Grading Rubric, Why Oh Why Art Thou as Thou Art?

Having to construct a grading rubric has a way of bringing one down to earth with an unforgiving slam. You know, you are all caught up in visionary ideas of how to do your part in engaging student minds in various exciting and unquestionably marvelous ideas - oh the places we will go. We will read this, talk about that, pull apart and put back together that, create construct and write write write. Stretch and ponder and percolate and ruminate.

You see, I'm going to be back in the classroom this Fall (er, next week) after a few years doing other things. I'm still doing other things, but in addition, I'm about to land myself in front of two sets of computer science undergraduates. I'm psyched. Yes, I am. There is something that just says "yes" about teaching. So, along with a zillion other faculty around the western hemisphere I have spent much of the past several weeks whipping together "the plans". Two courses, one of which is called "Computer Science Education Research".

The chickens came home to roost first and foremost with that class. For CS Ed. Research I have teamed up to co-teach with a friend and colleague; together we have been putting together the pieces on a subject we both hold near and dear. How to conduct this type of research, how to write it up afterwards, how to present it to an audience.

I must say, my colleague writes a darned good grading rubric. She's great at it.  She reminds me that we must be concise and clear. State expectations. Avoid fuzziness. I'm good at fuzziness sometimes.

Back when I was in grad school and simultaneously teaching a course called Technical Writing for Computer Science Majors, I took advantage of workshops funded by a large grant to help instructors teach "substantial writing component" courses. Clearly that was my class. We weren't writing boring user manuals (much); we focused heavily on how to deconstruct a research paper. After we  had spent a fair amount of time talking about what a well constructed conference paper looked like (in CS Ed. of course), I would do one of my favorite activities which was to hand them a paper to perform a constructive critique on.

Predictably, they would tear it to shreds, because it wasn't a particularly well written paper. It needed a lot of help. Also predictably, and this happened semester after semester for 6 years, the students were stronger on the "criticism" than on the "constructive" part. They were often less than kind in their assessment of the unknown writer. This, in spite of our having discussed the role of a reviewer and the importance of remembering there was a person behind this paper. Someone who had worked very hard and done their very best.

There was always a deathly sick silence when I eventually told them I wrote the paper; it was my first ever attempt at a conference submission. It was, quite understandably, rejected. But rejected kindly, which was fortunate for my then fragile sense of researcher self. By the time I was in the front of the classroom several years later, I had developed a thick enough skin to take the worst kind of reviewer commentary (and if you have submitted enough papers you know what I'm talking about).

The point was made better than when I ever just said it - be kind when you must critique someone; there really are real people behind the written word; finally, you never know how things will come back around. My students were luckier than they might have been "in the real world" because I didn't hold anything they had said about the paper (or me, unwittingly) against them.

But back to that grading rubric. The substantial writing component workshops I took advocated for an idea that sounded really great at the time. The idea, roughly, was this: you get highly explicit about what constitutes an F, D, C, B. And what you indicate in the criteria for a B is that you get a B if you do everything you were supposed to do and you do it really well.

So how do you get an A? You go above and beyond. You do something that blows it out of the park. You get creative, innovative, insightful, or visionary. You do everything you were supposed to do for that B and then you come up with something I the instructor couldn't predict. I can't tell you in the rubric what that is, because then it wouldn't be creative would it?

And herein lay the problem. It sounds great doesn't it? Find a way to set that bar high and provide incentive for people to really GO FOR IT. The problem is....

Well, there are multiple problems. It's subjective. Boy is it subjective. My idea of mind blowingly innovative may not include your idea of mind blowingly innovative. My idea of creative may well not be yours. So right off the bat there is all sorts of room for bias. Not only that, students hate it because it is confusing and stressful and not at all the way they have likely ever been graded before. And notice I say "graded" and not "assessed" because let's be real here, it's a table with itemized instructions for obtaining a grade!

The people who ran the substantial writing component workshops and who advocated for this type of rubric claimed there was all sorts of literature backing up the effectiveness of this approach to grading writing intensive courses. They probably had that literature available, and knowing me I probably read it.

But it didn't work for me and I tried it in several different courses. I really worked at it to make it work. I was all for the idea  - sounds great for a free ranging thinker who likes to push the envelope and encourage the same in others. But not so great for people who see the world differently. And that's a lot of people. And in educational system that doesn't operate this way as often as it might. But frankly, the potential for rampant unrecognized bias is what really bothers me now. There are other ways to encourage creativity and innovation in class. I feel confident in saying we will be doing so.

As I worked with my colleague on our CS Ed. Research class I got tasked with making the first pass at several of our grading rubrics. Yuck. Ok, I said it: yuck. I'd much rather have worked on something else. But it has been very good for me. It reminds me that vision and grand ideas have to come down to earth sometimes, especially if you are in front of the classroom. At least for a while.  Having to push against my natural instinct to avoid the precision of the grading rubric, and having my colleague point out every time I have gone fuzzy, is an excellent opportunity for me to learn too.

UNESCO Mobile Learning Week: Global Initiatives Abound

I spent the last two days attending the UNESCO Mobile Learning Week (UMLW). It has been a while since I have seen so many black and pin striped suits in one gathering. The rare academic in attendance was often identifiable by not having on wing tips. As one might expect, this was a global event, with representation from every continent (perhaps excepting Antarctica), developed and developing countries, industries, governments and teachers - lots of teachers.

The theme of this year's UMLW was "Empowering Teachers With Technology" and I was privileged to hear about initiatives and policy from Chile to Ghana to Pakistan and beyond. Languages abounded, along with excellent simultaneous translations in many of the presentations. I learned a fun piece of international vocabulary when a Portuguese speaker, who offered to speak in Spanish, apologized in advance to the translators if he slipped into "Portagñol". 

So many fascinating projects ... for example, I heard from a Palestinian speaker about coordinated use of SMS for teacher professional development in 5 countries across the Middle East (Gaza, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). They are working with curriculum contextualized for each country and coordinated with regard to policies. As you can imagine there are interesting challenges to overcome.

It became crystal clear to me this week just why mobile devices hold such promise for assisting in tackling some of the world's fundamental problems (poverty, illiteracy, health care etc). Although (to cite a revealing statistic) 774 million people around the globe are illiterate, (the majority of whom are in a few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa), mobile phones have deep penetration among these populations. Mobile phones also have greater connectivity and reliability than Internet connections obtained though more traditional sources. 

Literate and semi-literate people want to read on their phones. People also want to learn on their phones. I heard plenty of data (which I'll skip repeating here) about how people want to learn on their phones - feature phones no less. Many of us may grumble about reading on a 2" feature phone screen, but it turns out that millions of people around the world regularly read entire books on these tiny screens. Not only this, but 2/3 of those who are illiterate across the globe are women, and as I learned in my "How to Change the World" MOOC, providing equal opportunities to women for improving their lives has a direct economic effect on their entire family and community.

Thus, the many ongoing creative projects using feature phones - from delivery of informational, motivational and instructional material via SMS, to customized pedagogical videos. There is a lot going on with tablets as well. There were interesting conversations about which to use, why and when.

One of the over riding themes of the UMLW was how to go from the promise of technology to the expected outcomes. Pretty much everyone in these rooms, as well as most of you I suspect, does not need to be sold on the promise of technology. But many of you, as the attendees this week, have been around long enough to also clearly understand that technology in itself does not solve problems and produce sustainable change for the better.

Whether coming from an education background, development and aid background, or policy leadership position there was repeatedly stated concern for finding ways to perform capacity building and creation of sustainable empowerment of teachers. We heard from those in the trenches all the way up to corporate executives and government ministers. In my next post I'm going to pick up on the policy theme and share some additional observations from this week.

An Answer to the Vexing CS Ed Question: "What Should We Do?"

A few days ago I was  having a conversation with some computing faculty about their proposed curriculum development; the topic came up of how to make certain courses appealing to under represented groups. These faculty are all too aware of the need to increase the demographic diversity in the computing classroom. We talked about a variety of approaches that made sense for their situation and laid out the beginnings of a plan to implement the ideas.

Later on, as I was mulling over the next steps in their plan, it occurred to me that I have had a similar conversation a lot recently. It often starts when, somewhere in a curriculum revision discussion, someone mentions the low numbers of certain demographic groups. A few moments later someone says "what do we do?". Accustomed to focusing on the technical aspects of curriculum development the group is silent.

Complex and challenging it is. Whole books and endless research studies have identified things you ought to pay attention to. One of those things is context. Context is everything, including but not solely limited to, your institution and your student population. As much as we might like, there is no silver bullet, no one size fits all. That is why it is easy to feel overwhelmed.

Fortunately, there is something concrete you can do to get moving in the right direction and make a difference. Something that any one can do.

Start by asking yourself these questions:  What specific examples do you plan to give in class, in modules you develop? What exact contexts do you plan to embed your assignments and projects in? As much as possible try to avoid answering in generalities.

Probably you find these examples and contexts interesting or else you wouldn't choose them. But does the under represented demographic group you want to attract and engage find them interesting as well? How do you know? Do you think so? Do you assume so? Where's the data to back it up?

It is easy to act upon assumptions. It is easy to overlook that you are making decisions based upon unexamined assumptions. It is easy to assume that something you find interesting is likewise interesting to others.

Yet, in terms of getting students excited about [fill in your topic], those assumptions can lead to problems when we belatedly find out that the demographic of student we care about just doesn't find our examples relevant to their lives. (perhaps the most classic example is presenting science and math concepts using automobiles and sports. these subjects have a pretty solidly documented track record of being far less appealing to girls than boys.) Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as finding "neutral" examples. As ample research has also shown there really isn't any such thing as a "neutral" example.

However There is Hope! Herein lies a simple thing you can do to get the ball rolling. It is so simple that it can be overlooked. I suspect that is why I get asked "what should we do?" as often as I do. 

Place your technical content in a social context in which coming up with the solution allows the student to see a positive difference made for someone or something. A lot of students really grok that.

If you don't believe me, you can dig up the research. If you do so, you will find along the way that it is very important to use social contexts that your target groups have an affinity for. Don't just choose whatever comes into your head or you are likely to be back where you started - winging it and hoping your demographic population also finds it interesting. So you have some work to do. You need to find out what is interesting to them. This doesn't mean something trivial. As a matter of fact, trivial fluffy examples are disastrous - you trivialize the material and yourself in the eyes of the students. You do have some work to do to discover what are meaningful non-trivial examples.

We aren't going to solve the entire problem of recruitment and retention in computing by integrating socially meaningful examples into all aspects of technical content presentation. But it is an important start.

Becoming aware of the fact that you may be making implicit assumptions about what are (are not) interesting contexts is a huge step in the right direction. Taking stock of the context in which you frame your technical content and questioning your assumptions about why you think it is engaging is another huge step in the right direction. Going out and attempting to find out what the students you want to engage in computing find interesting is a humungous step.

Suggestions to a School Considering External STEM

Prepackaged All-In-One Brain Food

I had an opportunity recently to do a little investigation into an organization that is selling its system of STEM learning to K-12 school systems. A friend of mine is the Principal of a K-8 public school that is looking at ways to beef up its technology offerings and STEM in general. I had a meeting with my friend and another of the school administrators to discuss their needs and to hear about a company that has been recommended to them.

I did my due diligence prior to the meeting and reviewed the Common Core State Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and of course, the CSTA recommendations for computing in K-8. I also reviewed PARCC, and existing state standards in their state.

For those of you not intimately familiar with all of the above, here are a few items to set the context: The Common Core is sweeping the nation; most states are on board and at some stage of planning and implementation. The Common Core covers English/Language Arts (ELA) and Math. Science is not included, and technology merits a mere mention under "Media and Technology" where it is suggested that technology be integrated throughout as a support tool for other subjects. The NGSS covers science, but explicitly omits computing, suggesting that it belongs under math (for more details see my post on the K-12 Computing Hot Potato).

It was painful to look at the department of education's STEM guidelines web  pages in my friend's state. Practically nothing was there. Sparse would be putting it mildly. Especially compared to the finely detailed descriptions for other areas of study. Oddly enough, for Primary School the STEM listings indicate STEM as Physical Science, Math and Art (Art?). In Middle School it is the same with the addition of some mention of technology under Career Technical Education (CTE for short, and commonly known as vocational education).

Now it became clear to me why there was such an appeal to a slickly developed set of web pages promising to provide a full STEM curriculum, complete with detailed learning goals, class lectures, exercises, assessments, materials, and professional teacher training and support.

The selling organization knows how to do its PR. They use all the right lingo. I was intrigued. I was curious. Of course none of this comes free; there is a hefty price tag. Not necessarily unreasonable - after all, someone put in a lot of work developing this educational system. I sure wish we paid our teachers commensurately with the work they do! I decided to investigate further.

Once I got past the glossy print and graphics, I realized there were very few substantive details. Transparency was not the goal here. Not in the least deterred, I donned full archeological gear and went website digging. This was fun.

[dig...dig...dig...]

If you know what you are looking for you can glean some interesting things from such digging. You read the bios of the leadership team, and the board of directors. What is their educational background, professional education career experience, non-academic experience, affiliations, interests? What is the legal status of the organization? Who is likely to benefit from sales of this system? It's often all there if you look hard enough, in this case about 7 levels down the site tree.

What wasn't there were any examples of syllabi, curriculum, assessments, detailed learning goals. One has to buy their system, and ... here is the kicker: you have to commit to teaching their two base classes.

In the spirit of being open minded, I concede that the company wouldn't want to give away their methodology enough that someone else could scoop them.

It just felt a bit weird, considering all the brough-ha-ha about the need for transparency and accountability in public education.

All of which leads to fascinating speculation about the role and potential contribution from corporate education. Any given system and materials might be of high quality. On the other hand they might not.

What is a school, feeling perhaps left in the dust by the less than transparent maneuvers of their various state agencies and politicians, to do?

After sharing all the interesting specifics I learned about the company in question with my friend and her colleague, I recommended a few things:

- Ask the organization to supply their curricula for examination. The school could offer to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This happens all the time in industry, so although perhaps strange to a small school, it shouldn't come as a novel idea to the educational company. There is no reason I can think of why this offer shouldn't result in a "yes".

- If that fails to produce the desired result, and you are still determined to check out this curricula, track down some current users and interview them. In fact, I'd recommend doing that anyway. The organization should be more than willing to supply names as references. Ask those adopter schools the questions that matter to your school and see what they have to say. Also, ask them to share some of their curricular materials with you. Again, this is common, smart, strategy in the business world; same thing when interviewing for a job! Check out the company before you commit!

- One last thing. If, as in this case, the company requires you to commit to using a significant portion of their system, thus locking you in, ask to what extent the required curricular materials can be customized to fit your local situation. You don't want to be forced to teach in a way that conflicts with your mission, culture, students in any substantive way.

Wouldn't it be interesting to do an in-depth comparison of industrial K-8 educational models with traditional public education models? 

SIGCSE 2013: Swimming in Social and Professional conversations

SIGCSE continues and as usual brain cells are becoming a bit challenged in many people I meet. All for a good cause - input much data for many good ideas and opportunities and there are bound to be a few neural casualties along the way.

Yesterday afternoon the panel I am a part of took place and went off swimmingly. Three colleagues and I (Beth Hawthorne, Flo Appel and Carol Spradling) spoke about the new curricular Social and Professional recommendations in CS2013 - curricular guidelines document for undergraduate computer science education. We dove into what the guidelines have to say and discussed with an enthusiastic audience some of the approaches, benefits and challenges. One of the most exciting aspects of our presentation for me was learning that several faculty in the audience that I had not yet met were already implementing modules or complete courses revolving around sustainability. Sustainability in the CS curriculum was my focus on the panel.

