Stanford revamps CS curriculum in a Thread-like manner

Hooray for Stanford!  What they did sounds a lot like what we did with Threads: reduce required curriculum, encourage students to pursue subfields (our “Threads”), and include non-CS classes in the Threads — and for much of the same reasons.  Great to hear that it’s working, and that they’re getting more (and more diverse) students!

The revamped curriculum consolidated the core required courses to six, down from 15, and allowed students to not only specialize in subfields like artificial intelligence and computer graphics but also allowed classes in other areas, like studio arts or human computer interaction count toward their computer science requirements.

via Making Computer Science More Enticing – Bay Area Blog – NYTimes.com.

Measuring Classroom Progress in the 21st Century

This is the article that Dan Hickey linked to in his comment to the post on teachers cheating.  It’s an interesting but short piece about best practices in assessment. I was really struck by the fact that Cisco Networking Academy is held up as a model for how to do assessment right.  Interesting when the for-profit computing education does better at assessment than the non-profit, traditional computing education.

This investigation has revealed both obstacles and opportunities to developing assessments needed for real reform of educational policies and practices.

Like many others, we are concerned that the evaluation criteria for broader state-level RTT proposals may well lock in some of the problematic testing practices of No Child Left Behind. There is a danger that many states will continue to rely on the same narrow tests of basic math and reading skills that have thus far failed to lead to instruction that enhances deep conceptual understanding and innovative problem-solving.

via Measuring Classroom Progress: 21st Century Assessment Project Wants Your Input » Spotlight.