High School Computer Science Education: A Five-State Study
Chris Stephenson
University of Waterloo
Abstract | Introduction | Methodology | Results | Conclusions | References | Acknowledgements | Contributor | Appendix A: Survey of Resources for Teaching Computer Programming
Conclusions
The results of this study highlight the multiplicity of factors affecting computer science education in U.S. high schools. Though the PC is now well established as the dominant hardware platform for computer science instruction, its domination is not complete, and the Macintosh maintains a small but loyal following in education. Despite the complexity of issues involved in hardware selection, schools also appear to base acquisition decisions on a relatively stable set of criteria. Schools focus on cost, compatibility, and reliability. They may wish for the latest and greatest, but they buy from the vendor who offers the biggest bang for the buck.
Programming language wars have raged at all levels of education, and high schools are subject to significant external pressures. High schools, in their attempt to prepare students for future study and work, are influenced by both education and industry. The survey results show that new programming paradigms, such as object-oriented programming, are trickling down to the high school level. The College Board also plays a major role in high school computing and the announced intention to require theAdvanced Placement Computer Science exams to be written in Java by the 2003–2004 school year is likely to increase the number of Java-using schools dramatically over the next six years.
Although in a less direct manner, this survey also points to the need for a profound engagement with issues relating to teacher training (both preservice and inservice) as teachers endeavor to keep up with constantly changing technology and, at the same time, improve their teaching skills. If teachers are to meet the demand for professional development their academic discipline and their students require, more effective and accessible kinds of training will have to be made available.
References
Andreae, P., Biddle, R., Dobbie, G., Gale, A., Miller, L., & Tempero, E. (2000). Experience teaching CS1 with Java. Journal of Computer Science Education, 14(1–2), 19–28.
Baker, L., Chapman, G., Kmoch, J., Larson, K., & Walker, H. (1998). SIGCSE panel: Approaches for encouraging high school/college faculty interaction. In J. E. Miller, K. White, & C. Erickson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 368–369). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Becker, H. J. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new information technology [Online document]. Available: www.gse.uci.edu/EdTechUse/c-tblcnt.htm.
Biddle, R., & Tempero, E. (1999). Java pitfalls for beginners. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13(3–4), 8–13.
Brilliant, S., & Wiseman, T. (1996). First paradigm and language dilemma. In Proceedingsof the27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 338–342). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Burd, B., Spies, W., Wittenburg, L., & Workman, R. (1997). Visual programming tools in the C.S. curriculum. In J. E. Miller, K. White, & C. Erickson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 388–389). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. (1997). Computers in classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education. (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
Culwin, F. (1999). Object imperatives. In R. E. Noonan, J. Prey, & D. Joyce (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 31–36). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Fisher, A., Margolis, G., & Miller, F. (1997). Undergraduate women in computer science: Experience, motivation and culture. In J. E. Miller, K. White, & C. Erickson (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 106–115). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Heermann, R. W. (1991). Computers in Virginia’s public high schools. Computers and Education, 13(1), 85–93.
Kavanagh, J. (1998). Java or bust. The Computer Bulletin, IV(10), 28–30.
Kolling, M., & Rosenberg, J. (1996). Blue–A language for teaching object-oriented programming. In K. J. Klee, J. Impagliazzo, & E. Adams (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 190–194). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Lewis, J. (2000). Myths about object-orientation and its pedagogy. In B. Cassel, N. B. Dale, H. M. Walker, & S. Haller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 245–249). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Luker, P. (1994). There’s more to OOP than syntax. SIGSCE Bulletin, 26(1), 56–60. Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Martin, J. (1999). Teaching with Visual Basic. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13(1), 12–15.
Mazaitis, D. (1993). The object-oriented paradigm in the undergraduate curriculum: A survey of implementation and issues. SIGCSE Bulletin, 25(3), 58–64.
Merritt, S. (1995). Reflections of a computer scientist for teachers and teacher educators. In J. D. Tinsley & T. J. van Weert (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Computers in Education VI (pp. 479–486). London: Chapman and Hall for the International Federation for Information Processing.
Milbrandt, G. (1993). Using problem solving to teach a programming language in computer studies. Journal of Computer Science Education, 8(2), 14–19.
Moylan, P. J. (1992). The case against C. Technical Report EE240 [Online document]. New South Wales, Australia: Centre for Industrial Control Science, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Newcastle. Available: www.modulaware.com/mdlt35.htm.
Proulx, V. (1995). Computer science/informatics: The study of the information world. In J. D. Tinsley & T. J. van Weert (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Computers in Education VI (pp. 495–503). London: Chapman and Hall for the International Federation for Information Processing.
Schollmeyer, M. (1996). Computer Programming in High School VS College. In Proceedingsof the 26th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 378–382). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery
Stager, G. (1995). Constructing staff development and education change. In J. D. Tinsley & T. J. van Weert (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Computers in Education VI (pp. 1079–1087). London: Chapman and Hall for the International Federation for Information Processing.
Standing, C. (1999). Teaching software technologies and programming with Java. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13(2), 6–14.
Stephenson, C., & West, T. (1998) Language choice and key concepts in introductory computer science courses. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(1), 89–95.
Taylor, H., & Mountfield, L. (1991). An analysis of success factors in high school computer science: High school methodology is a key element. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(2), 240–245.
Weiss, M. A. (1997). Experiences teaching data structures with Java. In J. E. Miller, K. White, & C. Erickson (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 164–168). Washington, DC: Association for Computing Machinery.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank George Milbrant and J. Philip East for their careful read of an early draft of this article. The researchers would also like to thank IBM for their generous support of this project.
Contributor
Chris Stephenson works at the University of Waterloo Department of Computer Science and is the president of Holt Software, which produces educationally oriented computer science texts and software. She does research into the teaching of secondary computer science and is active in computer science education activities in both Canada and the United States. In her spare time, Chris thinks about how she never has enough spare time to do all the things she enjoys.
Contact
1.800.361.8324
chris@hsa.on.ca
www.holtsoft.com/chris/home.html
Appendix A: Survey of Resources for Teaching Computer Programming
|
Name:
|
_____________________________________________ |
|
School:
|
_____________________________________________ |
|
Address:
|
_____________________________________________ |
| |
|
_____________________________________________ |
| |
|
|
|
1.
|
How many years have you been using computers? ___ |
|
Teaching programming? ___ |
|
2.
|
| |
Please list the computers used for teaching programming.
|
How many with 4 MB of memory or more?
|
| |
|
|
| PCs |
______
|
______
|
| Macs |
______
|
______
|
|
|
3.
|
Are you buying new computers? ____
If yes, what kind? ____ Number? ____ |
|
4.
|
What is the most important criteria for choosing computer hardware? _________
|
|
________________________________________________________________ |
| 5. |
List the programming language(s) taught in the following grades.
Grade 10: _________________________________________
Grade 11: _________________________________________
Grade 12: _________________________________________ |
| 6. |
Are you thinking of changing programming languages in the next two years?
Yes _____
No _____
If yes, which language? ______________________________ |
| 7. |
What is the most important criteria for choosing a programming language? ______ |
| |
________________________________________________________________ |
| 8. |
Which of the following materials would you consider most useful for teaching programming? Rate from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important). |
| |
| Teacher's guide |
____ |
Electronic lessons |
____ |
Collected projects |
____
|
| Textbooks |
____ |
Student workbook |
____ |
Example programs |
____ |
|
| 9 |
Which of the following methods of continued learning do you consider most useful? Rate from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important). |
| |
| Academic upgrading |
____ |
Conferences & workshops |
____ |
| Internet |
____ |
Self-directed learning |
____ |
| Teacher inservice |
____ |
Vendor training |
____ |
|
<< Results, cont.
Copyright © 2002, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.
|