So many people are doing good work and flying quietly under the radar. They aren't tooting their own horns but given the opportunity to share what they are doing with interested colleagues they are all over it. In terms of sustainability, I was particularly enthused because we are looking for additional exemplars to include in the final version of CS2013.

We'd love to hear from people willing to share their work with others in the community. 

The Ironman Draft of CS2013 was officially released just as SIGCSE opened, and the comment period will last until June. If you have comments, thoughts, contributions on this final draft please, send them along using the contact information provided on the Ironman Draft site.

There is a lot of synergy around issues of computing and social good these days. Without having planned it, our panel complemented the morning special session on computing and social good that I discussed in my last post. Lots of exciting future projects are being discussed (things I overheard or participated in). There are working group reports, case studies, a growing collection of exemplars....what next?

Today, I participated in many discussions about computer science in the K-12 curriculum in the United States. This is another very important topic and a lot of momentum is building around it. There are an increasing number of state and national initiatives and, as Jan Cuny from the National Science Foundation stated in her lightening talk yesterday:  

"We will need all hands on deck. It  is not 'what can you do' but 'What will you do' ".

More and more people in and out of computing education are realizing the importance of doing something about the lack of computer science opportunities in our primary and secondary schools. Not only that, more and more people are realizing they can play a part, sometimes small, sometimes large, in moving towards inclusion of CS in K-12.

Have you thought about what contribution you can make, given your experiences, areas of expertise and connections?

Late this afternoon I had a small window of unscheduled time and decided to take advantage of it by getting some exercise. The pool at this hotel is an outdoors pool. Considering this is Denver, Colorado and it is early March, and a snow storm appears to be on the way, it was an opportunity to obtain a particularly rapid and effective chilling out session. The pool was heated, so this was no suicidal event, but 82 degrees isn't exactly a hot tub. As I tore up and down the lanes and was forced to focus on the moment and only the moment, I obtained the mental space to remember once again just how grateful I am to be here surrounded by so many people who are passionate about teaching and learning and making a difference.

SIGCSE: Computing For Good in the Morning

What a day for engaging with issues of computing for social good in computing education. There was a special session this morning called "CS Education for the Social Good". The presenters were Michael Goldweber (Xavier University), John Barr (Ithaca College), and Elizabeth Patitsas from the University of Toronto.

Mikey (as he often likes to be called) Goldweber started off the session by looking out at the audience and saying "This is the group of people who want to save the world". Yes. Yes we do. We want the world to be a better place, and how really terrific it was to be in a room full of people who felt likewise and are using their professional experience and skills to that end. I had a no holds barred warm and fuzzy moment.

Moments later, Mikey G. made a provocative statement that caused us to stop in our tracks:

"What is the message we send when we teach games in introductory computing?" 

If you aren't in computing education you may not realize the full impact of that question. Many computing programs have infused game development, or "gamification" as it is sometimes called, into the curriculum. There has been solid evidence in favor of doing so. Games appeal to  many students' interests. Replacing deadly dull applications (e.g. the fibonacci sequence, tic-tac-toe, vending machine simulation) with game development has become quite popular. Faculty like it, students like it, enrollments in these classes often increase.

On the other hand...games are a form of entertainment. Mikey's question asked us to consider what we are saying about what computer science is when we introduce it via entertainment.  It certainly made me stop and think. Does this approach help our overall perception problem? Are we as professionals primarily about entertainment? Are we primarily about short term mindless gratification? Is this a beneficial way to teach first concepts and principles?

Interestingly, there is evidence that although students may enjoy some early gamification, it isn't enough to sustain their interest in studying computer science. After all, this field isn't all about games. In fact, it is very little about games, unless you just happen to get a job as a professional game developer. A lively discussion ensued as some in the room wanted to defend the game approach.

Mikey went on to suggest that there was a difference between appealing to student interests and student values. He posited the idea that in fact, appealing to student values was a more effective way to engage students and that it also provided an opening, not provided by most gamification, to address meaty societal concerns. Also something to stop and ponder.

How to do it? The session members discussed quite a few approaches. One division stood out: there are some areas of integrating social good into computing that necessitate additional content knowledge in another field. In this case it might pay off to collaborate with a content expert in that other field. Or a variety of other approaches to bring in that depth knowledge. Then there is the wrapper approach, which is to repurpose something you are already teaching.

I loved the radioactive rodent example. Apparently, during the Fukushima power plant crisis in Japan a whole lot of mice became radioactive. Now, humans may obey instructions and stay outside the radioactive perimeter, but mice don't obey instructions They migrate wherever they feel like going. Along the way they may die, they may get eaten by other animals, they may (nay, will) poop. This is a problem. So the Japanese sent in robots to hunt down and kill the mice.

I'm not going to comment on the complicated ethics of mouse slaughter. But to some people, this would be a relevant issue. That question did not come up this morning, but I point it out because I know people for whom killing any living animal presents an ethical quandary. An interesting ethics question - the value of human life as compared to animal life. Are there alternatives to addressing the contamination problem? How might the robots be reprogrammed? What are the costs and benefits? Where do values fit into the decisions?

But, back to the discussion this morning. One session member told about how he turned a cops and robber application in his introductory computing class into a cat and mice application. Instead of a police officers hunting down bad guys, he turned the robbers into mice and the cop into a cat. The amount of work on his part was minimal and suddenly he had an activity for his computing students that engaged with a contemporary complicated social issue. And taught core computing concepts at the same time.

This session was chock full of examples of how computing could connect with values rather than interests. Others included, water pollution (modeling?), voting systems (security? algortihms?), sexually transmitted diseases (graph theory), Red Cross disaster relief (Dijkstra's shortes path algorithm).

That was just the beginning. We hadn't even gotten to lunch yet.

World Information Architecture Day - Cool Stuff

15 cities officially celebrated World Information Architecture (IA) Day on Saturday - possibly more than 15, but there were 15 official selected locations for WIAD 2013 around the globe. One of those sites was Los Angeles, sponsored by the User Experience Professionals Association of Los Angeles  (LA-UXPA) and I was there along with several hundred other people.

LA-UXPA did an amazing job. It was a high energy, well organized, event with an incredible amount of useful and thought-provoking information packed into a one full day of interdisciplinary speakers. You see, IA people hark from the arts, law, computing, psychology, design, sciences... I spoke to people from each of those fields. Disney was there (they sponsored  a tasty lunch among other things) along with a host of other generous sponsors. Every time you turned around your brain was being challenged to switch gears to look at things from another perspective. You gotta love this kind of event.

For example, one of the speakers, David Fiorito a self described computer geek, came out from Philadelphia to to talk about "thinking navigation". From his perspective, IA draws heavily on Linguistic Anthropology: recognizing the use of language as a common source of meaning among groups, drawing awareness to cultural meaning systems encoded in words (e.g. symbols) and utilizing ethnography to decode relationships between the symbols (words). To keep you on your toes, David also described IA in terms of ontology, taxonomy and choreography. That last item was a pleasant surprise; I had an immediate mental image of ballerina-like labels and categories (taxonomy) doing pirouettes among each other to tell a story (ontology).

A completely different sort of inspiration landed in my lap during Aaron Irizarry's opening presentation. Recently, I have been pondering how to address concerns in the computing education community about integrating sustainability into the undergraduate curriculum (the topic of my own presentation in a few weeks at SIGCSE 2013). Then Aaron launched into a discussion of tackling the MVP: Minimal Viable Problem.

As in: in an increasingly complex interconnected technology driven world, we will inevitably find ourselves in a room with peers who all want to "address it" but who don't even agree on what "it" is (IA, UX, Design...Sustainability). We struggle to arrive at a common understanding of terms, goals, expected common value of customer/user (student, faculty) experience. What is "it"? What is "its" value? How to respond to "we don't have the resources to do that"?

