The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education Using worldwide research and professional experience to improve U. S. Schools By CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education Using worldwide research and professional experience to improve U.

S. Schools By The CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education Final Report of the CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force February 2005 Task Force Chair Chris Stephenson CSTAExecutive Director Committee Members Judith Gal-Ezer Open University of Israel Bruria Haberman Holon Academic Institute of Technology and The Weizmann Institute of Science Anita Verno Bergen Community College Computer Science Teachers Association Association for Computing Machinery 1515 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10036 Copyright © 2006 by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc (ACM). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page.

Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with ... more. less.

credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permission to republish from: Publications Dept. ACM, Inc. Fax +1-212-869-0481 or E-mail permissions@acm.org. For other copying of articles that carry a code at the bottom of the first or last page, copying is permitted provided that the per-copy fee indicated in the code is paid through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. ACM ISBN: # 1-59593-335-2 ACM Order Number: # 999064 Additional copies may be ordered prepaid from: ACM Order Department Phone: 1-800-342-6626 P.O. Box 11405 (U.S.A. and Canada) Church Street Station +1-212-626-0500 New York, NY 10286-1405 (All other countries) Fax: +1-212-944-1318 E-mail: acmhelp@acm.org This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0455403. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Letter from the CSTA President In the face of a global economy that rewards innovation and technological supremacy, many countries, including the United States, are looking to education to ensure their continuing competitiveness. With the specific goal of keeping the United States technologically competitive in fields such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and bioinformatics, the United States has committed to training thousands of high school teachers to lead advanced placement math and science courses. Computer science as an academic discipline provides the knowledge and skill foundation for all of these technological advances. Computer science education in the United States is at a critical juncture. The number of students pursuing computer science as a career choice or course of study has dropped precipitously at all levels. The number of high school students taking the Advanced Placement computer science exam, for example, has declined almost 20% over the past three years. In addition, the lack of national curriculum standards and consistent and rational teacher certification requirements continue to hamper our ability to ensure that our students are adequately prepared to compete in this increasingly technological world. In short, policy makers at the local, state, and national levels must prepare for a 21 st century technological workforce by giving those workers the computer science knowledge base necessary for success in these computing-intensive fields. The warning signs are unmistakable. The solution is clear. Unless we act quickly and decisively to remedy the disconnect between our national technological goals and computer science education at the high school level, the United States will soon face an educational, competitive, and economic crisis. I urge you to read closely and carefully this final report of the CSTACurriculum Improvement Task Force and heed its sobering message. Improving high school computer science education is indeed a national educational imperative. Regards, Robb Cutler Chairperson Computer Science Teachers Association Acknowledgments The CSTACurriculum and Improvement Task Force would like to thank the following organizations and individuals. First, we would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their generous support of this project and for their understanding of the importance of improving computer science education at the high school level. We would also like to thank Allen Tucker and the ACM K 312 Curriculum Committee for their ground-breaking work on the ACM Model Curriculum for K 312 Computer Science and Jane Margolis and Joanna Goode for sharing the important work that they are doing as part of the Computer Science Equity Collaborative. We are especially grateful to the wonderful international educators who took part in our panel on creating and implementing an effective curriculum, specifically Michael Chiles, Judith Gal-Ezer, and Jackie Martin. Thanks are also due to our wonderful designer Bob Vizzini, and to our exacting copy editor, Kate Conley. Finally, to all of the staff and volunteer leadership of ACM, who brought CSTAinto being and continue to support us every day. c o n t e n t s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.0 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.1 What is Computer Science Anyway?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.2 What is Happening in Computer Science Education?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.2.1 The Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.2.2 Students and Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.2.3 The Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.3 Is Real Change Possible?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4 How Can This Document Help?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.0 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.1 Computer Science Education in High Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.1.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.1.2 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.1.3 Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2 Who Are We, and How Should We Portray Ourselves? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.1 An Inconsistent Self-image. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.2 An Incorrect Public Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.2.1 Computer Science Equals Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.2.2 Computer Science Equals Computer Literacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.2.3 Computer Science is a Tool for Studies in Other Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.2.4 Computer Science is Not a Scientific Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.2.5 Computer Science is a Male Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.3 Challenging Student Preconceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 High School Computing Studies and Academic Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.4 What Should We Teach and How? