|
|
Recommendations for Curricular Proposals - Policies & Procedures
|
ACM Policies / Procedures on
Recommendations
for Curricular Proposals
Lillian N. (Boots) Cassel
John Gorgone
John Impagliazzo
Task
Force of the ACM Education Board on
Recommendations for Curricular
Proposals
August 2000
Background
At
its meeting of 1999 October, the ACM Education Board (Board) established a task
force to investigate the Board's relationship with curricular materials,
specifically those that the Board did not generate directly. The task force
consisted of Lillian (Boots) Cassel as chair, John Impagliazzo, and John
Gorgone. The charge of the task force was to make recommendations to the Board's
(ACM) relationship with all curricula proposals and to develop a means to
evaluate such relationships.
Stimulation for the creation of the task
force came about by a request for the Board to bestow ACM recognition on a
curriculum proposal where ACM was not involved in the monitoring or the
development of the proposal, and the question arose as to what such recognition
would mean and under what circumstances should recognition be
granted.
The task force recognized that the curriculum proposal being
considered was just one of many such reports to be generated globally for which
the Board would be asked to consider a level of recognition. Such requests would
reflect the maturing of the computing discipline. Also, there is a likelihood
that a number of different but valid curricular models would develop to
demonstrate alternate approaches to education in the computing disciplines.
Because of these circumstances, the task force believed that it must develop
policies and procedures for responding to these requests.
The task force
has adopted the premise that for computing curriculum development, the "one size
fits all" philosophy is no longer appropriate. It expects that there will be a
number of good curricular reports and recommendations to consider from within
ACM and external to ACM. Some will derive from official Board activities such as
Curriculum 2001, IS'97, MSIS 2000 and other similar reports. Others will emerge
from other national and international sources through other computing
organizations, governments, or industry.
Reports sanctioned and generated
by the ACM and its Education Board do have all the checks and balances to ensure
that a recommendation stands on firm footing. One would expect that such
recommendations would warrant serious consideration by the educational community
for guidance or adoption. However, there may be valid alternatives in curricular
projects that ACM did not generate and was not a party to its development. In
such cases, the ACM, through its Education Board, required a mechanism to
validate in some way the efforts of others since the public looks toward ACM for
guidance in these matters. Reports generated without ACM Education Board
involvement may also have checks and balances in place and may be very useful
documents. However, before they can carry ACM recognition, ACM must make
independent and reliable verification of these checks and balances.
ACM
already has models for related kinds of recognition. In the area of conferences,
it has various levels of approval and association. The ACM name on the
conference as "sponsor" indicates that ACM has approved the planning and the
financial viability of the conference. It says the conference organization is in
the hands of people who are considered qualified and that the plans are
consistent with the mission of ACM. The "in-cooperation" status of a conference
implies no financial liability, but does say that ACM is willing to have its
name associated with this event.
In the area of publications, there is a
much more formal and rigorous set of criteria for ACM acceptance of materials.
There is a "refereed" status, which says that ACM has overseen a rigorous review
process by qualified individuals who have attested that this material is seminal
to the literature (original), novel, important, correct, and has clarity of
exposition. There are less rigorous levels of publication such as "formally
reviewed" and "reviewed" status. While ACM sometimes publishes outstanding work
in non-refereed publications, people who base their research on work reported in
a refereed journal can have some confidence that they are building on a
reasonably solid foundation. That type of confidence in a solid base is what
Board approval of a computing curriculum effort should
reflect.
Categories
In response to the aforementioned
considerations, the task force proposed the following role for ACM in regard to
curriculum recommendations. Curriculum efforts that were initiated by ACM or
conducted by ACM in collaboration with other organizations carry the weight of
the ACM role as in the past. Other curriculum work requesting ACM endorsement
will be reviewed to determine that the qualifications of the committee
generating the report are appropriate and that there has been public review of
early stages of the work in suitable venues. Public review will have resulted in
comments that were carefully considered by the curriculum committee and were
incorporated into revisions of the report.