Is UX valuable? Is IA valuable? Is Sustainability in the Computing Curriculum valuable? Yes. Yes. Yes.

It doesn't matter if we are in industry or academia, if we are talking product development, service provision, or pedagogical content knowledge. So! went off the light bulb hovering over my head! When we are breaking new ground, we often slam into the same communication challenges. Aaron provided some nicely targeted insights into tackling this problem. Little does Aaron know, but he helped me a great deal with plotting and planning my presentation. Thanks Aaron!

There's more to tell about WIAD. I'm still hoarse from all the talking on Saturday. Stay tuned for Part 2!

The K-12 Computing Potato is Heating Up

Heading Into The Pipeline Soon

This won't be news to some of you - but we have a problem in K-12 Computer Science education. It isn't news to me either, but I have been seeing just how sticky it is from a new perspective recently. One of my projects has led to my reading detailed documentation about existing and proposed national education standards. And boy is it fascinating.

Now, we think (we know) we have some challenges in higher education because computing (the more internationally preferred term) is not always given the recognition it is due and that national and global economic needs indicate it most definitely deserves. One of the puzzlements (is that a word?) is reflected in the fact that post-secondary computing departments are sometimes found within Engineering, sometimes within Mathematics, sometimes under the Natural Sciences. But at least we recognize it when we see it. We have curricular recommendations for several computing programs (one of the most recent is CS2013 which I have written about before) and there is the option of rigorous departmental accreditation by ABET which is appropriate for some programs.

But I'm realizing in a profound way that part of the pipeline problem (whereby not enough students are coming up through the K-12 pipe who are both interested and prepared to study post-secondary computing) is that in some quarters - perhaps in a lot of quarters - there is fundamental confusion about what Computer Science is.

In curricular guidelines known as the Common Core, currently being adopted by many states in this country, the focus is on English Language Arts and Mathematics. No doubt the lead is taken from federal initiatives that emphasize the same. Unfortunately, No Computer Science prominently displayed. Now, we can find technology/information technology courses taught in many Vocational-Technical programs. Some of the Voc-Tech programs with an IT focus are really well done; well thought out, well taught, well assessed - but they aren't Computer Science.

Then there are the developing revisions of national recommendations for K-12 Science Education Standards. The last guidelines came out almost 20 years ago and it is well recognized that much has changed since then. However, based upon the Framework for Science Education it appears that Computer Science is not going to be included here either. Why not? Because it is deemed to be a branch of mathematics. The problem is, as I already noted, the K-12 Mathematics recommendations don't include Computer Science either.

Do you see where this is leading?

If no one is claiming computing then it gets lost in the shuffle. Not a trivial matter. 

Everyone agrees that computing is everywhere and undergirds professions everywhere. But there isn't a rush to claim it under any existing or proposed curricular umbrella. This feels like a game of pass the potato. It isn't a hot potato - yet.

On the optimistic front:

The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) has put together some impressive recommendations for making computing integral to K-12 (click here and scroll to the bottom of the page for the K-12 specific Model Curriculum document). Having read these guidelines in depth I am impressed by the thought that has gone into this tough task. It fits the bill and it makes perfect sense. There should be no question in anyone's mind after reading this documentation just what computing/computer science is with regards to primary and secondary education.

Now the hard work is really under way: making it happen.

What is Your Opinion About Sustainability in the Computing Curriculum?

I'm making final edits to my blurb on Sustainability for a panel presentation description about social and professional issues in the computer science curriculum*. More precisely, I'm thinking about conflict. There isn't much time when you are on a panel. What to focus on, what to focus on...so many choices and I'm conflicted. And oh boy, so will be some of my audience. Conflicted. Perhaps many of them, if past performance is any predictor of future performance. Which market analysts remind us all the time is not the case.

Yet, enlightened educators and psychologists tell us about the beneficial opportunities for managed conflict. Not the kind where you duke it out and slug your neighbor, but the kind where something provocative lands in your lap and you wrestle with it in a civilized manner as a group.

Sustainability in the computing curriculum is my little piece of the panel presentation**. When I wrote my original blurb I ended it with "Lisa will discuss the sometimes controversial sustainability knowledge unit in the social and professional practice knowledge area".

One of the anonymous reviewers asked: what is controversial? I wasn't sure if s/he was positively inclined and surprised by the statement or didn't know much about the issue and was just curious. I am 99.99% sure the reviewer was not negatively inclined towards the idea of sustainability in the computing curriculum. Anyone who gets all p.o.'d about the idea knows they are in conflict with a growing movement.

Another reviewer suggested that I bring up to speed members of the audience who are not familiar with the fundamental issues. In light of the first reviewer, this makes good sense. Ok, will do - if you wrote that and are reading this, then yes, I will make sure when I speak to cover the fundamentals for those who are not already deeply embroiled in everything.

And embroiled many people are. I was momentarily surprised to read the question asking what is controversial about infusing sustainability into the undergraduate computing curriculum. Perhaps because I routinely encounter professional colleagues who have strong opinions on the matter. In prior outreach on this issue I have encountered everything from:

"Thank goodness AT LAST this issue is being taken seriously!" 

to 

"Oh no, not ANOTHER mandate being shoved down my throat!"

(Mandate? Mandate? They are called "recommendations" for a reason).

There are also people in the professional community of computing education who are curious, curious, to hear about what the controversy is all about. Not ready to bite my head off nor to shower me with roses. Just curious.

I am reminded by this reminder that rather than presuming either roses or rotten tomatoes when I speak next March, I can view this as a micro-classroom opportunity. Perhaps challenge the crowd with comments such as these:

Sustainability is part and parcel of computer science and you ignore it at your peril

Sustainability is more than reducing your electricity load - which we suck at by the way

The "solution" isn't sending your old electronics off to a developing country for recycling  and patting yourself on the back

I believe all of the these, and I could continue with some evidence, but the point isn't (and won't be) for people to sit and take solemn notes about the pros and cons and the logic of it all. The whole point here will not be for me to talk talk talk but to get people off their comfy little conference hall chairs and engaging with the challenge of sustainability in their classrooms. What a panel can provide is an opportunity for constructively dealing with a difficult, challenging, conflicted topic with one's peers. In person. Where it is a lot harder to flame someone.

If you are a computing educator and think sustainability in the classroom is great stuff but haven't overcome the challenges of curricular rubber hitting the road let's all wrestle with your excitement and questions.

If you are a computing educator and think infusing sustainability in the classroom is silly or impossible let's all wrestle with your skepticism.

If you are a computing educator and not sure what you think - even better. I would like to put you right smack in between your opinionated peers and let's all talk about it.

*The Panel will be presented at the SIGCSE 2013 Symposium in Denver, Colorado and is called: "Computer Science Curriculum 2013: Social and Professional Recommendations from the ACM/IEEE-CS Task Force".

**My fellow panelists and wonderful colleagues are: Beth Hawthorne - bravely moderating this adventurous panel, along with Flo Appel and Carol Spradling, both of whom are battle seasoned veterans of the social and professional issues world of computing.

What Do Elections and University Lectures Have in Common?

If you said "Ug" or something to that effect, you are not alone. Countless voters and students would agree with you. Making the effort to vote and the prospect of attending large lecture classes engender similar non-plussed reactions in many people.

I have been percolating on a relationship between the challenges of encouraging active, informed participation in a democratic electoral system and the challenges of encouraging active, informed participation in a traditional large college lecture course.

No doubt the alignment popped into my head earlier this month. Not only was it the waning days of a long painful national election, but I was simultaneously onsite with a university team that is developing an innovative model for increasing intrinsic motivation. Their focus is on those huge lecture courses often seen in large public institutions. The electorate, like the student body nationwide, may feel "I'm just a number, what does it matter, I have no real voice". Why bother to pay attention?

All of which leads to an electorate declining to vote, and/or voting without digging into the facts and implications of individual candidates and issues. Similar perhaps to students declining to attend class, and/or turning in homework and projects without truly engaging with them. Cynics stand back! because participation really does matter.

