-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Uphold Curricular Categories #930
Comments
An interesting proposal. Some notes:
|
|
Interesting discussion, 2 thoughts and consequent alternative to consider
|
It appears to me that the whole entire approach to the redesign is to arrange it in such a way that it makes it plain to see we've checked all the boxes in CS2013. That's a good quality control check but it does not improve the curriculum. OSSU isn't a mere course listing. It's a curriculum. Curricula have opinions not only on what is presented but also when it is presented. So the problem with this approach is there's no direction on how to take the courses or in what order. It's not reasonable to assume that one will deep-dive all of the Systems courses before taking any of the Applications courses. Just like there's no reason one needs to do all the Math courses before doing any of the Science courses in a Physics degree, for example. I think the best use of a deep-dive such as the one you've presented is as an internal auditing and course selection tool. Not as a front-facing curriculum update or curriculum supplement. The good news is there has been need for an internal auditing and course selection tool. A course competencies matrix has been envisioned for some time, but hasn't been executed as of yet. Would you be willing to consider assisting with the development of such a tool? |
I should note that CS2013.org has a ready made spreadsheet for evaluating curriculum coverage. As Bradley Grant states, OSSU should carry out an evaluation of the curriculum against this spreadsheet. I've had some ideas knocking about regarding how to approach the effort. It's not a trivial undertaking. Having such an effort live on the curricular guidelines page makes sense. I'm don't think the structure above will give us the granularity that will be necessary for that review. I'll give as an example Introduction to Computer Science and Programming Using Python. It's an early course in the curriculum, and so we expect it to cover a fair bit of Software Development Fundamentals. But it also does a good amount of work covering data structures. A thorough review will get into this level of granularity. With a thorough review complete, OSSU would then be in a great position to communicate that coverage to students! |
I haven't looked too deeply into the proposal (yet), but is there a reason why we need to choose one option over the other? Could we not keep the curriculum organization as-is for students to know in what order to go through them, but also add this as an extra view of what is covered by OSSU? |
Absolutely YESS, This's pretty neat to the current and good for new fellow, i even struggled when i picked Software Engineering Path and searched a lot to know what courses from the circular I should take. |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: