1. Update on Computer Science Curriculum 2013 (CS2013) Mehran Sahami Computer Science Department Stanford University sahami@cs.stanford.edu

2. Outline The Committee Themes Where we are at –Survey of CC2001 and CS2008 –December conference call –SIGCSE-11 panel Where we are going –Tentative timeline –February 2011 meeting –Website for CS2013

3. Committee Chairs IEEE-CS Chair: Steve Roach (Univ. Texas, El Paso) Established working relationship –Several phone calls and emails –Met face-to-face in November at Stanford Hi Steve! Hi Mehran!

4. Steering Committee Committee on both ACM and IEEE-CS sides finalized –Formed this with the notion of a single committee in mind –Exchanged ideas on candidates ACM Mehran Sahami, Chair (Stanford) Andrea Danyluk (Williams College) Sally Fincher (Univ. of Kent) Kathleen Fisher (AT&T Research) (Tentative; likely moving to Tufts) Dan Grossman (Univ. of Washington) Beth Hawthorne (Union County Coll.) Randy Katz (UC Berkeley) Rich LeBlanc (Seattle Univ.) Dave Reed (Creighton) IEEE-CS Steve Roach, Chair (UT, El Paso) Ernesto Cuadros-Vargas (Universidad Católica San Pablo, Peru) Ronald Dodge (US Military Academy) Robert France (Colorado State) Amruth Kumar (Ramapo College of NJ) Brian Robinson (ABB corporation) Remzi Seker (U. of Arkansas, Little Rock) Alfred Thompson (Microsoft)

5. Steering Committee Committee on both ACM and IEEE-CS sides finalized –Formed this with the notion of a single committee in mind –Exchanged ideas on candidates ACM Mehran Sahami, Chair (Large Private) Andrea Danyluk (Liberal Arts) Sally Fincher (International) Kathleen Fisher (Industry) (Tentative; likely moving to Tufts) Dan Grossman (SIGPLAN) Beth Hawthorne (2 year colleges) Randy Katz (CRA-E) Rich LeBlanc (Prior CC efforts) Dave Reed (K-12, AP CS) IEEE-CS Steve Roach, Chair (Large Public) Ernesto Cuadros-Vargas (International) Ronald Dodge (Government) Robert France (Large Public, Int’l) Amruth Kumar (CC2001 review) Brian Robinson (Industry) Remzi Seker (Public) Alfred Thompson (Industry)

6. Advisory Committee Rationale for advisory committee –Experience from prior CC/CS efforts –Different perspectives for review (China, India) –Relationships with other efforts (e.g., curriculum packs) Confirmed members –Mark Guzdial (Georgia Tech) –Eric Roberts (Stanford University) Provided extensive materials from CC2001 effort –Bob Sloan (Univ. Illinois at Chicago) Additional members to be added opportunistically

7. Themes of CS2013 Effort “Big Tent” view of Computer Science –Multi-disciplinary work (“Computational X”) –“Outward” looking view of the field Managing curriculum size –CS2001 reduced total required hours from CC’91 –Aim to reduce required hours from CS2001 At least be no larger in number of required hours Course exemplars as opposed to stylized courses –Pointers to existing courses that incorporate knowledge units –Not creating a set of reference classes Be aware of institutional needs –Variable goals, resources, and constraints

8. Broader View = Broader Appeal Sources of non-traditional CS students Source: College Board

9. Sources of non-traditional CS students –Broader curriculum can capture diverse interests… Broader View = Broader Appeal Source: College Board Machine Learning Computational Biology

10. Where We Are At: Survey Developed survey to gather data for CS2013 –Reviews usage of CC2001 and CS2008 –Rating of importance of existing knowledge areas –Rating of principles (e.g., importance of stylized classes) –Suggestions for new topics of import/knowledge areas –Track results by institution type and US/Int’l Survey released at start of December as Google Doc –~1500 US department chairs/directors of UG education –~2000 International department chairs –Seeing good response (>130 responses as of today) –Survey open until December 17 Many thanks to Yan Timanovsky!

11. Where We Are At: Conference Call Scheduled conference call with full steering committee –December 16th (10am Pacific, 1pm Eastern, 6pm GMT) –One hour call Agenda –Introduce committee to each other –Discuss charter and current progress –Assignments for review of CC2001 and CS2008 Plan area coverage –Plan for February 2011 in-person meeting –Other items to be determined

12. Where We Are At: SIGCSE-11 Panel Panel on CS2013 accepted to SIGCSE-11 –Setting the Stage for Computing Curricula 2013: Computer Science – Report from the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force –Panelists Mehran Sahami (Moderator) Mark Guzdial Andrew McGettrick Steve Roach Introduce CS 2013 effort Discuss charter and initial themes of effort Engage community for feedback and involvement

13. Where We Are Going: Timeline (Rough) Plan: –Two in-person meetings of committee annually –Two (significant) video/teleconferences of committee annually February 2011: 1st in-person meeting of full committee Summer 2011: 2nd in-person meeting of full committee December 2011: (Preliminary) Strawman draft of CS2013 –Outcomes/knowledge units lead; curriculum/pedagogy follow Summer 2012: Meeting to “manage/reduce the core” Fall 2012: Stoneman draft of CS2013 Spring 2013: Ironman draft of CS2013 available at SIGCSE Summer 2013: Final CS2013 Report –Some room for slippage built into schedule

14. Where We Are Going: February 2011 Need to plan meeting of committee for February 2011 –Exact dates to be determined Ask: commitment of support from ACM –Budget (Travel, lodging, etc.) –Logistical support (event planning) Will be seeking other funding (NSF) for future meetings

15. Where We Are Going: Website Have registered websites: cs2013.com cs2013.org Plan to use these as means for (draft) report dissemination and community engagement What’s currently there: Ask: can hosting be provided by ACM? –Steve Roach is also looking into this on the IEEE-CS side

16. Questions/Feedback

17. Towards a Charter for CS2013 To review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computer Science volume of Computing Curricula 2001 and the accompanying interim review CS 2008, and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2013 that will match the latest developments in the discipline and have lasting impact. The CS2013 task force will seek input from a diverse audience with the goal of broadening participation in computer science. The report will seek to be international in scope and offer curricular and pedagogical guidance applicable to a wide range of institutions. The process of producing the final report will include multiple opportunities for public consultation and scrutiny.