Hmm...

In a local election one's vote can make a visible difference, just as in a small intimate class one's voice will be more easily heard. In neither case will things always come out the way one wants but receiving feedback that one is making a difference often leads to increased intrinsic motivation. More participation follows, more positive learning results.

Some of the similarities don't cross over as well. Small intimate classes tend to be better attended than large impersonal ones, whereas local elections sometimes experience worse turnout than regional or national elections. Of course, attendance in a small class can occur because one loves the class or because one doesn't want to be called out for skipping. Be that as it may, avoiding punishment is an extrinsic motivation and doesn't lead to greater learning for the long haul.

Sad to say, I have no immediate implementable-today suggestions about how to tackle the problem of an electorate that lacks an intrinsic motivation to vote.

However, the educators and researchers I am working with in the Engineering School at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign are creatively tackling the intrinsic/extrinsic motivation challenge in the large lecture class.  For those of you not familiar how tough the situation is, consider these typical factors, which represent only part of the complicated picture around the country:

- Several hundred students are enrolled in a class with just one faculty member assigned to teach the course
- Class meetings are scheduled several times a week in a large impersonal lecture hall
- Smaller breakout sessions (sometimes called labs, study sessions, 'sections') are held once a week, and led by a graduate student teaching assistant
- The faculty member has little formal training in state of the art pedagogical techniques and no resources or ability to seek it out

On the other hand,

- The faculty member truly cares about her or his students' learning and wants students to succeed
- Teaching assistants also care about student learning and may have an eye on a future teaching career
- There is much well supported research about the factors that motivate or demotivate people towards creativity and towards going the extra mile. We know a significant amount about what does and does not encourage intrinsic motivation.
- Much of this research has been conducted on individuals or small groups.

I've given you some big hints about what the team at UIUC is up to. What do you think they might be doing?

SIGCSE 2012 - Hal Abelson, CS2013 Social and Professional Issues and More

Official registration at SIGCSE is 1278 as of Friday (yesterday) morning when we listened to Hal Abelson give the day's keynote talk. A very impassioned talk. Hal spoke at length about computers as instruments of intellectual empowerment. Computational Thinking -> Computational Values -> Computational Actions and the importance of generative platforms. A generative platform in this context is a platform (tool, application, etc) which can get used for something the people who created it had not thought of or planned for. A pedagogical tool, idea or lecture, a set of research results leads you or I to run in a different direction and produce something exciting for the classroom, for the community, for the academy (for anyone).  Hal  claimed that a war is underway for the soul of the university - there is a danger that the university is becoming more a marketplace for intellectual property and less a place for open sharing of intellectual ideas. (What does your experience tell you? Do you agree or disagree?)

As evidence, Hal provided impressive examples, such as copyright restrictions being placed upon faculty when they publish research results, such that they no longer own or can share their own research. He also shared a quote by one university general counsel (a large research university) stating that note taking in the classroom could constitute copyright infringement of faculty intellectual property; the suggestion was then made that faculty hand out a license agreement for students to sign at the beginning of the term.Wrap your head around that one if you can. Hal's talk was full of thought provoking information like this.

I visited the poster on display by the faculty group working on the Social and Professional Issues section of the new computing curricular guidelines (CS2013). Carol Spradling, Beth Hawthorne and Flo Appel and I had a fascinating conversation about what topics are generating the most discussion in the community - should they be part of the computing curriculum? Professional Communication is apparently a hot area. Some people believe it is critical and others believe it should not be included at all. In case you are curious, we are talking about (and now I quote from the draft document):

• reading/understanding/summarizing technical material

• source code and documentation

• writing effective technical documentation

• dynamics of oral, written, and electronic team and group communication 

• communicating professionally with stakeholders 

• utilizing collaboration tools. 

Also suggested:

• dealing with cross-cultural environment

• tradeoffs of competing risks in software projects, such as technology, structure/process, quality, people, market and financial

What do you think - should these topics have a place in the computer science curriculum?

Efforts on Behalf of K-12 CS Emphasize Interdisciplinary Nature of Computing

Speaking of innovation and social impact, it all starts young - what you learn as a child influences your lifelong interests and attitudes. We know that. That means that if we want computing to be used in creative, innovative, socially beneficial ways, then computer science has to become an integral part of the public education system. We need more of the types of people and organizations I periodically profile here who combine their personal passions with their profession to use computing for good.

In case you don't follow the news about the ongoing efforts to obtain inclusion of computer science in the K-12 science education core curriculum nationwide, I'd like to excerpt a few sections of a letter sent by the ACM, CSTA, CRA and NCWIT to the National Research Council (NRC) in response to NRC's draft release of "Framework for Science Education". This framework provides a strong policy statement about what K-12 students should study in high school and has a strong influence on curriculum development and priorities in high schools across the country. As you may well know, computer science has long been neglected, misinterpreted or misplaced in K-12 education. Those of you familiar with the tough battle being waged to obtain acknowledgement of the importance of studying computer science in high school know just how hard many people are working on this issue in Washington DC and elsewhere. The authors of the letter to the NRC state "We recommend the Framework for Science Education be amended to include computer science as a fifth major disciplinary area".

I cannot recap the whole story here, but I want to pull out some excerpts that make it clear how well the above authors understand the interdisciplinary and socially important nature of computer science. I was very glad to see these included in the letter to the NRC.  Brackets contain explanatory text added by me. Bolded text was added by me for emphasis.

"Taken together, the Framework and the CCSSI [Common Core State Standards Initiative] arguably represent the "core" of what students need to know in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Considering the tremendous influence that computer science has on worldwide economic growth, as well as its effects on modern culture and innovation in all areas of science, it is troubling that neither of these standards-setting initiatives view computer science as a critical and necessary element of STEM education in the 21st Century"

".. computer science...is a discipline that not only stands on its own, but also contributes innovation to all of them [mathematics, engineering and the sciences]".

"Ultimately, no other field is more central to the digital revolution that is sweeping commerce, society and all fields of science. And no other field will give students the critical computational problem solving knowledge and practices they will need to be college- or career- ready, regardless of their ultimate occupation."

"An engineer using a computer to design a bridge must understand how the maximum capacity estimates were computed and their reliability. An educated citizen using a voting machine or bidding in an eBay auction should have a basic understanding of the underlying algorithms supporting such conveniences, as well as the security and privacy issues that arise..."

"Computational approaches are essential to the discovery and understanding of the fundamental rules that govern a wide variety of systems - from how ants behave to how stock markets behave"

"..computer science is increasingly driving discovery in all areas of science."

and here is the kicker:

"If the final Framework does not encourage students to study computer science or understand its core ideas, who will...lead the way to addressing the fundamental challenges we as a society are facing, such as chronic disease, an over-extended energy grid, and a struggling aviation system running on 1970s technologies?"

followed a bit later by:

"...the failure to recognize, define and support computer science as its own field and content area within STEM education will exacerbate an already growing workforce and innovation crisis..."

Computing is as important to society and has the power to benefit society in an incredibly powerful way as any other field someone could point to. In many cases more so. Many of us, especially in the computing field, "get it". 

• A continuing question is: how can we help everyone else to "get it"?

Useful Link Not Already Listed:
The ACM response

What is Innovative Interdisciplinary Computing Anyway?

So I promised to write about innovation - what it is, how to identify it. In particular, with regards to interdisciplinary computing. The more I have pondered this issue, the more it feels like a trick question.

Innovation is something unusual, different, new - pick your vocabulary, but the basic idea is that it is something no one has thought of before. Now there is successful innovation and unsuccessful innovation, a distinction that sometimes gets forgotten. After all, there are plenty of innovative ideas that don't gather traction. Purple star shaped twinkies anyone?  Some ideas are unique, but unlikely to gather a following.

