SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM Archives

SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM

SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Joel Sommers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Joel Sommers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:08:53 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (103 lines)
Hi, all,

FWIW, I’d just like to second Doug’s sentiment below, to focus largely on the two apparent needs identified in the SIGCSE charge with likely resolutions to those items being to form a permanent group.  I totally agree that taking more of a broad, open-ended approach is not likely to lead to much (and I, for one, think that the two identified needs are “real”, as I think many or all of you do).  Some kind of middle road might work, but I personally feel like a more concrete focus is a better approach.

Joel


> 
> Date:    Thu, 15 Jun 2017 14:41:24 -0400
> From:    Douglas Baldwin <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: SIGCSE Liberal Arts Survey?
> 
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Amanda Holland-Minkley <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> 
> 
>> 
> As far as the larger question of, do we need a survey on these topics, I'm
>> wondering what our end goal is as a group. I know that this is a short-term
>> committee and that we need to assemble a report (this summer, I think?).
>> 
> 
> In some sense our end goal is defined by the Committee's charge from SIGCSE
> (see http://sigcse.org/sigcse/programs/committees/liberal), which is to
> confirm or refute two apparent needs,but  also to identify any other needs
> and suggest ways of meeting any or all of said needs. The two apparent
> needs are (1) for a "voice" that can speak for liberal arts computing
> programs to the larger computing community, e.g., on ACM curriculum
> committees, and (2) for a place -- perhaps a virtual one -- where members
> of the liberal arts CS community can get together with each other. I think
> we already have a pretty good sense that (2) is widely felt, less of a
> sense on (1), and the final "identify any other and suggest resolutions"
> clause leaves us wide open to do almost anything.
> 
> 
> There are lots of things that could mean for further surveys, starting with
> more from Amanda's message:
> 
> If we think that we want to propose to SIGCSE that there is demand for a
>> standing group, seeing the amount of information that people want about how
>> liberal arts CS education is being structured and that we don't have could
>> be a compelling part of the argument. Additionally, we don't currently have
>> a good place to house any information we gather - hopefully becoming a more
>> long-term group could justify establishing a home for this sort of content.
>> 
> 
>> If we do want to gather more survey data, I might be inclined to assemble
>> more of a meta-survey to build on what we learned at SIGCSE and find out
>> from a larger set of those involved in CS education if we've correctly
>> identified the major issues and concerns faculty at liberal arts
>> institutions have or not. We could likely assemble the survey from the
>> summary document we already have.
>> 
> 
> To my mind, this says we treat most of the questions raised by the SIGCSE
> conversation as demonstrating the need for an ongoing body that can conduct
> studies of liberal arts computing and curate the resulting data over a long
> period of time. The Committee can then recommend creation of such a body
> and refer most further surveying to it, maybe focusing any survey and
> reading we do in the next few months on item (1) from our charge. This
> might lead us to identify a few new needs from the SIGCSE conversation, but
> to only offering resolutions to items (1) and (2), both resolutions quite
> likely being "form a permanent group." I think this is a very reasonable
> way to go should we choose it.
> 
> But another way we could go is to treat the SIGCSE conversation as
> identifying the other needs that the liberal arts CS community thinks are
> important, leading us to try to understand and report on all of them.
> Personally I think this is too open-ended, and takes us way into a gray
> area of identifying genuine "needs" vs gathering data to answer questions
> that follow from those needs. The long survey it suggests would be hard to
> design and hard to get respondents to wade through. But if there was a big
> turnout of volunteers for this approach, and/or it turned out most of the
> questions/issues from SIGCSE were already addressed somewhere in existing
> literature and data, we could try this.
> 
> And, of course, there are middle ways between the above: leaving most of
> what we identified at SIGCSE for a permanent body to pursue, but taking on
> a few items that we, in whatever way, decide are particularly important
> now, etc.
> 
> So, do others of you have feelings about which of these courses, or others,
> you'd like to follow?
> 
> 
> In all cases I prefer not designing a survey and gathering data that
> already exists somewhere else though, thus the literature and other data
> sets search part of the project. (I didn't quote it, but another part of
> Amanda's message mentioned looking at reports from the NDC and Taulbee
> surveys and finding that the results don't have a "liberal arts" category
> per se).
> 
> Finally, we do need to produce a report. I think it would be nice for that
> report to be in essentially final form in time to give an oral version at
> SIGCSE 2018, with a written one appearing soon after.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of SIGCSE-LIBARTS-COMM Digest - 13 Jun 2017 to 15 Jun 2017 (#2017-5)
> ************************************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2