All Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science is Not Created Equal: A Comparison of AP Computer Science A and Computer Science Principles

Douglas D. Havard, K. Howard
{"title":"All Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science is Not Created Equal: A Comparison of AP Computer Science A and Computer Science Principles","authors":"Douglas D. Havard, K. Howard","doi":"10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares the two most prominent courses of Advanced Placement (AP) computer science study offered throughout 9-12 grades in the U.S. The structure, guidelines, components, and exam formats of the traditional AP Computer Science A course and the relatively newer AP Computer Science Principles course were compared to examine differences in content and emphases. A depth-of-learning analysis was conducted employing Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to examine potential differences in rigor and challenge represented by the two options, particularly as it relates to acquiring computer programming proficiency. Analyses suggest structural differences in both course content and end-of-course exam components likely result in less depth and rigor in the new Computer Science Principles course as compared to the Computer Science A course. A lower minimum standard for learning programming skills in the Computer Science Principles course was observed, making it a less viable option for students looking to acquire skills transferable to future computer science study or employment. The potential implications for students choosing the new course over the traditional offering, as well as for schools opting for the new course as its sole or primary offering are discussed.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of computer science integration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This article compares the two most prominent courses of Advanced Placement (AP) computer science study offered throughout 9-12 grades in the U.S. The structure, guidelines, components, and exam formats of the traditional AP Computer Science A course and the relatively newer AP Computer Science Principles course were compared to examine differences in content and emphases. A depth-of-learning analysis was conducted employing Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to examine potential differences in rigor and challenge represented by the two options, particularly as it relates to acquiring computer programming proficiency. Analyses suggest structural differences in both course content and end-of-course exam components likely result in less depth and rigor in the new Computer Science Principles course as compared to the Computer Science A course. A lower minimum standard for learning programming skills in the Computer Science Principles course was observed, making it a less viable option for students looking to acquire skills transferable to future computer science study or employment. The potential implications for students choosing the new course over the traditional offering, as well as for schools opting for the new course as its sole or primary offering are discussed.
所有的高等教育(AP)计算机科学并非生来平等:AP计算机科学A与计算机科学原理的比较
本文比较了美国9-12年级开设的两门最突出的计算机科学研究课程。对传统的AP计算机科学A课程和相对较新的AP计算机学原理课程的结构、指南、组成部分和考试形式进行了比较,以考察其内容和重点的差异。采用Bloom的修订分类法进行了深度学习分析,以检查两种选择在严谨性和挑战性方面的潜在差异,特别是在与获得计算机编程熟练度有关的情况下。分析表明,与计算机科学A课程相比,课程内容和期末考试组成部分的结构性差异可能会导致新的计算机科学原理课程的深度和严谨性降低。在计算机科学原理课程中,学习编程技能的最低标准较低,这使得希望获得可转移到未来计算机科学学习或就业的技能的学生不太可行。讨论了学生选择新课程而非传统课程的潜在影响,以及学校选择新课程作为其唯一或主要课程的潜在意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信