It is easy to identify an innovative idea in retrospect. Interdisciplinary computing programs and activities such as I have discussed across many blog posts provide some excellent examples. Pattern recognition and computational emotion, computational journalism, bio-informatics, Charles Babbage in the front seat of your car. Successful innovations eventually mainstream themselves. For example, Bio-Informatics as an interdisciplinary field is becoming perceived as mainstream. But it wasn't originally - not when I was in grad school not tooo many years ago. Conversely, the talking Babbage GPS has a ways to go before we all have one in the passenger seat. Assuming we ever do.

When each of these areas of innovative computing appeared they were probably only recognized as interesting by a limited number of people. That is the nature of true innovation - if everyone could think of it then it wouldn't be innovative. It is easier to discuss what successful innovation is using past examples than it is to identify it at the moment of inception. (hence the feeling of a trick question)

For quite a while interdisciplinary computing as a concept didn't exist. It was (and in ground breaking areas arguably still is) considered a strange term. Before we recognized the idea of equal contribution of two fields to create a new creative field, we tended to think in terms of: computing; other field; applications of computing in other field.

The whole idea of interdisciplinary computing was very innovative. It was disruptive to traditional computing as evidenced by objections, denials, ignoring, "it isn't real computer science" types of reactions. The Innovator's Dilemma book I have been jumping off from for the past several posts calls this being "trapped in reactivity" -  perfectly normal, predictable, human, and a great way to miss the boat. To not recognize the force of merging fields until they are upon us.

Interdisciplinary computing on a high level is becoming mainstream and the innovations are occurring within the divisions - what new fields will emerge and gain traction? What do we need to be on the look out for?

We can't rely on psychic powers to spot significant innovative potential in interdisciplinary computing. However, there are a few guidelines to identifying these ideas if we continue to follow the theory presented in The Innovator's Dilemma. As we cruise along in our professional lives, we can keep alert to changes around us and ask questions.

1. Is there a problem? In other words, is something not right? For example, there has been a "problem" for many years with declining interest in studying computing in school (at any level) and an increase in computing savvy students choosing to study other fields. We knew that a long time ago. It can take a while, and it did I believe, for the severity of the problem to be acknowledged - and this is "the real problem". Seemingly logical hypotheses occupied our energies: "enrollments are down because of the booming economy and thus students don't need a computing degree to get a job in a computing field" or "enrollments are down because of the poor economy and the perception that all the computing jobs are going overseas". The economy definitely has an effect on computing enrollment - no argument there. However it can't always be the economy! If that were the case, we could all throw in the towel, because the economy will ALWAYS be either good or bad or heading between one and the other!

So. First: recognize a problem. Second, recognize when the common responses may be reactive and not fully understanding the problem.

2. Do I understand the problem? Really understand the problem? If you aren't sure, how do you come to understand it? You don't run a lot of surveys and focus groups (so goes the theory) and ask people what they think or want. Instead you watch what they do. In our example, we would have watched and seen that students were going to study biology/law/engineering/economics (whatever) and learning the computing they needed for that field through those studies, or on the job. Taking it one step further, watching many of those people would have shown that many of them *enjoy* computing though they might have said otherwise if you asked the question. This is still the case: many of the cross over people don't consider themselves computer scientists but they thoroughly enjoy computational thinking and using sophisticated computing skills. Hmm.... Realizing that early on might have triggered a different way of thinking about how to tackle computing enrollment challenges. Many in the computing community are now understanding the problem and taking action. The truly innovative ones recognized it early and jumped on the opportunity.

3. How can I view the problem as an opportunity? Once you understand, really understand the problem, look at it as a chance to think outside the box, take risks and do something really different in response. Be prepared to learn as you go - as many successful interdisciplinary computing programs have in fact done (here was one nice example I profiled a few months ago). The challenge/opportunity includes searching out the market (substitute: students) for your new idea rather than trying to convert the existing market (substitute: students who have expressed interest in computing but not followed up). In our example, that might mean looking for the students who demonstrate through their actions that they are multi-disciplinary by nature and interested in the intersection of fields. Many successful interdisciplinary programs have done just that: attract people who are deeply interested in subjects that appear unrelated to computing.

In other words: look for the direction that people are already going (into biology/law etc) and aim your program or project at them. They might very well love your idea. And if you don't succeed the first time, try again - plan for this. Keep it simple. Assume you won't get your program or project right the first time and reserve resources (people, time, energy, money etc) for re-tooling and re-tooling. Acknowledge you don't know where you will end up other than that you will end up somewhere new where there is a need now. Not sometime in the future.

4. How can I view the plan's so-called weaknesses as strengths? There will be doubters and the weaknesses of your interdisciplinary efforts will be pointed out to you. Turn it around. Because the weaknesses may well be unrecognized strengths - that is part of what makes the plan innovative!

Reading The Innovator's Dilemma has been one of the more fascinating and eye opening ways to look at computing, whether in industry or academia. Interdisciplinary computing is a perfect ongoing case study to test the book's ideas and perhaps move computing forward in new ways.

Interdisciplinary Computing Meeting Number 2: Day 2, Part 2

This is my last direct report post about the meeting, although I hope to follow up with some interesting related posts that came out of this meeting. In this post I'm going to list some of the "hard questions" that stakeholders could ask about Interdisciplinary Computing (IC) development. These questions came out of one of our breakout sessions. I have several pages of questions, so I'll pick some representative interesting, challenging or just plain important ones.

Our group was trying to come up with the toughest questions that anyone considering IC development should be prepared to answer. In a few cases I will suggest starting points for answers, but in most cases I leave it to you to ponder. The answers will need to be tailored to who is asking the question and in what type of institution the IC program/course is being considered. I hope that if you grapple with these questions you will be inspired to think outside the box and feel inspired.

I will end with a few reading recommendations given to me at the meeting. I have not read these books yet, but they are high up there on the list; I'll share them now and we'll see how they turn out. If anyone has read these books and has comments, I'd love to hear them.

First. Who are those IC stakeholders? They include: Administrators (of various types), Industry, Parents, Faculty, Students, Alumni, Governance agencies (Legislators, Accreditors)

Possible Questions From Administration: 

Question: What is the impact on the department(s), major(s), what is the cost for equipment, resources of developing an IC course (not even a program)? Multiple questions rolled into one....

[Answer could center on this point (and data will need to be assembled to back it up): We will increase the enrollment to the institution. We will not just shift students from one area to another. This statement can then be expanded upon to address all the sub-questions (impact, costs etc)]

Question: How does IC fit into high stakes testing? How does it fit into existing standards, mandated or currently culturally accepted?

Question / Problem From Industry: What happens if an industry panel gets together and says "no, we aren't going to hire your students, we don't like what you are doing".

[The response would involve improved communication between those developing the program and industry and getting a handle on where this statement was coming from.]

Question from Parents: What is the ROI (Return On Investment)? What exactly is my child going to be when they graduate? What kind of job are they going to get? What is the time to graduation? [more multiple questions coming back to back but all centering on the first piece - ROI]

Question from new Faculty: How am I going to get tenure? Where will I publish?

Question that could come from a variety of sources: How does this contribute to workforce development? Prove it (the economic development the IC course/program will produce).

Problem / Question: IC programs are for people who can't hack it in either discipline.

[I personally have heard this one said. It represents an entrenched pov based not so much in any factual evidence but on personal opinion. That makes it challenging to address. But addressed it must be]

Things to chew on.

Now for the book recommendations. Uplifting, gets my intellectual bookworm instincts going full steam and a good way to finish this post:

"Innovator's Dilemma". Looks really interesting. There are two follow up books that look interesting as well: "Innovator's Solution" and "Crossing the Chasm". I'm looking forward to sinking my teeth into these. The orientation appears to be towards business rather than academia, but from perusing the first book quite a bit online, it looks like the principles could well be transferable. And check out the TOC - definitely not dull.

"Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures". Now this one is definitely aimed at academia and looks like it might have some very practical suggestions. I can see reading Innovator's Dilemma and then this one. A possible interdisciplinary synthesis of perspectives and ideas.

