Welcome
CS4HS
About today


Logistics: W-9 form, evaluation at end of day
The CS Principles materials


Yet MORE activities



Scratch
Processing
Yet MORE information


Today starts out with CS Principles.
CSTA K-12 CS Curriculum Standards
And MORE activities


Puzzles to Algorithms
AppInventor
CS Principles
Overview
CS & IT 2012
CS & IT 2012
Atlantic
Computer Science Education Act
Introduced in Both Houses
(9/22/2011)
The bill focuses on K-12 education

Fund planning grants for states to work with stakeholders to
assess their computer science offerings in K-12 and develop
concrete steps to strengthen them.
http://techpolicy.acm.org/blog/?p=1796
Computer Science Education Act
Introduced in Both Houses

Fund implementation grants for states, in partnership with
local school districts and institutions of higher education, to
carry out state plans by:



developing state computer science standards, curriculum, and
assessments;
improving access to underserved populations; building professional
development and teacher certification programs;
creating on-line courses; and, ensuring computer science offerings
are an integral part of the curriculum
Computer Science Education Act
Introduced in Both Houses



Establish a blue-ribbon commission to review the state of
computer science education nationwide, and bring states
together to address the computer science teacher certification
crisis
Establish computer science teacher preparation programs at
institutions of higher education
Create an independent, rigorous evaluation of state programs
funded under this Act with results reported to Congress and
the Administration
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1614
CS Principles

Jan Cuny (Program Officer in the Directorate for
Computer and Information Science and Engineering at
the National Science Foundation)

Her Critical Perspective begins by assessing the current state
of computer science education in the United States. Finding a
significant lack of diversity among CS college graduates, and
few opportunities to learn substantive computer science at K12, she analyzes how these two problems (and others) can be
addressed through focusing on pre-college education.
Results of Faculty Colloquium
October 2008
The following information reported by
College Board to colloquium participants in
December 2008
Rationale

66 key computer science faculty members were
convened from top-tier institutions

The goal of the meeting was to inform faculty about
the AP Computer Science course and exam, and to
gauge interest in a potential different, future
direction for AP Computer Science
Participating Institutions
Rose-Hulman
Florida State University
Virginia Tech
Illinois Institute of Technology
San Diego State University
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Columbia University
Rice University
University of Aarhus
University of Michigan
Northwestern University
University of South Florida
University of California Berkeley
University of Southern California
University of Central Florida
Harvey Mudd College
Dartmouth College
Purdue University
Michigan State University
Baylor University
Rutgers University
Indiana University
University of Texas at Dallas
Georgia Institute of Technology
George Mason University
Tufts University
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin
Drexel University
University of Illinois
Amherst College
SUNY Stony Brook
University of Maryland
Stevens Institute of Technology
Harvard University
University of Texas Arlington
University of California San Diego
University of California Davis
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Minnesota
Swarthmore College
College of William and Mary
Michigan Technological University
University of California Irvine
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Florida International University
Colorado School of Mines
Creighton University
University of Washington
Boston University
Vanderbilt University
University of Florida
University of Texas at Austin
Carnegie Mellon University
Drew University
Rochester Institute of Technology
Texas Tech University
University of California Riverside
Princeton University
The Ohio State University
University of Arizona
Colorado State University
Bryn Mawr College
Stanford University
University of Houston
Duke University
Methodology

The AP Computer Science FC online satisfaction survey
was sent out Sunday, October 26, 2008 just after the
meeting ended

All 66 Computer Science Faculty Colloquium attendees
responded to the survey
Executive Summary

Faculty believe that if only one AP Computer Science course is
offered by the College Board, we should maintain a course such
as the current AP CS A course, making incremental
improvements, but keeping it focused on programming so that it
aligns with the first course within the major.

However, there seems to be a desire for the current AP Computer
Science A course and exam NOT to be the AP Program’s standalone Computer Science offering.
Executive Summary

College faculty see much potential in the idea of the College Board also
providing a new and different AP Computer Science program that would
broaden the appeal and perceived relevance of Computer Science
and would attract a greater diversity of students to the major.

So long as the proposed new AP CS program would not replace outright the
current AP CS A (programming-focused) course, there is considerable interest
in the proposed new AP course.

