PANEL: Possible Futures for CS2
Not too long ago the issues surrounding the second course in computer 
science, usually referred to as CS2, were simpler than today.  CS I was 
mostly taught in Pascal, and it was mostly a programming course.  Most 
of Pascal was taught in CS 1, so CS2 could start with that assumption.  
CS2 was based on Curriculum 78.
Today C or C++, or some other language, has largely replaced Pascal 
in CS 1. CS2 has had to adapt to this change, and many people have 
come to question whether the topics covered in CS2 in the Good Old 
Days make sense today anyway.  Many other things demand to be 
included, and it is not possible to add topics without taking something 
out.  The panelists sketch the forces they see causing CS2 to change, 
and suggest directions they would like to see it go.

PANEL: Refereed Papers, The Digital Library, and the Future of the
       SIGCSE Bulletin
The SIGCSE Bulletin has served its membership and the computing 
profession for almost three decades.  From its beginnings, 
the Bulletin has provided a vehicle for a variety of content 
information that has taken many forms; these include articles 
of in depth content, informal commentaries, information items, 
and news for the SIGCSE membership.
The Bulletin has traditionally been a forum for new and 
innovative ways to teach computer science.  As such, the goal 
has been to publish articles that reflect "untested" approaches 
-- untested in the sense that they have not been subjected 
to the more rigorous criteria used to evaluate refereed articles.
The goal has been to publish fresh ideas quickly from a broad 
group of teachers from around the world.
Two forces have brought the Bulletin to new crossroads.  The 
first is the use of modem electronic media.  Until recently, 
the Bulletin was the primary vehicle for informal communication 
among the SIGCSE members.  Computing education news is now 
achievable in real time to all subscribers of electronic 
listings.  
The second force is the notion of refereed articles.  The ACM 
and SIGCSE never intended the Bulletin to be a refereed journal.  
It is a SIG newsletter and follows the spirit and guidelines of 
the ACM Publications Board.  Yet, some educators feel that a 
published article in the Bulletin has little academic value.  
This may be a reason submissions to the Bulletin have decreased 
in recent years.  These educators seek new avenues for publishing 
and look toward the Bulletin, or perhaps a new publication, to 
satisfy the academic needs of their colleagues.
A new dimension to the situation is the recent emergence of the 
ACM Digital Library (DL).  The DL is an electronic mechanism by 
which individuals who have access rights to the library can use 
its database, including the retrieval of full-text articles.  
ACM makes such rights available to all ACM members and nonmembers 
on a fee basis.  Currently, ACM publishes electronically all 
refereed journals from 1991.  It expects that SIG newsletters 
will also have this publication mode.  When this occurs, the 
DL will affect all SIG newsletters.  We would like to ensure 
that the Bulletin is poised so that it will benefit by its 
inclusion in the DL.
The SIGCSE membership should address several questions 
related to its publications and its technical symposium.  
We suggest a few of these questions.
Should the non-proceedings issues of the Bulletin change?  
Should we make provisions so that we referee some articles 
appearing in non-proceedings issues?  
If so, how does this change the nature and the format of 
the non-proceedings Bulletin issues?  
What about the proceedings issues?  
Should the role or format of the Technical Symposium change?  
Does the current Bulletin address satisfactorily the publication 
needs of its membership?  
How can we improve the Bulletin?  
Should SIGCSE launch a refereed journal as a new publication?  
Will the DL have a negative effect on the Bulletin?  
How can we ensure that the DL will enhance the quality and exposure 
of the Bulletin?
These and other questions should concern the SIGCSE members and 
they should discuss them in different forums and settings.
This presentation attempts to bring forward some critical issues 
facing SIGCSE and its Bulletin.  The panelists will express their 
thoughts from a historical perspective and from current needs 
and trends.  We trust that this presentation is a first step to 
generate further discussion that addresses the publication issues 
and the future directions of SIGCSE.  We look forward to a 
stimulating discussion and encourage audience participation.

Panel: Accommodating Diversity Of Academic Preparation in CS1
Summary
Students come into CS I with a variety of academic and 
programming backgrounds.  Panelists and audience members 
will discuss the consequences of this fact, and 
explore a variety of strategies for coping with the situation.
Introduction.
Some students who enroll in a beginning programming course 
may hardly have touched a computer before, while others may 
have several years of programming on the their high school 
transcripts, or even have professional experience.  Better
prepared students may be bored and disillusioned; 
less-prepared students may feel intimidated and inadequate.  
Such factors may contribute to high attrition and to 
the declining numbers of women and minorities majoring 
in computing sciences.
Colleges have tried a number of strategies (audience members 
may know of others that should be added to the list):
Offer multiple versions of the CS I course.  Note: often these are 
directed toward different career paths rather than based on student 
background.  The focus of this panel is on where students are 
coming from, not where they are headed.  
Put all students through the same program, but try to recognize 
student differences.  E.g. different assignments; experience-based 
groupings for labs or recitation sessions, honors sections, etc.
Offer accelerated versions of CS1 or accelerated versions which 
incorporate CS2 material 
Accept the results of placement tests or credit by examination 
(such as AP)
Provide an exceptional degree of additional tutoring or mentoring 
for the less-experienced student
Structure CS I as a "leveler" course which emphasizes material 
which students are unlikely to have seen in high school
Offer a CSO course covering logic, problem solving, and basic 
programming concepts
Provide a collaborative or cooperative learning environment for 
all students
These strategies have consequences with respect to staffing; 
administrative overhead; economics; effect on more advanced courses; 
recruiting and retention of majors (perhaps particularly women 
and under-represented minorities), etc.

Computer Science Accreditation: Current Status and 
Future Directions
Lawrence G. Jones: Coordinator
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
lgj@sei.cmu.edu
Keith Barker
University of Connecticut
keith@cse.uconn.edu
Susan Conry
Clarkson University
conry@clarkson.edu
Doris Lidtke
Towson University
lidtke@acm.org
Accreditation of undergraduate programs in computing within the United States
began in 1984. A Joint Task Force of the Computer Society of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE-CS) and the Association for
Computing Machinery (ACM) established the Computing Sciences Accreditation
Board (CSAB) to oversee these accreditation activities.   The Computer Science
Accreditation Commission (CSAC), currently the only commission of the CSAB,
administers the accreditation process for undergraduate programs in computer
science. 
At this point in time, many professional accrediting bodies, including
CSAB/CSAC, are taking a fresh look at their evaluative criteria and processes
for accreditation. The purpose of this seminar is to present a perspective on
computer science accreditation, where it has been and where it is going. A
major focus of this seminar is to present proposed changes to the evaluative
criteria as part of a public review and comment process.
The panel will consist of four short presentations and a discussion session.
The first presentation will give a history and current status of computer
science accreditation in the United States. The second presentation will
describe the current CSAB/CSAC evaluative criteria. The third presentation
will describe the current accreditation process. The final presentation will
describe proposed changes in structure and content to the CSAB/CSAC criteria
for accreditation. Ample time will be provided for questions and discussion
with the audience. Audience comments will be recorded for consideration by
CSAB/CSAC.
Background of the panel participants:
Dr. Jones is the current Co-Chair of the CSAC Criteria Committee.
Dr. Barker is a Past-President of the CSAC Executive Committee.
Dr. Conry is the current President of CSAB.
Dr. Lidtke is the Past-President of CSAB.

Panel:  Integration of Mathematical Topics in CS1 and CS2
The purpose of this panel is to discuss the possibility of integration 
of the appropriate mathematical topics in the CS1 and CS2 courses.  
Practically, every university/institute offering an undergraduate program 
in computer science offers one or two courses in discrete mathematics for 
CS majors. It seems desirable to introduce some of these topics (discrete 
mathematics) in the beginning courses along with the programming concepts - 
so that, a student can appreciate (and use) the theoretical concepts as 
meaningful to the field of programming.
The session will begin with a brief presentation from each of the 
panelists, and then we will open the floor for general discussion
and debate. A survey about such integration will be conducted from
the audience in this session.