This led to three categories
of ACM involvement with the product of a curriculum effort:
- Sponsor or Joint Sponsor
ACM, alone or in collaboration with
another society, has produced a curriculum recommendation. ACM has financed the
project in proportion to its involvement. The product will identify ACM as
author or co-author and will carry the ACM logo. ACM may hold copyright or have
a copyright agreement with other organizations. Some examples include Curriculum
'91, IS '97, MSIS 2000.
- In-cooperation
While not actively involved in the curriculum
process, ACM was approached at its early stages for approval of the project.
Typically, ACM members will be active members of the curriculum committee, but
that is not necessary. ACM has been aware of the progress of the project and has
monitored its development. ACM's financial involvement in the project
development was negligible. The publication indicates ACM cooperation in the
project and it carries the ACM logo.
- Endorse
ACM has reviewed the procedures followed in producing the
curriculum. ACM finds that the individuals presenting the curriculum are
qualified to develop it; the curriculum has been reviewed by people qualified to
evaluate it, has had an appropriate amount of public presentation in suitable
venues; and response by reviewers and the public has been incorporated into the
document. The publication indicates that it has ACM endorsement and may carry
the ACM logo.
These categories are understood to apply to
curriculum recommendations of broad applicability. They do not apply to narrowly
focused, special-purpose efforts such as curriculum leading to certification in
a particular computing product or a curriculum intended for local or regional
use for a very particular purpose. For example, a statewide curriculum for high
school computing courses or a curriculum for preparing for Microsoft or Novell
certification would not normally fit into one of these categories. To address
possible requests for approval of such efforts requires an additional category
of Board response. These efforts could be approved within the context of their
focus and goals and carry approval as an appropriate activity. This fourth
category addresses this situation.
- Recognize
The curriculum content is reviewed for suitability in
its intended context by people familiar with the context and the suitability of
this approach to meeting the need. In the case of industry certification, for
example, approval by the target industry would be appropriate. In case of a
state mandated curriculum for high school courses, individuals familiar with the
environment in that state and with the educational needs at the high school
level would review the proposed curriculum. ACM approval might state that the
curriculum had been reviewed and approved for its stated purpose. In some cases,
the curriculum might be deemed of wider interest and be approved as a model for
similar efforts in other areas. Publication of the curriculum material carries
the notice of ACM recognition of suitability for its intended use or ACM
recognition as a model for similar program efforts; it does not carry the ACM
logo.
In each of the categories, the task force assumes that
the sponsors of the curriculum effort have approached ACM and have requested
endorsement or approval of their product. Just as with material submitted to
journals, work that was not approved by ACM would not be announced or
identified. The "Recognize" category is different from the others in that ACM
would conduct a review of the product directly, rather than confirming that
certain procedures were followed in its development. This follows from the
different nature of these types of products. They are developed without the wide
public presentation and comment and the incorporation of public feedback that
are typical of widely applicable curricula such as ACM develops. The different
development approach is suitable for the different type of application planned
for the resulting curriculum. However, the lack of wide review and feedback
requires that ACM recognition depend on independent review of the
products.
In all cases, curriculum projects that carry an ACM Education
Board approval (any of the four categories) will have titles, descriptions,
contact people and links to the curriculum recommendation itself on the
Education Board page. The Education Board page related to curriculum work should
serve as a valuable resource to those looking for such recommendations. The
curriculum page will clearly define the terms used in the ACM Education Board
approval.
Procedures and Actions
In each category, the task
force assumes that the sponsors of the curriculum effort have approached ACM and
have requested endorsement or approval of their product. In each request, the
Education Board will create an ad hoc committee of at least three members to
consider the request and to recommend action: designation of one of the four
categories or rejection of the request. The Education Board will then consider
the action taken by the task force and vote a final action. The Education Board
will notify the individual or institution of its
action.
|
|
 |
|
