Computer Science Curriculum in B.C.

Introduction

As an instructor of computer science at Simon Fraser University, one of my roles involves assessing the level of computer science knowledge possessed by high school graduates and the ease of their transition into higher education. These assessments help the school to evaluate the adequacy of our university’s introductory computer science courses. Unfortunately, we have observed that a considerable number of students are struggling with our first-year programming courses.

In this article, I will explore the recommendations made by the British Columbia government regarding the computer science field in grade schools. Specifically, I will investigate how these recommendations are being implemented in schools across the Lower Mainland and evaluate whether they are effective in preparing students for university-level computer science coursework. By doing this, I hope to shed light on the current state of computer science education in our region and make recommendations for improving the preparation of students for university-level computer science coursework.

Computer Science Curriculum Recommendations in K-12 Schools

There are two ways to incorporate CS concepts into a grade’s curriculum: as an entire course or as an integration of existing materials. A common misconception about computer science is that it has a bi-conditional relationship with coding, that they are one and the same. In fact, a well-designed curriculum must also include critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, communication skills, technical writing skills, and testing methodologies, among other vital skills. Successful implementation of a computer science curriculum not only contains coding but also equips students with other diverse tools for their future careers.

The BC government website (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/adst) recommends that students from kindergarten to grade 3 are introduced to computer science basics, such as algorithms, sequencing, and problem-solving concepts, through interactive, “non-computer” activities. In grades 4-5, students move on to learn about block-based programming, granting them an entry into coding and the ability to create interactive digital media. In grades 6-7, students now apply their computational thinking skills to solve real-world problems using charts, lists, diagrams, and arrays with an introduction to computer architecture and hardware, responsible computer use, and visual programming. Finally, in grades 8-9, students learn about basic software instructions with algorithms that others can repeat, debugging algorithms, elementary modularization, binary data representation and programming languages, including visual programming.

In Grade 10, students will delve into topics such as security risks, debugging, networking, social implications, digital literacy and citizenship, and planning and writing simple programs (including games). In a separate course, it is recommended that students explore Computer Applications that center on understanding the importance of user experience. computer hardware, peripherals, internal and external components, standards, intermediate features of business applications, including word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations, operating system shortcuts and command line operations.

In addition, the B.C. government recommends a Web Development 10-course covering design opportunities, HTML and CSS, domain and hosting, copyright laws and Creative Commons usage protocols, ethics of cultural appropriation, security and privacy, and database management. While some of these areas may appear outdated, they still offer a solid understanding of web standards and communications.

In grades 11-12, students can enroll in Computer Programming 11 and 12, where they will learn various programming skills. These skills include the design cycle, error handling, debugging, problem decomposition, reading and altering code, pair programming, programming constructs such as input/output, conditions, and loops, algorithm design, functions, classes, pre-built libraries and their documentation, inline commenting to document source code, use of test cases to detect logical or semantic errors and software ethics.

In general, the suggested curriculum appears to be quite ambitious, and I have concerns about the extent and practicality of the material taught in the classroom. Several of the topics covered are typically introduced in second-level programming courses at the university level. If the high school curriculum can provide a sufficient depth of understanding, it would establish a strong foundation for many students, enabling them to tackle more advanced computer science courses without difficulty.

CS Curriculum implementations

Code.org (https://studio.code.org/courses?view=teacher) is the leading resource for computer science education, offering an excellent and well-designed curriculum to introduce students to computer science at all grade levels.

For elementary school students (grades K-5), Code.org provides CS Fundamentals. This program includes “unplugged” non-computer activities to teach computational thinking, problem solving, programming concepts, and digital citizenship.

The middle school (grades 6-8) curriculum, known as Computer Science Discoveries, builds upon the elementary school program by introducing students to more advanced concepts at an intermediate level. These include web development, communication, and problem-solving.

For high school students (grades 9-12), Code.org offers more specialized courses in computer science for students who wish to dive deeper into the subject. These include physical computing, big data, privacy, and algorithms, and advanced placement (AP) courses in Java for more advanced students.

Code.org also offers professional development courses for educators to help them effectively teach computer science. The curriculum and courses provided by Code.org are designed to help students develop computational thinking and coding skills while broadening their understanding of computer science.

Out of the 37 public high schools in Burnaby, Surrey, and New Westminster, only 4 schools use code.org as a guide, and these schools are all associated with the Advanced Placement (AP) programs. These numbers suggest that schools are aware of the usefulness of code.org materials but need more staff to implement the courses. There needs to be a standardized curriculum across these schools.