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.4.1 Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.4.2 Teaching the Key Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.4.2.1 Basic Computing Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.4.2.2 Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.2.3 Recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.2.4 Abstraction and Abstract Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.2.5 Non-determinism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.4.2.6 Correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.4.2.7 Algorithm Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.4.2.8 Program Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.4.3 Pedagogical Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.3.1 Problem-Solving Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.3.2 Learning Different Programming Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.3.3 Software Design and Project Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.5 Whom Should We Teach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.6 Exemplary Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.6.1 Pre-service Teacher Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.6.1.1 Technical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.6.1.2 Pedagogical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.6.1.3 Socio-cultural Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.6.2 On-going Professional Development for Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.6.3 The Role of Professional Associations in Supporting Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.0 CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.1.1 Method of Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.1.2 Employing a Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.1.3 Understanding Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.1.3.1 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.1.3.2 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.1.3.3 Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.1.3.4 South Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.1.3.5 United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.2 Exploring Curriculum Development and Implementation Using Frank 9s Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.2.1 Policy Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.2.2 Theoretical Adequacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.2.3 Empirical Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.0 CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1 How Do We Design A Better Curriculum?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1.1 Ten Core Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1.2 Key Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.1.3 Example of a Comprehensive Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4.2 How Do We Ensure Successful Implementation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.2.1 Policy Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.2.2 Theoretical Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.2.3 Empirical Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.2.4 Example of a Comprehensive Implementation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.3 How Do We Improve How Teachers Teach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.3.1 Five Qualities of Exemplary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.3.2 Seven Systemic Changes Required to Improve Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.4 Call To Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.4.1 Federal Government Policy Makers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.4.2 State Government Policy Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.4.3 School District Policy Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.4.4 School Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.4.5 Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.4.6 University and College Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.4.7 Business and Industry Leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 WHAT IS THE COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 THE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATION IMPERATIVE The United States, a nation once proud of its leadership in education, is sitting quietly on the sidelines while other countries make improvements to ensure their high school graduates will be ready to meet the demands of tomorrow 9s high-tech society. Countries around the world that once looked to the United States for guidance when planning new and innovative curricula are now taking the lead in computer science education. While other countries are requiring a computer science course for high school students just as they require math or biology, high school computer science education in the United States is disappearing. In light of the anticipated shortage of qualified candidates for the 1.5 million computer and information technology jobs by 2012, this lack of engagement with issues relating to computer science education is shortsighted and potentially disastrous. DEFINING COMPUTER SCIENCE Unlike other more static disciplines, computer science is constantly being reshaped. New thinking and new technologies continue to expand our understanding of what computer scientists can and need to know. This has resulted in considerable debate about a single definition of computer science. The ACM Model Curriculum for K 312 Computer Science, however, provides the most appropriate definition of computer science for high school educators. Computer science, it argues, is neither programming nor computer literacy. Rather, it is cthe study of computers and algorithmic processes including their principles, their hardware and software design, their applications, and their impact on society d (Tucker, 2003). Computer science therefore includes: " programming, " hardware design, " networks, " graphics, " databases and information retrieval, " computer security, " software design, " programming languages, " logic, " programming paradigms, " translation between levels of abstraction, artificial intelligence, " the limits of computations (what computers can 9t do), " applications in information technology and information systems, and " social issues (Internet security, privacy, intellectual property, etc.). HIGH SCHOOL COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES Computers have infiltrated all areas of society, and there is now a clear link between technology, innovation, and economic survival. In light of this, one would expect a move within our society to support and standardize computer science education. The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education Final Report of the CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force February 2005 Executive Summary 13 Yet, no national K 312 computer science curriculum exists. Lack of leadership on high school computer science education at the highest legislative and policy levels has resulted in insufficient funding for classroom instruction, resources, and professional development for computer science teachers. In addition, complex and contradictory teacher certification requirements as well as salaries that cannot possibly compete with industry make it exceedingly difficult to ensure the availability of exemplary computer science teachers. In the face of confusing definitions of computer literacy, information fluency, and the various