vs physics. A much more important and supportable claim is that CS “is harder” than it needs to be.  We have a lot of extraneous complexity and cognitive load in learning CS.

January 19, 2018 at 7:00 am 17 comments

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

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.

January 15, 2018 at 7:30 am Leave a comment

Georgia Tech Launches Constellations Center Aimed at Equity in Computing

 

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.

January 12, 2018 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

Analysis of 2017 AP CS exam participation from Barbara Ericson

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.

January 8, 2018 at 7:00 am 4 comments

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

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

January 5, 2018 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

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

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

January 3, 2018 at 7:00 am 6 comments

Older Posts


Recent Posts

January 2018
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 1,469,183 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,214 other followers

CS Teaching Tips