For example, the Burnaby High School website describes Computer Science 10-12 as “an introductory programming course for students with no experience.  Learn to create video games for your phone, tablet, computer, or the web.” This description is very vague and suggests that these courses do not come close to implementing the recommendations set out by the B.C. government. Other schools in Burnaby do not even offer Computer Science 11/12 courses. In contrast, New Westminster Secondary offers Computer Programming 11/12, which fully implements the government’s recommendations and more. These courses should be AP courses, depending on the depth of coverage. The difference in offerings between the two school districts is concerning for students entering higher education computer science studies as it may result in significant differences in programming knowledge.

I attempted to reach out to over 20 Computer Science teachers from different schools in the New Westminster and Burnaby areas, but unfortunately, I did not receive any responses from them. Unfortunately, there is a lack of motivation and interest in enhancing their teaching methods in CS courses. In a recent conversation with Shannon Thissen, the Regional Administrator of Educational Technology and Computer Science in Capital Region ESD 113, she confirmed that this is a common issue in all communities. She suggested that CS mentorship and coaching could alleviate teachers’ fears and uncertainties about teaching the subject.

Conclusion

The BC government’s and code.org’s recommendations for computer science education are ambitious but achievable. Higher education instructors and industry leaders should collaborate with high school teachers to strengthen and standardize the various tools and workflows currently taught in the CS curriculum.

In subsequent posts on this topic, I plan to explore various initiatives and reach out to more teachers throughout BC to gather more specific information on the curriculum and materials being taught in classrooms. Additionally, I aim to investigate the differences in implementing CS 10, 11, and 12 courses in schools across BC. It would also be interesting to compare the needs of schools in the lower mainland, which are primarily middle to upper-middle class, with those in interior communities. By doing so, we can determine if there is a significant discrepancy in the quality of computer science education and explore potential solutions to bridge the gap.

Authentic PBL Experience in Software Engineering

Project-based learning (PBL) is a teaching approach that has recently gained popularity. It allows students to develop real-world problem-solving skills by working on a project in a classroom setting over an extended period. In software engineering, project-based learning has become a common approach to teaching students how to develop high-quality software. However, there has been debate over the authenticity of these projects, with some arguing that it does not accurately reflect real-world software development challenges and complexities. In this post, we will analyze the authenticity of a course-based software engineering project and how it can be improved to better prepare students for the challenges of the software development industry.

Software engineering Lifecycle and ISTE

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) contains a set of standards for students to use technology effectively for learning. The 4th ISTE standard for students is:

    This standard highlights the importance of students using digital tools to manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions, as well as the ability to think critically and analyze risks in design, which are essential skills in modern software development.

    The software development lifecycle embodies ISTE standard 4 for students, emphasizing the importance of producing high-quality software. The lifecycle comprises four primary stages: specification, design, implementation, and maintenance. The specification stage involves gathering and documenting the software requirements, while the design stage focuses on planning and structuring the software. The implementation stage is dedicated to developing and testing the software, and the maintenance stage involves monitoring and updating the software to ensure that it remains functional and usable over time. Each stage is an iterative process that produces partial outputs of the final deliverables.

    Teaching the software engineering lifecycle in a classroom can present several challenges. One of the main issues is that software development is a highly dynamic process that is difficult to replicate in a classroom setting. Classroom projects may lack the same complexity or scope as real-world software projects, which can hinder students’ understanding of the software development lifecycle. Additionally, classroom environments may not provide students with the same level of exposure to real-world tools and technologies commonly used in software development (Kay et al., 2000). To address these challenges, the following project design outline is intended to enhance the effectiveness of a PBL software engineering project by integrating real-world elements.

    Project Design

    This project design methodology draws inspiration from the backwards design approach (Wiggins, 2005), and it has been compiled from three PBL projects by Shekar et al. (2014), Abad et al. (2019), and Spichkova et al. (2015) that were effectively carried out.

    Through the project, students will understand the fundamental software lifecycle process and the reality of rapid changes in real-world requirements. They will also learn about the critical role of effective communication in ensuring customer satisfaction and the importance of maintaining quality standards throughout a software development project.

    The software project aims to improve students’ hard and soft skills. Hard skills, which are measurable and specific, consist of software development skills in a particular language or framework, project planning, and written communication. In contrast, soft skills are personal attributes that enable students to collaborate effectively, such as teamwork, decision-making, communication, and organization.