Have a nice Tuesday.

Interdisciplinary Computing Meeting Number 2: Day 1, Part 1

Back in January I reported on a meeting on Interdisciplinary Computing I attended in San Diego. I am at a followup meeting in Tucson - we had our first jam packed mind stretching day today.

The group of people attending this meeting is extremely diverse which makes things interesting. We started off the day with an entire table full of people involved with creating a new area called computational journalism, and we have quite a few people at the intersection of physics and computer science. There are other interdisciplinary areas represented here as well, but perhaps one of most interesting observations I made today is that we have such a strong contingent from the arts and humanities.This has injected some fascinating perspectives into the conversation. They all soon split up and spread around, but it was impressive to walk in the door and see all the journalists and media people! I new this was going to get interesting.

We covered a lot of ground. Here are a few of the highlights from today - things that really jumped out at me:

We had several breakout sessions to discuss topics including exemplars of Interdisciplinary Computing (IC), lessons learned, what is it that motivates faculty (and industry professionals as well) to pursue IC, and given what we revealed among ourselves, what are effective supports for faculty to pursue IC? Action Items in other words.

One of the surprises for me right off the bat, was to learn that the field of Journalism (not "Computational Journalism", but "Journalism") is currently having serious discussions within the community about how to define themselves. Now, in CS, we have been having this discussion for a long time and the discussion evolves about as fast as the field. But Journalism - I would not have guessed. It is not a new field; it was an eye opener for me, and others I believe, to hear that another field is wrestling with the same question: "what does it mean to be a journalist?" ("what does it mean to be a computer scientist?"). There is something to be learned from this shared definitional wrestling for meaning.

After pondering the issue all day I asked a question about it at our end of afternoon discussion. The most interesting part of the response, for me, was when one of the faculty heavily involved in developing the area of computational journalism opined that this common "problem" was one of the reasons he felt his field and computer science were able to work together. Because (I'm paraphrasing here) both fields are working to define an identity (or redefine, or refine, choose your pov), they are able to come together and form something new and original. I took that to mean there was a fluidity and flexibility supporting interdisciplinary collaboration, in part because the disciplinary boundaries were not so rigid; those in each field who were interested in IC used the identity challenge as an opportunity to break new ground.

In another breakout session (discussing what motivates the faculty who are already doing IC) the table I was sitting at spoke about how for many people "it is in our blood" and those people will do IC whether they are new faculty, established faculty or somewhere in between. Our table at least, had universal agreement on this point, countering the point I have heard (and others have often made) that the people who do IC are either 1) those who are brand new and have nothing to lose - i.e. they want to break new ground and are full of enthusiasm or 2) those who are secure in tenured positions and feel that it is now "safe" to pursue this passion.

It was interesting to hear a table full of people focus not on funding as a primary motivator (although everyone agrees that funding is needed and critical) but on personality - passion, interest, determination, being a maverick (someone tossed out that phrase). It was nice, I have to admit, to be surrounded by a table full of people who felt as I do, that it is "in our blood" (I was not the one who popped out with that phrase but it certainly feels accurate to me).

A question of course comes from this last point: how to support those who want to pursue IC but who are not in either of the three categories: new and fearless, established and "safe", or ordained by virtue of personality. How to support those who will perform IC given an conducive environment? Because it became clear to all of us I would hazard to say, that a conducive supportive environment is absolutely vital for achieving critical mass and developing self sustaining IC initiatives and programs.

These are some of the strong impressions that lept out at me today as I left the indoors for the first time at 5:30 pm to unwind some kinks in the outdoor hotel pool. A good place to let things soak. In my next post, tomorrow hopefully, I'll talk about some of the actionable ideas we came up with.

An Interesting Interdisciplinary Computing Program With a Solid Track Record

When I take a look at the list of items that our interdisciplinary computing group brainstormed for an ideal environment I immediately think of a really interesting academic program at Northwest Missouri State University called Interactive Digital Media. This 10 year old program is truly interdisciplinary and one of the original developers was at our meeting: Carol Spradling. So I had to ask Carol (who I have known for many years) if she would sacrifice one of our snack breaks to tell me more so that I could share it here.

The final and perhaps most agreed upon criteria for success listed in the previous post was the following:

"Intellectual content from all represented fields are equally present. ...

Having intellectual content from each discipline is critical if we want to avoid the perception that interdisciplinary computer science is the application of computing to another field and nothing more."


The Interactive Digital Media (IDM) major brings together 6 faculty, 2 each from the Computer Science / Information Systems department, the Art department and the Mass Communications department. This unique major has three concentrations to choose from: Computer Science, New Media, Visual Imaging. Local industry has been involved from the inception of the program as a multimedia minor within Computer Science.

The development of the IDM program was a lot of hard work, but the trust that is so important was built by dedication and constant communication that continues today. Faculty meet regularly to adapt what each teaches based upon what the others are teaching. Only the capstone course is team taught. As a result, the faculty have to be committed to working as equal contributors and to developing creative ways of achieving synthesis. The necessary communication is a non trivial time investment, one of the challenges to interdisciplinary work. When new faculty come on board, there can be a need to go back and revisit issues to bring that person up to speed. Finally, as we all know, technology advances wait for no one. Courses have to be continually updated and new technology always has to be learned, considered and bounced off their industry partners - and tried out. Ideas have not always gone as planned, but they have adjusted and moved forward. Team work makes this possible.

The incremental and inclusive development of this program is a great example of how many of the hurdles facing interdisciplinary computing can be overcome. In the  late 1990s, Carol told me, they realized just how much there was a need for people with cross disciplinary skills. Specifically, they saw the need for design, technology, social and communication skills. They had done their homework, interviewing industry and gathering statistics on jobs available to graduates. They decided to partner with Mass Communication. Soon they realized that bringing the Art department into the team was important. Together the 3 departments (without an influx of funding and no ability at the time to create an independent major) developed course ideas and asked local industry for feedback and suggestions about those courses and their syllabi.

Over the last ten years Carol has watched the program develop from a minor to a major program of study. She related how she now sees students go out and get exciting jobs; jobs they are passionate about. Carol is particularly pleased to report that there is a high percentage of women in the program. In fact she said the influx of women "thrills" her. She is thrilled to see young women feeling that they can get into a technical field. "There are so many fields that have technical components. Social media [for example]...[These fields] require the technical knowledge".

Where do students go and what kinds of jobs do they take after graduation? In answering my question I believe that Carol might have used the phrase "all over the place". Large companies, small companies, broad work, niche work. Programming, database work, combined database and programming, technical project management, graphic design that requires fluent programming - to list just a few examples. There have been some truly unexpected employment stories such as the student who became an instructional designer for a dairy association. The student trains corporate personnel how to integrate technology into their jobs.

Another student is employed in a school of nursing, working with a course management system, addressing curriculum issues and in depth multimedia use in general. This student has tapped into the national need for nurses and the trend that more nursing programs are going on-line, thus needing assistance delivering instructional materials. Coincidentally, I had been talking the week before to the wife of a friend who is nearing completion of an online nursing program here in the San Diego area. The availability of this program has been the only way that she, as a non traditional student ("older" meaning in her 30s, and an immigrant), can make the career change she desires. So when Carol spoke about the excitement many students (and faculty) feel about the opportunities opened up by the Interactive Digital Media program, I understood the importance of her program from several perspectives.

The vision and dedication of the faculty Carol works with has brought the type of success in enrollments, job placement and other factors that allowed the program to be elevated from a the minor to a major program of study. The successes of the program sounded to me like they have been quantifiable; not only has Carol published on the program (there is a paper written in 2008 in the ACM Digital Library) but they have used a university wide Total Quality Management process to ensure continual improvement. TQM is itself an interdisciplinary process, thus complementing the goals of the IDM program.