However, they found it difficult to perceive the parameters of a proposed new
course, and without a clear description of what the new course would entail,
found it impossible to provide good information about the likelihood of credit,
placement, and overall value of such an addition to the AP Program.
9.7%
0.63%
AP Computer Science: Principles



Using Computational Thinking to Model a New
Course Advanced Placement Computer Science:
Principles.
 NSF award: $2,093,450 effective September 1, 2009 and
expires August 31, 2012.
Principal Investigator: Owen Astrachan, Duke University
Co – PIs:


November 2009
Amy Briggs, Middlebury College
Lien Diaz, The College Board, AP Program
AP CS: Principles




Not a replacement for the current AP CS A course
Must be a course for which college credit and/or
placement is given (AP)
Not designed as a required course for majors
Designed to appeal to a vastly larger and more diverse set
of students
November 2009
Commission Members

Don Allen – Troy HS, CA

Christine Alvarado – Harvey Mudd College

Stacey Armstrong, Cypress Woods High School, TX

Owen Astrachan – Duke University (PI)

Charmaine Bentley – FDR High School, TX

Amy Briggs – Middlebury College (Co-PI)

Rich Kick – Newbury Park HS, CA

Mark Guzdial – Georgia Institute of Technology

Jody Paul – Metropolitan State College of Denver

Chris Stephenson – Executive Director, CSTA
November 2009
Advisory Group Members



















Duane Bailey – Williams College
Tiffany Barnes – UNC Charlotte
Gail Chapman – Director, Leadership and PD, CSTA
Tom Cortina – Carnegie Mellon University
Stephen Edwards – Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dan Garcia – UC Berkeley
Joanna Goode – University of Oregon
Susanne Hambrusch – Purdue University
Michelle Hutton – President, CSTA
Deepak Kumar – Bryn Mawr College
Jim Kurose – U Mass Amherst
Andrea Lawrence – Spellman College
Richard Pattis – UC Irvine
Eric Roberts – Stanford University
Katie Siek – U Colorado at Boulder
Beth Simon – UC San Diego
Larry Snyder – University of Washington
Lynn Andrea Stein – Olin College
Fran Trees – Rutgers University
November 2009
Commission and Advisory Board

Commission has task of delivering framework
for course/exam using evidence centered
design

Advisory board provides feedback, guidelines,
advice to commission

Advisory board actually advises
Timeline

2009-2010


2010-11




Big Ideas, Practices, Claims/Evidence
Pilot I: Five colleges
Draft College Survey
Test item prototype
2011-12

Pilot II: 10+ colleges, 10+ high schools
Possible Next Timeline

Necessary and sufficient conditions to
continue


2012-2013



How do we ensure “substantial” buy-in?
Curricular framework finalized?
Exam format identified
Deploy exam and course

2016? 2017?
Key ideas

Computer Science Principles is designed to introduce
students to the central ideas of computing and computer
science, to instill ideas and practices of computational
thinking, and to have students engage in activities that
show how computing and computer science change the
world.
Annotated Course Outline
Key Theme: Creativity

We want students to create artifacts that they want to
show off to their friends and family, using simulation to
explore questions that interest them, and designing and
implementing solutions employing the iterative and
sometimes messy process that artists, writers, and
engineers use to translate ideas into tangible form.
Annotated Course Outline
Key Theme: Use of Technology

Use of technology as a means for solving computational
problems and exploring creative endeavors, rather than a
focus on a specific tool or language.



programming is one of the seven big ideas
programming is a tool students use to explore concepts and
create exciting and personally relevant artifacts.
students will work with "big-data"—to analyze it, to visualize it,
to draw conclusions from trends in it
Annotated Course Outline
Key Theme: People and Society,





Students will explore computer science’s relevance to and
impact on the world today.
They will investigate the innovations in other fields that
computing and computer science have made possible.
They will examine the ethical implications of new
computing technologies.
They will perform activities that develop their
communication and teamwork skills.
They will talk and write about their solutions, the
importance of these problems and their impact on the
world.
Annotated Course Outline
Success in the course



Compelling curriculum
Engaging pedagogy
We’re not just changing content, we’re changing how
Computer Science is taught and, in turn, who chooses to
take it.
Annotated Course Outline
Resources Available

http://www.csprinciples.org/



Seven Big Ideas, Key Concepts, Supporting Concepts
Six Computational Thinking Practices
Claims and Evidence Statements