Panel: The Retention of Women in the Computing Sciences
The recruiting and retention of women in the computing sciences has been
an area of study for many years. In 1992, 49% of all high school graduates
prepared and interested in the computer science and engineering disciplines
were woman. Of the bachelor of science degrees awarded, only 31% went to
women in these fields of study. Women represented only 28% of the master's
degrees and 11% of the Ph.D.s awarded during that time.
A panel of six discuss why women who are initially attracted to computer science
bail out without completing degree requirements, most in the first two years
of undergraduate study. The panelists present diverse positions as to why
fewer women persevere and experimental efforts for increasing the retention 
rate among women. The action plans developed from the investigations include
curriculum changes and support group activities. The panelists share feedback
from surveys, program modifications, support group activities and personal
experiences to provide a comprehensive view of the problem and possible
solutions applicable to a wide range of environments.

Panel:  Approaches for Encouraging
        High School/College Faculty Interaction
Henry M. Walker, moderator
Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA 50112
walker@math.grin.edu; 515-269-4208
Laura Baker
St. Edwards University, Austin, TX
lbaker@acad.stedwards.edu
Gail Chapman 
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ
gchapman@ets.org
Kathleen Larson 
Kingston High School, Kingston, NY
klarson@ulster.net
Joseph Kmoch 
Washington High School, Milwaukee, WI
kmoch@whscdp.whs.edu
Computer science education at the high school and college levels is closely
interconnected.  High school faculty want to prepare their students for
success in college; college faculty want incoming students to have
appropriate backgrounds and perspectives for college courses.  While these
interests of high school and college faculties clearly complement each
other, the successful preparation of students requires on-going interaction
between faculties.
To be effective, this interaction should cover a wide variety of subjects.
Clearly, part of any discussion should include content areas, such as
student skills and knowledge.  In addition, high school and college faculty
need to understand the special opportunities and constraints that are part
of each other's environments.  For example, high school classes typically
meet daily -- with much in-class, student/teacher interaction, while many
college classes meet less often with higher expectations for homework.
High school teachers may have extensive conversations with parents, while
conversations between college faculty and parents may be limited by law.
With the differences between high school and college settings, faculty at
all levels need to be particularly sensitive to what they have in common
and how their environments might differ.  While many beginning computer
science courses at high schools and colleges often seek to cover similar
content, teachers may use different pedagogical techniques, students
may be at different developmental levels, schools may have different
levels of computing equipment, and scheduling constraints on laboratory
facilities may differ.  Discussions of such differences can stimulate ideas
for new pedagogy at all levels.  However, the effectiveness of interactions
among faculty may depend as much on how willing individuals are to listen
as on how much they contribute.  For example, experts in pedagogy for one
level may find their assumptions do not apply at another level.
This panel will seek to identify a variety of approaches that may help
promote interactions between high school and college faculty.  Each
panelist has extensive experience with several formats for activities
involving both high school and college faculty.
After initial presentations, it is hoped that audience members will
brainstorm with panelists about additional approaches.

Panel: Advanced Placement Transition to C++
The Advanced Placement Computer Science (APCS) course and examination
will use C++ beginning with the 1998-99 academic year. To facilitate
the process of incorporating C++ based APCS courses into high schools,
an APCS ad hoc committee comprised of high school teachers and university
faculty, including two SIGCSE representatives, was convened in 1995-96.
In addition to advising the APCS Test Development Committee on how C++ 
should be used, one of the primary goals of the ad hoc committee was 
to foster a dialogue with the SIGCSE community and with the broader field
of Computer Science educators. Now that the APCS C++ subset and classes 
have been finalized, this panel will serve as a forum for presenting
information about the C++ subset, concerns related to making a smooth
transition to C++, and discussion of issues related to the future of 
the APCS course.

Panel: Associate-Level Programs for Preparation of 
       Computer Support Personnel
In 1993, the ACM Two-Year College Education Committee published, through 
ACM Press, a four volume set titled "Computing Curricula Guidelines for
Associate-Degree Programs". One of the areas covered by these guidelines
was a forward-thinking area called Computer Support Services (CSS). The CSS
guidelines identified the necessary skills needed for computer support
services positions and included course and curriculum guidelines for
associate-level programs to prepare students for entry-level positions
such as Microcomputer Support Specialist, Network Cable Installer,
Hardware Maintenance Technician, and Network Systems Administrator.
With positions moving from manufacturing to services, there has been
a renewed interest at two-year colleges to implement a version of the 
CSS curriculum. An increasing number of graduates with traditional C.S.
and C.I.S. associate-level degrees are actually taking entry-level jobs
in computer-user support fields. Joyce Currie Little and Karl J. Klee,
members of the Two-Year College Education Committee, will discuss the 
original CSS curriculum recommendations that were formulated between
1990-1992. Each of the remaining panelists will discuss a CSS model that
was recently implemented at their college. Copies of these implementations 
will be made available for discussion. Audience input will be solicited.
 