sub- branches of computer science itself, many schools have lost sight of the fact that computer science is a scientific discipline and not a ctechnology d that simply supports learning in other curriculum areas. Computer science is not about point and click skills. It is a discipline with a core set of scientific principles that can be applied to solve complex, real-world problems and promote higher-order thinking. In short, knowledge of computer science is now as essential to today 9s educated student as any of the traditional sciences. WHAT THE RESEARCH REVEALS The body of research from around the world relating to high school computer science education indicates that learning computer science provides direct benefits to students. While there are distinct differences between how various countries implement their high school computer science programs, a growing number of countries already require computer science education of all high school students. The primary limitation of the current body of research is that it is too narrowly focused on programming and therefore does not give an appropriately broad view of the discipline. Despite this limitation, however, the research provides vital information regarding students 9 misconceptions about computer science (for example, that it is just about programming or that it is a cmale d field). It also provides critically important insights about the underlying principles of computer science education. " Students should acquire a broad overview of the field to construct a comprehensive picture of computer science as a discipline. " Students must understand not only the theoretical underpinnings of the discipline but also how that theory influences practice. " Computer science instruction should focus on problem solving and algorithmic thinking. " Concepts should be taught independent of specific applications and programming languages. " Students should be taught what will be expected from them in the creal world, d specifically, what is actually required to write and maintain computer programs and large software systems. Computer Science should be taught using real-world applications rather than specialized educational tools. " Computer science instruction should include integrative and interdisciplinary knowledge. " High school students should be exposed to advanced topics of computer science (e.g. computational models, modeling, and parallel computing) to enable them to become familiar with some of the theoretical aspects of computer science. " Students must recognize recurring concepts and principles such as abstraction, complexity, modularity, and reusability. " Programming should be taught in a broad sense, covering not only the coding act itself, but also the design of the algorithms underlying the programs and, to some extent, considerations of correctness and efficiency. " The curriculum should be designed to address the under-representation of women and minority students in computer science. " Teachers should motivate students to endure the rigors of traditional computer science programs by engaging students with exciting, accessible, and leading-edge courses. " Teaching and learning activities should be 14 15 designed to treat common misconceptions of the essence of computer science. The research also indicates that student success in computer science is predicated on the teacher 9s knowledge of the discipline and ability to actively engage students in their own learning, and identifies several key factors that help to ensure exemplary teaching. " High school computer science teachers must have a thorough formal background in computer science. " Pre-service teacher education must prepare teachers to better employ general pedagogical principles as well as teaching methods in the context of computer science education. " To be best qualified, computer science high school teachers should be certified and offered courses in computer science education in addition to regular computer science courses. " Classroom teachers require on-going access to appropriate and relevant professional development opportunities that allow them to master new technologies, implement new curricula, and constantly improve their teaching. " Teachers should become part of a collaborative computer science teachers' community of practice by joining local and national associations that provide useful resources and support their ongoing learning and leadership development. WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM OTHER COUNTRIES Looking at the experiences of other countries that have designed and implemented a high school computer science curriculum can provide valuable lessons as to the factors that must be in place to ensure that our efforts to improve computer science education are successful. An examination of the experiences of an international panel of computer educators from Canada, Israel, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States support the argument that such curriculum initiatives will be successful only to the extent to which they meet the following criteria: " There is a link between the outcome required and the strategies used. " Change is driven by real learning needs and not politically manufactured needs. " Educational change must be seen in the context of larger social and economic forces. " All of the stakeholders must agree to the need for change and on the strategies put in place to achieve it. " Change requires the commitment of adequate resources through all phases of the design, implementation, and testing of the new curriculum. " Change is a long-term process, not a short-term intervention. ACTIONS TO IMPROVE HIGH SCHOOL COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION Education in the United States is at a crossroads. We can either commit to ensuring that our students have the skills to be participants and innovators in this technological world or resign ourselves to a decreasing international presence in the global economy. We know that the world continues to change and that many of the changes we face are related to the burgeoning possibilities and consequences of our growing dependence upon and interrelation with computing technology. Maintaining our ability to meet present and future challenges requires us to acknowledge computer science as a core element of all STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) initiatives. Sustaining our technological and innovative edge in this increasingly global economy requires a multi-level, nationwide commitment to improving computer science education at the high school level. We must make this commitment if our schools are to continue to provide relevant education and our society is to continue to solve problems on the cutting edge of innovation. Here is what we need to do: " We must begin with a definition of computer science education that recognizes computing as a scientific discipline and encompasses a breadth of knowledge and skills. " We must implement a national computer science curriculum for high schools. This curriculum must be principle-based, must address core content and key skills, and must incorporate appropriate strategies to reach and teach our students. " We must support the implementation of this new curriculum with a plan that includes a realistic timeframe and the provision of the resources required to achieve it. " We must ensure that computer science is taught by exemplary teachers who have the requisite knowledge to teach the curriculum and who continue to upgrade their technical and teaching skills throughout their careers. Schools alone cannot achieve these outcomes. This issue requires a national vision, supportive action, and commitment at all levels of the political and educational systems. The final chapter of this document therefore provides practical, achievable suggestions for ways in which " federal government policy makers, " state government policy makers, " school district policy makers, " school principals, " teachers, " university and college faculty, and " business and industry leaders can work together to achieve long-term, systemic improvements to high school computer science education. ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT This document has been designed to address a number of different aspects of high school computer science education. Chapter One ( High School Computer Science in the United States ) provides an overview of the current state of high school computer science education. This chapter discusses the ways in which the United States has failed to support and standardize computer science education despite the infiltration of computing technology into all areas of society. Chapter Two ( Challenges and Perspectives in High School Computer Science Education: A Retrospective Literature Review ) provides an extensive review of international research literature in the area of high school computer science education, particularly as it relates to course content and pedagogy. This chapter highlights the continuing focus on programming despite more recent educational models that suggest that students need a broader theoretical and skills foundation to ensure that they are prepared for college and the workplace. Chapter Three ( Using Frank 9s Framework to Explore the Development and Implementation of High School Computer Science Curricula in Five Countries ) looks at the development and implementation of high school computer science curricula in five countries. Using a specific framework for critiquing educational policy reform and implementation, this chapter examines the experiences of curriculum development specialists from Canada, Israel, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States as presented at a panel session at the 2005 National Educational Computing Conference. This chapter provides valuable insight on key implementation issues such as funding, professional development, and time lines. Finally, Chapter Four ( Strategies for the Successful Design and Implementation of a National High School Computer Science Curriculum ) proposes a set of practical, achievable strategies and recommendations that could profoundly improve high school computer science education in the United States. These changes, requiring the support and commitment of federal and state policy-makers, school district leaders, classroom teachers, university and college faculty, and business and industry, would help provide students with the scientific knowledge base required for success in the 21 st century and would ensure that the United States remains competitive in the global economy. 16 1.0 INTRODUCTION Although an increasing number of labor and economic specialists are beginning to express concern about the direct and pressing link between technology and innovation and national economic survival, very few school administrators and educational policy leaders understand the profound need for computer science education at the high school level. Despite the need for students to incorporate the foundational computer science skills that foster an understanding of the essential technologies found in almost every industry today, in most high schools in the United States, there is little recognition of computer science as a scientific discipline distinct from mathematics or from technology training (National Research Council, 1999; Tucker, 2003) In today 9s scientific and economic global communities, computer science is helping to push the boundaries of what we know and what we can do. In areas such as nanotechnology and bioinformatics, computer scientists are addressing key questions such as: " Why do people become ill? " How can we do better at feeding the people of the world? " How can we ensure our own national security and the safety of our people? As a result of these kinds of scientific breakthroughs, the U.S. economy is expected to add 1.5 million computer- and information-related jobs by 2012. The problem, however, is that our education system is not producing enough highly skilled people to fill these critical positions. Current projections indicate that this country will have only half that many qualified graduates. As a result, if we do not address these issues immediately and vigorously at the national level, we face long-term skills shortages that will cripple both academic computing and industry (International Technology Association of America, 2002; Sargent, 2004). As a result, the United States will be seriously compromised in its ability to uphold its leadership position in computing, communications, information science, and engineering. In addition, we will be unable to capitalize on current and future innovations that are already providing untapped economic and social opportunities. 1.1 WHAT IS COMPUTER SCIENCE ANYWAY? One of the challenges we face when discussing computer science education is that the field of computer science seems to evolve so quickly that it is difficult even for computer scientists to clearly define its contents and delimit its boundaries. As Shackelford (2005) noted in his presentation Why can 9t smart people figure out what to do about computing education? , the landscape of computing continues to evolve and trying to figure out what students need to learn is like trying to hit a moving target. While we do know that computing now provides the infrastructure for how we work and communicate and that it has redefined science, engineering, and business, it is still poorly understood. Even at the university level, where computer science has long been recognized as a key educational and career field, it has resisted a single definition or CHAPTER ONE HIGH SCHOOL COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES 17 17 application. As Shackelford indicated, prior to 1990 the discipline was defined as Computer Science if taught as part of the traditional Arts and Science curriculum and as Information Systems if taught as part of the Business curriculum. Since that time, however, it has burgeoned into a number of distinct areas, each of which involves its own approach to both theory and application. These areas include Computer Engineering, Software Engineering, and Information Technology . In terms of university degree programs, the post-1990s are typified by intersecting sub-disciplines including: " Electrical Engineering, " Computer Engineering, " Software Engineering, " Computer Science, " Information Technology, and " Information Systems that focus to varying degrees on hardware, software, and organizational needs. For high