Establishing and maintaining trust. Overcoming vocabulary and perspective differences. Ensuring depth of content and equality of content across disciplines. These were the major issues listed in the "challenges" discussion and the Interactive Digital Media program has tackled them well.

The program has achieved gains for Computer Science and the partner disciplines, including increased student diversity and overall numbers, new and broader job placements and excellent relationships with local and regional industry. As Carol put it, the program has opened up a new world for students. She was also pleased to tell me students in all three concentrations (not just the Computer Science concentration) are embracing technology and moving on to use it in other ways after completing their technical coursework. Something for any computing faculty to be proud of.

Interdisciplinary Computing: Bumps and Holes in the Road

There are of course setbacks and challenges to implementing interdisciplinary computing and our group discussed those as well (if you haven't read the previous two posts, this is the third in the thread). As we had people with backgrounds past and present in biology, computer science, math, physics, music - performance and theory, architecture (not the computer kind), healthcare, there were lots of angles.

In our first morning discussion of these challenges, some themes popped out, just as they had with our discussion of positive experiences. Here is some of what arose for consideration:

Lack of common vocabulary. Specialties have their own lingo, buzzwords, abbreviations, and sometimes the words are the same words used by another field but with different meanings. Engaging in conversation with a specialist in another field can be an instant reminder about how much we have internalized and take for granted when we talk among ourselves.

Different perspectives on appropriate methodologies for research, assessment, reporting, project development. This is a huge topic. Simple to explain and discuss (but not necessarily resolve): is first person or third person expected in a formal write up? Not at all simple to resolve: is statistical or qualitative research desired or valid...what type of statistical or qualitative...how is rigor agreed upon? Really difficult: what does the other field actually *do* when they design and implement a program or project and can it be (should it be) fully understood by the participant from another discipline who works on the project?

Application level skill issues. This point follows up on the last point in the previous paragraph. One example: Discipline X wants to use software A; Discipline Y wants to use software B. Both have their well supported reasons. How to resolve the question to everyone's satisfaction? Similarly, programming and programming language issues can be "exhausting" as one person put it so well. What to use, how many to use, does it have to be a specific language? You know, we have these conversations even within computing; we exhaust ourselves talking about languages. When interdisciplinary teams tackle the language questions the discussion increases in complexity several orders of magnitude.

Trust. This is perhaps one of the biggies. Perhaps the biggest. People related experiences about the need to build trust between disciplines, between people at different levels of an organization, between people with different responsibilities.

Even when there is abundant goodwill on all sides trust has to be earned. It cannot be taken for granted or else some innocent blunder may set back or seriously damage a project. Sometimes, there are large silos that people work in and these have to be bridged. Note: lots of words were used, and I'm not sure which I prefer - bridging seems to convey the positive intentions of everyone in the meeting.

What is computing and/or computer science anyway? This is another topic where even within our own computing discipline(s) we do not always agree. Exhausting. Another exhausting topic. Members of our meeting related experiences about perceptions and mis-perceptions of what "it" is, and in particular how the word "technology" fits in. Similar stories have appeared on the SIGCSE list and many other forums.

I'm intentionally not repeating specific examples of the setbacks we discussed because I don't want to unintentionally embarrass anyone nor imo is it relevant for this post that is trying (with questionable success) to stay manageable in length. I want to focus on the high level issues.

A few summative related issues that lead to setbacks for interdisciplinary initiatives: the tension b/w tools and theory; specialists vs. generalists vs. interdisciplinarians (blogger thinks that is not a word... how timely!); pure vs. applied;  student majors vs. student non-majors. And the notable point that silos can occur within a department - not just between departments.

Challenges that were phrased as questions included:

How to help people in a partner discipline continue to use mutually agreed upon / developed concepts as their students move up within their curriculum? Problematic.

How to keep an interdisciplinary course from turning "light and fluffy" or just an exercise in tool use? If students don't have a quantitative background for example, how do you give them that background sufficiently to proceed with the course? Just adding a prerequisite or two or three doesn't address the problem head on.

Computer science as a discipline has our set of "big ideas". We can abstract them, but how do we then help other people to understand and want to work with them? (this harks back to the vocabulary, method and perspective challenges)

And to end on a LARGE note: there are a whole set of different challenges for the interdisciplinary team that is starting a program from the ground up vs. the team that is working within existing programs and major fields of study. Even more so when the collaborators consist of computer scientists and experts from the non sciences.

phew! Much of the above will not be news if you have been involved in interdisciplinary efforts. However! that is one reason why I chose to start the conversation several posts ago with the upbeat and positive side of this work. No problem is impossible to address in one way or another. But to do so we had to first lay them out and lay them out we did!

Interdisciplinary Computing: Finding Common Ground, Experiencing Joy, Tangible Benefits

I spent the day meeting with a group of 15 dynamic people from around the country from academia and industry, who are all passionate about and actively involved in some way with interdisciplinary computing. At the helm of our 2 day meeting: Boots Cassel from  Villanova University Computing Sciences and Ursula Wolz from The College of New Jersey Computer Science. This was the first of several meetings and we were there to begin an ongoing conversation about how to support interdisciplinary computing education. This was our "why are we here and where are we going" meeting. Day 1.

Boots made a comment early on that stuck with me: "We need to give as much as we get".  That phrase reflected the tenor of our conversation even as we wrestled with definitions, perspectives, categories, labels, experiences and visions. 

I previewed the question of what interdisciplinary computing is last week - imagine that conversation magnified, expanded and fueled by 15 never shy, highly experienced practitioners.

That is where the fun started, and continued...Around more delicious food than I can begin to describe (we'll see in a few days if I can still walk upright) we started off by  working to establish common ground and perspectives. Almost immediately we were directed into small breakout groups for sharing our best experiences with interdisciplinary computing, the setbacks we experienced, and what an ideal climate for interdisciplinary computing education would look like. 

It is always nice to start out on a high note, and considering that overall, the day was one big high note (I don't think I'm out on a limb by making that generalization) I'll share this post on part of our pre-lunch breakout conversation - the process of discussing some of our best experiences with interdisciplinary computing. 

Besides, I need to keep my head from exploding with the effort of trying to say too much in too small a space. 

Finding Common Ground. People shared their satisfaction and joy when faculty from different disciplines reached out to successfully work together, overcoming hurdles (different topic) and creating something - a class, a curriculum, a project, an internship, research, a job - that neither could have done without the expertise of the other - as equals.  1 + 1 != 2 Rather, 1 + 1 > 2  (I hope my tired colleagues don't take that literally and think all the food has addled my brain)

Finding Common Ground.  Between combinations (pick any) of universities, K-12, industry, disciplines, departments, various sciences, humanities. It is a cultural issue as well as a content issue.

There is clearly something wonderful that happens when people from across disciplines and associated cultures work successfully together. Aside from the practical point that it "looks good", it feels good, judging by the way people were telling their stories. A few of us did a little bit of hopping around in our seats and there was the occasional gesticulating of limbs.

Not only students, but faculty are able to view the world in a new way when a computing person and another disciplinary person successfully collaborate and break new ground. One approach, discussed particularly enthusiastically and with many examples by Bob Panoff from the non-profit Shodor, was the power of harnessing computing technology to find common ways to describe the world through modeling and bringing phenomena to life. Stories form in people's minds and the world takes on new meaning.

Someone pointed out that in these collaborations, we are forced to address issues, details and concepts we never would have thought of otherwise. 

Personally, I would prefer to say that I am "privileged" to address issues, details and concepts I would not have thought of or encountered otherwise. To me,  interdisciplinary computing, especially when it improves people's lives in some way, however small, is a constant exciting exploration and adventure.

Tangible Benefits to Students. Industry jobs are often (always?) interdisciplinary in some way so employers like students who have these skill sets through direct experience. For example, they work better on teams and can more easily shift to new areas within their company. 

Many new terms were tossed up for consideration just within this part of the conversation: convergence; intertwining, cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, inclusiveness. 

A lot of good things to think hard and deeply about.