Panel: Large Introductory Courses in Research 
       Computer Science Departments
Moderator:
David G. Kay, Lecturer in Computer Science 
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425
kay@uci.edu
Panelists:
Jacobo Carrasquel, Lecturer in Computer Science
School of Computer Science
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15123
jxc@cs.cmu.edu
Michael J. Clancy, Senior Lecturer
Computer Science Division
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
clancy@cs.berkeley.edu
Eric Roberts, Professor and Associate Chair for Education
Department of Computer Science
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
eroberts@cs.stanford.edu
Joseph Zachary, Associate Professor and Director of Educational Programs
Department of Computer Science
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 87112
zachary@cs.utah.edu
Introductory courses offered by computer science 
departments in research universities have several 
characteristics that distinguish them from courses with 
similar content at other institutions:
-- Often the class sizes are large, ranging even to 
hundreds of students per class.
-- The course content changes frequently, but often not 
in a direction that parallels the research interests of 
faculty.
-- Often the main group of faculty in the department are 
not significantly rewarded for time they devote to 
introductory education, which can decrease their 
involvement in those courses.
This panel will explore strategies, policies, and 
procedures used by different research departments to 
address these issues.  Topics covered will include the 
use of non-research faculty to teach and manage 
introductory courses and curricula; levels of support 
for hardware, software, section leaders, lab 
assistants, graders, clerical and technical staff; 
teaching loads; and procedures for making curricular 
decisions.
The panelists all have significant responsibility for 
introductory courses in their departments.  Each of 
their departments has taken specific steps to address 
the conflict between research demands and introductory 
teaching in computer science.

Panel: Logic in the Computer Science Curriculum
Moderator: Moshe Y. Vardi, Rice University
Panelists: Kim B. Bruce, Williams College 
           Phokion G. Kolaitis, University of California at Santa Cruz 
           Daniel M. Leivant, Indiana University 
Logic has been called the "calculus of computer science".
The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in
computer science, similar to that played by calculus in
the physical sciences and traditional engineering 
disciplines.  Unlike calculus, however, the central place
of logic in the computer science curriculum is far from
universally accepted.
The focus of our panel is the role of logic in the computer
science curriculum.

Panel:  Integrating Recent Research Results into Undergraduate Curricula:  
        Initial Steps
Introduction
On July 7-11, 60 computer scientists came together at The Evergreen State 
College in Olympia, Washington to consider how the undergraduate curricula 
might be improved in light of recent research in computer science.  At this 
NSF-funded workshop, researchers presented work in four areas where current 
research might be particularly relevant, and undergraduate faculty 
(with experience in software engineering, functional programming, artificial 
intelligence, discrete mathematics or theoretical computer science) explored 
the current state of undergraduate computer science curricula and ways in 
which they might be better informed by recent research.
Each participant attended sessions in one of the four interest areas--Software 
Engineering Capstone Courses, Functional Programming, Neural Networks and Their 
Applications, and Computational Geometry--and faculty developed curricular 
materials that they could use in their teaching the following year.  Those 
materials are being placed on the WWW, and faculty are refining them as they 
use them in their courses.  A second workshop is planned for summer, 1998.
The workshop was sponsored by The Evergreen State College, the Oregon 
Graduate Institute, the Washington Center for the Improvement of Undergraduate 
Education, and by the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer 
Science (DIMACS).
All of the panelists participated in the workshop and each panel member will 
share his or her experiences in incorporating the recent research results 
studied at the workshop into their undergraduate curriculum.  In addition, the 
panelists will discuss with the audience their own plans for integrating 
research results into their own undergraduate programs.