Brian O'Neill
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we describe the process of replacing a general education requirement in computing at a private liberal arts/professional American university. The original requirement evaluated students' ability to utilize spreadsheet and presentation software, meaning traditional CS1 courses did not satisfy the requirement. The new requirement emphasizes critical thinking and requires students to create digital artifacts in order to solve problems or analyze models in their major discipline. We describe our motivations for updating the general education requirement, and the feedback that we received during the revision process. We also describe the learning outcomes used during the assessment process. We briefly describe the results from the previous cycle of assessment in 2014 using the original requirement as well as the results from the current cycle in 2020 using the new requirement. Rather than being limited to spreadsheet and presentation software, assessed student artifacts in 2020 also included Excel, Python, MATLAB, and Mathematica source code, as well as written analyses. We conclude with recommendations from the assessment team for improving the general education requirement and associated assessment procedure.
- Christine Alvarado, Zachary Dodds, and Ran Libeskind-Hadas. 2012. Increasing women's participation in computing at Harvey Mudd College. ACM Inroads 3, 4 (December 2012), 55--64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2381083.2381100Google Scholar
Digital Library
- AP Computer Science Principles: Course and Exam Description. Retrieved August 25, 2020 from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-computer-science-principles-course-and-exam-description.pdf.Google Scholar
- Valerie Carr, Morris Jones, and Belle Wei. 2020. Interdisciplinary Computing: Applied Computing for Behavioral and Social Sciences. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 400--406. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366799Google ScholarDigital Library
- John P. Dougherty, Tom Dececchi, Tony Clear, Brad Richards, Stephen Cooper, and Tadeusz Wilusz. 2002. Information technology fluency in practice. In Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE-WGR '02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 153--171. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/960568.782999Google Scholar
- Mark Guzdial and Andrea Forte. 2005. Design process for a non-majors computing course. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 361--365. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047468Google ScholarDigital Library
- Susanne Hambrusch, Christoph Hoffmann, John T. Korb, Mark Haugan, and Antony L. Hosking. 2009. A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 183--187. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508931Google Scholar
- Dennis Kafura, Austin Cory Bart, and Bushra Chowdhury. 2015. Design and Preliminary Results From a Computational Thinking Course. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63--68. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742593Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dennis Kafura and Deborah Tatar. 2011. Initial experience with a computational thinking course for computer science students. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 251--256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953242Google ScholarDigital Library
- Natalia Khuri, Wendy Lee, K. Virginia Lehmkuhl-Dakhwe, Miri VanHoven, and Sami Khuri. 2020. Interdisciplinary Minor in Bioinformatics: First Results and Outlook. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 407--412. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366804Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher Kuster, John Symms, Christopher May, and Chenglie Hu. 2011. Developing computational thinking skills across the undergraduate curriculum. In 44th Annual Midwest Instruction and Computing Symposium (MICS '11). Duluth, MN, USA.Google Scholar
- NECHE. Standards for Accreditation. (July 2016). Retrieved August 25, 2020 from https://www.neche.org/resources/standards-for-accreditation/.Google Scholar
- Ljubomir Perkovic, Amber Settle, Sungsoon Hwang, and Joshua Jones. 2010. A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 123--127. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822126Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hong Qin. 2009. Teaching computational thinking through bioinformatics to biology students. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 188--191. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508932Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nick Senske. 2017. Evaluation and Impact of a Required Computational Thinking Course for Architecture Students. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 525--530. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017750Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert H. Sloan, Valerie Barr, Heather Bort, Mark Guzdial, Ran Libeskind-Hadas, and Richard Warner. 2020. CS + X Meets CS 1: Strongly Themed Intro Courses. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 960--961. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366975Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrea Tartaro, Christopher Healy, and Kevin Treu. 2016. Computer science in general education: beyond quantitative reasoning. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 32, 2 (December 2016), 177--184.Google Scholar
- Darrell B. Warner and Katie Koeppel. 2009. General education requirements: a comparative analysis. Journal of General Education 58, 4 (2009), 241--258. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0050Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Modernizing a General Education Requirement in Computing to Emphasize Critical Thinking
Recommendations
Investigating the Role of Computing in General Education Requirements
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationGeneral education requirements delineate the core requirements that all students of a particular university must complete in order to graduate. These requirements are often indicative of how an institution views its core mission, leading to vastly ...
Critical thinking with Alice: a curriculum design model for middle school teachers
ALICE '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Alice SymposiumThis paper describes a curriculum design model for the use of the 3D animation program, Alice, with middle school students. Based on the learning theory of SCCS (social and cognitive-connectedness schemata), the model's design interweaves the construct ...
Capturing Students' Critical Thinking Skills in English for Academic Writing Course: A Case in Information System Students
ICEEL '18: Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Education and E-LearningWriting has been regarded as the most difficult language skills since students in Indonesia were not familiar with this skill in the early and middle education level. On the other hand, in higher education level the students should produce a thesis to ...
Comments