school educators, though, the most profound confusion arises when trying to distinguish between the three most common kinds of computing education typical of the 9 312 grade levels. While each of these areas has been known by various names, for the purposes of this discussion we define them as: " Educational Technology " Information Technology, and " Computer Science. In general, Educational Technology can be defined as using computers across the curriculum, or more specifically, using computer technology (hardware and software) to learn about other disciplines. For example, the science teacher may use a computer-based simulation program to provide students with a better understanding of specific physics principles, or an English teacher may use word-processing software to help students improve their editing and revision skills. Tucker, Deek, Jones, McCowan, Stephenson, and Verno (2003) defined Information Technology as cthe proper use of technologies by which people manipulate and share information in its various forms d (p. 6). While Information Technology involves learning about computers, it emphasizes the technology itself. As Shackleford (2005) noted, Information Technology specialists cassume responsibility for selecting appropriate hardware and software products, integrating those products with organizational needs and infrastructure, and installing, customizing and maintaining those resources d (p. 22). Information Technology courses, therefore, focus on: " installing and administering computer networks, " installing, maintaining, and customizing software, " managing e-mail systems, " designing web pages, and " developing multimedia resources and other digital media. Computer Science, on the other hand, spans a wide range of computing endeavors, from theoretical foundations to robotics, computer vision, intelligent systems, and bioinformatics. According to Shackelford, for example, the work of computer scientists is concentrated in three areas: " designing and implementing software, " developing effective ways to solve computing problems, and " devising new ways to use computers. Tucker et al. (2003) has also offered a definition of computer science that has direct relevance to high school computer science education. They defined the discipline as follows: c Computer science (CS) is the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware and software designs, their applications, and their impact on society d (p. 6). They argue that in order to fulfill this definition, K 312 computer science curricula must include the following elements: " programming, " hardware design, " networks, " graphics, 18 " databases and information retrieval, " computer security, " software design, " programming languages, " logic, " programming paradigms, " translation between levels of abstraction, " artificial intelligence, " the limits of computation (what computers can 9t do), " applications in information technology and information systems, and " social issues (Internet security, privacy, intellectual property, etc.). Citing the conclusion of the National Research Council (1999) that a basic understanding of all these topics is now an essential ingredient to preparing high school graduates for life in the 21 st century, Tucker et al. (2003) further argued that the goals of a K 312 computer science curriculum are to: " introduce the fundamental concepts of computer science to all students, beginning at the elementary school level, " present computer science at the secondary school level in a way that would be both accessible and worthy of a curriculum credit (e.g., math or science), " offer additional secondary-level computer science courses that will allow interested students to study it in depth and prepare them for entry into the work force or college, and " increase the knowledge of computer science for all students, especially those who are members of underrepresented groups. Two other terms that often appear in discussions of computing education are Information Technology Literacy and Information Technology Fluency (National Research Council, 1999). As Tucker et al. (2003), indicate: Whereas IT literacy is the capability to use today 9s technology in one 9s own field, the notion of IT fluency adds the capability to independently learn and use new technology as it evolves & throughout one 9s professional lifetime. Moreover, IT fluency also includes the active use of algorithmic thinking (including programming) to solve problems, whereas IT literacy is more limited in scope (p. 6). 1.2 WHAT IS HAPPENING IN COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION? At present, all evidence points to a crisis in computer science education at the high school level. This crisis is most clearly manifested in the decreasing number of computer science courses being offered to students and the resulting drop in enrollments in computer science programs. Course enrollments are dropping at both the secondary and post-secondary levels (Taulbee, 2003), and the number of young women and minority students studying computing is at an all-time low (The College Board, 2005). The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA, 2005a) has identified a number of factors that contribute to this situation, including: " the lack of a national high school curriculum for computer science education, " the chronic under-funding of computer science programs in high schools, " the absence of standards for certification of computer science teachers, " a shortage of professional development opportunities that would allow teachers to develop and keep their technical and pedagogical skills current, " the inability of school districts to attract or maintain highly qualified teachers in the face of salary and benefit competition from industry, and " the lack of understanding on the part of students, parents, guidance counselors, and teachers about computer science in general, how it differs from other areas of computer study, and its newly developing career opportunities. 19 1.2.1 The Curriculum In recent decades, computers have come to occupy a pivotal place in our work, personal, and home lives. Accordingly, the field of computer science has expanded to encompass the technical, innovative, conceptual, and psychological ramifications of the presence of the computer at work and at home. As Tucker et al. (2003) noted, however, very little attention has been paid to meeting the need for a well-structured, conceptually based high school computer science curriculum at the time when most students are likely to be building the conceptual frameworks of their intellectual development and exploring the options for their life 9s work. To date, efforts to standardize the study of computer science in U.S. high schools have been idiosyncratic and uncoordinated. While other countries have designed and implemented national computer science education programs in order to better prepare their students for the increasingly competitive global economy, attempts to bring coherent computer science education into U.S. high schools failed to address the need to instill a fluent understanding of algorithmic thinking and problem solving, and to provide exposure to software development using programming skills in U.S. students. While various researchers, institutions, and organizations have attempted to define and disseminate new computer science curricula, these efforts have been typified by: " a persistent shortage of support resources, " a lack of initial and sustaining funding, " an absence of on-going, classroom-relevant teacher training, and " the relentless cprojectitis d (Fullan, 2002) that prevents any one educational initiative from receiving anyone 9s attention for very long. In addition, the extreme localization of educational (especially curriculum) policy and decision making (which is often relegated to individual schools) and a complete lack of committed engagement by the federal government (despite the growing awareness of the impending skills shortage crisis) have resulted in an abject failure to grapple with this pressing educational issue. 1.2.2 Students and Courses In 2004, CSTA(2005) surveyed 14,000 high school teachers who defined themselves as computer science, computer programming, or AP computer science teachers. The study 9s purpose was to create a snapshot of the current state of computer education in the United States, and it revealed some disturbing trends. Despite the growing importance of computer knowledge and skills, only 26% of responding schools required students to take a computer science course, and only 40% of responding schools even offered an Advanced Placement (AP) computer science course. Among students who took an introductory level computer science course, on average only 32% were female. Among students taking the AP computer science course, the number of females dropped to 23%. CSTA 9s research is further supported by The College Board (2005), which reported that from 2002 32004 for example, while AP exam taking in other disciplines rose overall by 19%, the number of students taking the computer science Aexam dropped by 8%, and the number taking the computer science AB exam decreased by 19%. In addition, in 2004 while 56% of the AP test takers overall were female, among CS AB test takers, only 11% were female (a drop from the 1999 data of 17%), and only 6% were from under-represented minorities. When asked to explain these increasingly problematic enrollment results, teachers noted that the greatest impediment to students taking high school computer science courses was not the perceived difficulty of the subject matter or even the perception that computer science was a cgeeky d course, but rather the lack of time in the students 9 schedules. As the number of mandated courses high school students are required to take and competition for acceptance to prestigious university programs increase, students have fewer and fewer opportunities to study 20 computer science because these courses are elective rather than mandatory courses. Considerable anecdotal evidence also suggests that perceptions concerning career opportunities are playing a role in diminishing student interest in computer science courses. Teachers are reporting that an increasing number of students and their parents believe (based upon media stories rather than marketplace realities) that computer science is no longer a source of rewarding and varied career opportunities. In the absence of solid educational and career information, students are therefore being actively dissuaded from computer science courses and from considering careers in the high tech industry. 1.2.3 The Teachers Students are also not the only ones affected by the current crisis in computer science education. A2002 study of 4,000 U.S. high school computer science teachers conducted by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM, 2005) revealed that 89% of high school computer science teachers indicated that they experience a sense of isolation and a lack of collegial support within schools and school districts. Noting that rapid changes to both technology and teaching provide significant challenges, the teachers also indicated that their greatest professional development need was actually finding time for their own on-going learning (CSTA, 2005). They also indicated that the on-going battle for adequate resources, the lack of acceptance and understanding of computer science as a scientific discipline distinct from technology training, and increasing budget cuts in these times of fiscal restraint deterred many interested and qualified teachers from teaching computer science. One additional persistent and often ignored problem is that there is little motivation for those with the requisite skills to pursue a career teaching high school computer science. In most jurisdictions, teachers 9 salaries are so low and the working conditions so unpleasant when compared to other career fields, that it is impossible for education to attract individuals with the appropriate skills. Even for those who are considering a second career in computer science education and for whom salary issues may not be a primary factor, the lack of consistent and readily available information concerning certification requirements make it almost impossible to determine how one should go about preparing for such a career change. 1.3 IS REAL CHANGE POSSIBLE? Education is a highly complex and multifaceted environment within which an almost unimaginable number of policies, methodologies, strategies, ideologies, and bureaucracies interact (Bauch & Goldring, 2000). And while at its most basic level, the transition of knowledge might appear as a simple process, effective teaching depends significantly upon the contexts within which teachers work 4department and social organization and culture, professional associations and networks, community educational values and norms, and secondary and higher education policies (McLaughlin, 1992). These contexts determine not only what is taught and how it is taught, but also the value placed upon a given academic discipline 9s place within the larger school curriculum and the resources that are made available to instructors. At present, many of the changes that occur within education are the result of small-scale bottom-up innovation at the individual school level. Usually, such change is structural and superficial and rarely translates into large-scale innovation at the system or national levels (Ballantyne, McLean, & Macpherson, 2003). In effect, such changes tinker with, but do not transform, the educational culture. They do not lead to lasting change because they do not change what people in the organization value and how they work to accomplish it (Fullan, 2002). To date many initiatives have been launched and much money has been spent on proposed innovations that have resulted in very little change over time, primarily because these initiatives have 21 failed to grapple with the multiplicity of demands and expectations placed upon schools and teachers. The reasons such undertakings fail are multitudinous, but such failures most commonly result from some or all of the following factors. 1. Too many messages. The education system is bombarded with demands for changes from multiple external stakeholders in all curriculum areas, resulting in too much competition for attention and resources. Everyone has an answer, but no one really sees his/her own suggestions within the holistic framework of education. 