    To demonstrate a student’s understanding, the following evidence is required: appropriately documented changes made to the software at appropriate intervals, effective communication with the customer, including asking relevant questions, and the production of working software at the end of the development cycle that adheres to proper design and testing procedures.

    Shekar et al. (2019) have proposed a set of assessments that should include the following elements:

    • A project proposal that aims to replicate the initial phase of the software development lifecycle, including customer communication.
    • A detailed design that specifies various alternatives and justifies the selection of the chosen design.
    • A demonstration of the final product that establishes the student’s ability to effectively communicate their solution and exhibit a functional end product.
    • The final project report that confirms that the software product was constructed according to the proposed design and testing procedures during the entire software development process.
    • A self-reflection component that involves maintaining a journal that records successes, failures, and evaluations of team members.

    Best Practices

    Software Engineering educators encounter a significant challenge in balancing the provision of a realistic experience and maintaining classroom control when designing a project. The guidelines and best practices presented below are once again derived from successful project designs outlined in Shekar et al. (2014), Abad et al. (2019), and Spichkova et al. (2015).

    1. Provide real-world connections and real industry experience. Providing inadequate project specifications and forcing requirements to change can effectively challenge students and prepare them for real-world scenarios. A vagueness in the problem description from the client will force students to ask questions and shape their requirements-gathering workflow. Furthermore, a requirements change later in the process can force students to adapt and develop explicit change management skills (Abad et al. 2019).
    2. Include flexibility and team-oriented decision-making. In the approach by Abad et al. (2019), students can exercise flexibility in their development process by selecting from various software process models, including Opportunistic, Waterfall, Spiral, Concurrent, or Scrum, and justifying their choice of methodology for their system development. They can also modify their chosen process model as the project advances. Similarly, in Spichkova et al.’s (2015) approach, the design architecture incorporates a team-oriented decision-making component to encourage collaborative decision-making among team members.
    3. Focus on team dynamics. Effective teamwork is a critical factor in the success of a project. It is essential to clarify that everyone has an equal role and that all team members share ownership of the code base (Sepahkar et al., 2014). According to Bates (2022), another crucial aspect is establishing an interactive and asynchronous communication medium which all team members can access and utilize. Examples of such mediums include Facebook messenger, MS teams, and Discord. This fosters a collaborative environment where all team members are accountable to each other and can respond promptly to ensure the success of the project.
    4. Include personal reflections. Shekar et al. (2014) suggest incorporating personal reflection journals at each stage of the development process. This gives students a high-level view of the entire process and allows them to reflect on their progress. In the reflection journal, students should consider what went well during each stage, any unexpected difficulties they encountered, how to improve pacing, engagement, and assessments, and how to align each stage more closely with the primary objectives of the iteration.

    Conclusion

    Providing an authentic project-based learning experience in software engineering can be a challenging but rewarding experience for software engineering educators. By designing projects that simulate real-world scenarios, students can develop both technical and soft skills that are crucial for success in the software development industry. Moreover, incorporating assessment strategies that align with the software development lifecycle and emphasizing effective communication, collaboration, and self-reflection can enhance the learning experience for students. By following the guidelines and best practices proposed, educators can strike a balance between providing students with a realistic experience, maintaining classroom control, and preparing them for the challenges and opportunities in the software engineering industry.

    Reference:

    Kay, J., Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., Hollands, O., Kingston, J. H., & Crawford, K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer Science Education10(2), 109-128.

    Sepahkar, M., Hendessi, F., & Nabiollahi, A. (2015). Defining Project Based Learning steps and evaluation method for software engineering students. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security13(10), 48.

    Spichkova, M. (2019, November). Industry-oriented project-based learning of software engineering. In 2019 24th International conference on engineering of complex computer systems (ICECCS) (pp. 51-60). IEEE.

    Shekar, A. (2014, June). Project-based learning in engineering design education: sharing best practices. In 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 24-1016).

    Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association For Supervision And Curriculum Development.

    Bates, A. W. (Tony). (2022). 7.5 Broadcast or interactive media? Pressbooks.bccampus.ca. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev3m/chapter/8-3-broadcast-vs-communicative-technologies/

    Abad, Z. S. H., Bano, M., & Zowghi, D. (2019, May). How much authenticity can be achieved in software engineering project based courses?. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET) (pp. 208-219). IEEE.