2. Poor communication of Return on Investment (ROI). Outside interests urge and expect schools to change but fail to consider or effectively communicate what the ROI will be for students, teachers, and administrators. 3. The barrier of vocabulary. The field of education has its own language where seemingly simple phrases (such as assessment-based learning) can be a minefield for unsuspecting outsiders. 4. A lack of respect for K 312 educators. Pre-college educators are often treated with disdain by their university colleagues, by industry, and by politicians. Even those most interested in building partnerships with K 312 frequently undermine their own good intentions with their profound lack of understanding about what it means to teach in a K 312 environment. 5. Frustration with past failures. Over the years, industry representatives have become increasingly frustrated by the frequency with which they have contributed to initiatives with little or no lasting impact or return. The problem is that those promising to ensure these changes do not have a foundational understanding of issues of change or the efficacy of change agents in the K 312 arena. Systemic educational change demands a profound understanding of and engagement with the culture in which the change must take place. While achieving the level of change required to address the current issues in high school computer science education in U.S. schools may seem like an impossible challenge, time has shown that when sufficient recognition, resources, and long-term commitment are brought to bear on a national challenge, the unthinkable can be achieved. 1.4 HOW CAN THIS DOCUMENT HELP? The purpose of this document is to set forth some of the important factors that must be considered in order to achieve a substantial improvement to high school computer science education, an improvement that must occur if we are to meet the shifting knowledge needs of our citizens and so remain a competitive force within the global economic community. To achieve this, we must begin by acknowledging that other nations may have knowledge they can share with us, that will help us ensure that we use our resources wisely and do not repeat mistakes that others have already made. The second chapter of this document, therefore, provides a comprehensive review of the international body of research relating to high school computer science education. It examines the issues that have been raised, the challenges that have been identified, and the solutions that have been proposed. The third chapter provides an analysis of five countries, including the United States, in which efforts to design and implement a comprehensive high school computer science curriculum have been undertaken. This chapter demonstrates that defining the curriculum is really just a first step and that the factors that determine the extent to which that curriculum is actually implemented may in fact be more important than the curriculum itself. The last section draws from all of the previous sections of the document to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations and strategies that will significantly increase the likelihood that our national efforts to improve high school computer science education will achieve long-term success. 22 1.5 REFERENCES ACM K 312 Task Force. (2005). ACM K 312 Task Force Curriculum Survey Results. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://csta.acm.org/Research/ sub/TuckerSurveyResults.html Ballantyne, R., McLean, S. V., & Macpherson, I. (2003). Knowledge and skills required for creating a culture of innovation: Supporting innovative teaching and learning practices. Brisbane: Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology. Bauch, P. A., & Goldring, E. B. (2000). Teacher work context and parent involvement in urban high schools of choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6 (1), 1 323. Computer Science Teachers Association (2005a). Strategic Plan. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://csta.acm.org/About/sub/ CSTAStrategicPlan.html/. Computer Science Teachers Association. (2005). Results of the national secondary computer science survey . Retrieved October 16, 2005 from http://csta.acm.org/Research/sub/ CSTANationalSurvey2004.html Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59 (8), 16 321. Information Technology Association of America. (2002). Bouncing Back: Job skills and the continuing demand for IT workers. Arlington, VA: Information Technology Association of America. McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). How district communities do and do not foster teacher pride. Educational Leadership, 50 (1), 33 335. National Research Council Committee on Information Technology Literacy. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sargent, J. (2004). An overview of past and projected employment changes in the professional IT occupations. Computing Research News, 16 (3), 1 322. Shackelford, R. (2005). Why can 9t smart people figure out what to do about computing education. Presentation at the CSTA/ISTE Computer Science and Information Technology Symposium, Philadelphia, PA. Taulbee, O. E. (2003). 2002 32003 Taulbee study: Undergraduate enrollments drop; Department growth expectations moderate. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.cra.org/statistics/ The College Board. (2005). AP report to the nation. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/ ap/2005/index.html Tucker, A., Deek, F., Jones, J., McCowan, D., Stephenson, C. and Verno, A. (2003). A model curriculum for K 312 computer science: Report of the ACM K 312 Education Task Force Computer Science Curriculum Committee. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. 23 CHAPTER TWO CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES IN HIGH SCHOOL COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION: A RETROSOPECTIVE LITERATURE REVIEW 24 2.0 INTRODUCTION Computer science is considered a young and a rapidly developing discipline, and its cextremely short history has led to a diversity of opinions about its very substance d (Gal-Ezer & Harel, 1998, p. 79). While many educators believe that computer science should be taught to prospective students as an independent subject (Gurbiel, Hardt-Olejniczak, & Kolczyk, 2005) and as a full-fledged scientific subject on a par with other scientific subjects (Gal-Ezer, Beeri, Harel, & Yehudai, 1995), others contend that it should be offered as a set of integrated courses that link computing to other subjects (Dagienë, 2005). This discussion about how computer science should be taught is further complicated by the fact that many people have difficulty identifying exactly what computer science is. As a result, educators have been deliberating how to portray the field to others (especially to newcomers) in a compact, compelling, and coherent way (Denning, 2004), and how to expose others to a bird 9s-eye view of the field (Gal-Ezer & Harel, 1998). In recent years computer science education research has received increasing interest and recognition in the computer science education community (Holmboe, McIver, & George, 2001; Dale, 2002; Almstrum, Hazzan, & Ginat, 2004; Fincher & Petre, 2004; Goldweber, Fincher, Clark, & Pears, 2004). Holmboe, McIver, & George (2001), for example, provided the following general categorization of computer science education research to date: " New, untested ideas and methods for teaching and learning. " Reports from the trenches 4sharing ideas and techniques for teaching in particular courses. " Discussion of theory 4with regard to epistemological theories such as constructivism. " Computer-aided learning and intelligent systems 4aimed at learning about the students 9 ways of thinking and giving feedback. " Expert/novice differences as a means of setting up benchmarks for novice achievement. " Empirical studies, which focus on real programming, as a basis for creating effective tools for teaching programming. Despite the increased interest in computer science education research by the educational research community, there are still many open questions relating to computer science education at the high school level for which answers are still very much needed. These include: " Should we really teach computer science in high school, or is it best left to be taught at the post-secondary level? " What are the goals of high school computer science education, which topics should be taught, and how should the curriculum be organized? " How can we successfully promote a massive implementation of a new computer science curriculum? " What pedagogic strategies and methods of instruction should be applied to reduce the complexity and instability that characterizes a dynamic discipline? " How should computer science teachers best be prepared to cope with the increasing complexity and rapid change? " How should we cope with students 9 preconceptions and expectations, and how should we better address gender differences and minorities 9 special needs? All of these questions have become more pressing in light of current concerns regarding dropping enrollments in computer science courses at all educational levels and predictions of high tech worker shortages worldwide. For many countries, the relationship between an educational system that produces workers capable of building the technology tools that the rest of the world will use and long-term economic prosperity is becoming increasing clear. This has led to efforts to improve computer science education, especially at the high school level, where many students have their first opportunity to test their interest and ability in this field. In the United States, however, the situation is far more tenuous as the lack of national standards in both curriculum and teacher certification have resulted in significant discrepancies in both quality and quantity, not just from state to state but from school to school. In addition, lack of administrator understanding of the nature and importance of this complex and evolving discipline may actually be diminishing support for computer science as part of the high school curriculum at exactly the time that it should be receiving more attention and support. The aim of this review of computer science education research is to illuminate various aspects of computer science education at the high school level, and to summarize reported studies and field experiences, as well as educators 9 recommendations for addressing the questions outlined above. 2.1 COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS The research on high school computer science education is complex, not just because there is a lot of it and it focuses on many different aspects of education, but also because it is truly international in scope, with researchers from many countries contributing to the growing body of knowledge. This section provides a brief overview of high school computer science education in the United States, Israel, and European countries with the goal of providing a snapshot of its current focus and status internationally. 2.1.1 United States In fall 2004, the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA, 2005) surveyed 14,000 high school computer science, computer programming, and computer applications teachers in an attempt to provide a baseline understanding of high school computer science education in the United States. The survey respondents (1,047 teachers) provided a rich body of data on the current state of computer science education including the following (Roberts & Halopoff, 2005). " Many institutions teach computing courses at a lower level than the Advanced Placement (AP) curriculum suggests; programming is the most commonly covered topic, followed by hardware, ethics, graphics, and web development (in that order). Courses that focus on applications are less likely to cover programming and vice versa. " Schools offer more pre-AP computer science courses than AP courses, and the AP courses tend to have significantly fewer students. " The percentage of women declines from 32% in the pre-AP courses to 23% in the AP program. " Teachers believe the primary reason that students are not taking computer science courses is that they cannot fit them into their tightly prescribed timetables. " Teachers perceive the crapidly changing technology d as a serious problem and the greatest challenge in teaching computer science. " Teachers indicated ctime for training d as an important professional development need and preferred short workshops as the most effective 25 method for delivering professional development. " Teachers are surprisingly poorly informed about the rules concerning curriculum content and teacher certification and the administrative structures within their own states. 2.1.2 Israel In Israel, computer science has existed as an autonomous subject in the high school curriculum since the mid-1970s. As in many countries, however, despite its successful implementation and the involvement of many highly respected educators and researchers in the development and evolution of its curriculum, it still suffers from the perception that it is not a full-fledged scientific subject like physics, biology, or chemistry. Originally, the curriculum focused on programming and included elective Information Technologies modules such as electronic spreadsheet language. Since 1991, however, a new curriculum that places significantly more emphasis on principles and theoretical aspects has been gradually implemented in Israeli high schools. The new curriculum cemphasizes the foundations of algorithmic thinking, and teaches programming as a way to get the computer to carry out an algorithm d (Gal-Ezer, Beeri, Harel & Yehudai, 1995, p. 73). The program is modular and comes in two versions 4basic and advanced. It includes mandatory Fundamentals and Software Design modules as well as elective modules, including Second Paradigm, Theory, and Applications. The success of the high school computer science curriculum in Israel is largely due to the care with which the government planned the implementation process and the resources that were put in place to support that implementation. This support included the development of course materials (learning materials for students and corresponding teacher guides) and an intensive in-service teacher training program (Gal-Ezer, et al. 1995; Haberman & Ginat, 1999). 2.1.3 Europe Asubstantial body of research on computing education in Europe has supported the argument that educational standards, continuous teacher training,

less