[Csmatters] Fwd: AP CSP: 2020 materials

Megean Garvin megeangarvin at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 17:18:25 EDT 2018 

Wow....more info from College board.
Please remember not to share beyond our CS Matters team.

Thank you,
Meg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roman, Monica <mroman at collegeboard.org>
Date: Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM
Subject: AP CSP: 2020 materials
To: "Baker Franke (baker at code.org)" <baker at code.org>, "Brook Osborne
(Code.org) (brook at code.org)" <brook at code.org>, "Cannady, Justin L (
cannady at uteach.utexas.edu)" <cannady at uteach.utexas.edu>, Carol Ramsey <
ramsey at uteach.utexas.edu>, "Chinma Uche (chinmauche at gmail.com)" <
chinmauche at gmail.com>, "Dani McAvoy (dani at code.org)" <dani at code.org>,
"DeGraff, Michael W (mdegraff at austin.utexas.edu)" <
mdegraff at austin.utexas.edu>, "emc (emc at cs50.net)" <emc at cs50.net>, "Evelyn
Hunter (evelyn at codehs.com)" <evelyn at codehs.com>, "Fries, Mary (
MFries at edc.org)" <MFries at edc.org>, GT Wrobel <gt at code.org>, "Hughes,
Kimberly K (hughes at uteach.utexas.edu)" <hughes at uteach.utexas.edu>, jason
Rausch <jrausch at pltw.org>, Jennifer Rosato <jrosato at css.edu>, "Jeremy
Keeshin (jkeesh at codehs.com)" <jkeesh at codehs.com>, "jplane (jplane at cs.umd.edu)"
<jplane at cs.umd.edu>, "Lake, Pauline H. (Pauline.Lake at trincoll.edu)" <
Pauline.Lake at trincoll.edu>, Lea Sloan <lea at codehs.com>, "Mark, June (
jmark at edc.org)" <jmark at edc.org>, "Megean Garvin (megeangarvin at gmail.com)" <
megeangarvin at gmail.com>, "Moreland, Amy L (moreland at uteach.utexas.edu)" <
moreland at uteach.utexas.edu>, Nancy Lindfors <nlindfors at pltw.org>, "Tezel,
Selim" <STezel at edc.org>, "Amy Pavelich (amy.pavelich at zulama.com)" <
amy.pavelich at zulama.com>, Lea Chidlow <lchidlow at emcp.com>, "Nikki Navta (
nikki.navta at zulama.com)" <nikki.navta at zulama.com>, "Robin Yang (
robin at codecombat.com)" <robin at codecombat.com>, Vicki Lang <
vicki at codecombat.com>, "dogrady at usmd.edu" <dogrady at usmd.edu>
Cc: "Roman, Monica" <mroman at collegeboard.org>, "Furman, Crystal" <
cfurman at collegeboard.org>


Hi All,

Thank you for your patience as the development committee worked to
incorporate and respond to the feedback that you provided. The committee
really appreciated your feedback and worked hard to incorporate much of it.
However, there are aspects of the feedback they could not incorporate at
this time. We've attempted to summarize the larger issues in the table
below.

As a reminder, ALL of this material is to be kept confidential and not
shared with teachers at this time.

Attached you will find:

  *   CSP CF Final_08082018_3column_Final.docx - The finalized version of
the curriculum framework. This document still needs to be copyedited and
the Enduring Understandings, Learning Objectives and Essential Knowledge
statements need to have a numbering scheme applied.
  *   Create_2020Draft_08082018_FINAL.docx - This document needs to be
copyedited before it is finalized.
  *   APCSP_CreateTask_2020_Rubric_08082018_FINAL.docx - This document
needs to be copyedited before it is finalized.
  *   C4 - CSP Practices 2018-04-16_CF.docx - Updated Computational
Thinking Practices
  *   APCSP_ScoringGuide_Global CRs.docx - These are the curricular
requirements with examples of how teachers might implement them in the
classroom.
  *   CSP Framework_2020 VS 2018 comp_8-8-2018.docx - This is an updated
version of the code.org comparison document. I attempted to show the
changes between the version you saw in March and the final version of the
curriculum framework. When implementing the curriculum framework updates,
please use the final version of the curriculum framework (bullet one), as I
may have missed some updates here. I also tried to include some rationales
for changes.

Please note these documents have yet to be reviewed by our copyeditors, but
the scope of the content and assessment is final and has been approved by
College Board AP leadership.

We are working on a schedule for the following work and we will keep you
updated on our progress:

  *   Copyediting of materials
  *   Numbering of the curriculum framework
  *   Example Explore stimulus questions developed for providers to use
  *   Communication plan to notify teachers


Provider Feedback

Action

Providers felt that there was not enough time to implement changes for 2019.

CB decided to delay the implementation of these changes until the 2020 -
2021 school year, rather than rolling them out with the remaining full
model resources for 2019-20.

CB decided that we would stable the course changes to be no more frequent
than every 5 years and to give providers a minimum of 2 year runway for
implementations.

Additionally, we will work collaboratively with providers on future changes
by getting their perspectives on course changes and direction prior to
conducting this work. However, the CSP development committee will continue
to own these decisions.


Providers felt that CB proposed units would cause them to rework all of
their curriculum since there is not a strong alignment in what units the
providers are offering.

CB decided that CSP would not be mapped into units since teachers already
have the support of 10 provider groups who have mapped the curriculum into
units.

Providers expressed concern over moving the Explore PT to a curriculum
requirement and assessing these skills via MCQ stimulus.

This was an agonizing decision for the DC. However, they have concluded
that Explore is its current state is not working as an assessment.

We will proceed as planned.

Providers have expressed concern over explore stimulus questions resulting
in reading comprehension questions.

The committee shares this concern, but has made great strides in creating
some initial drafts that are beyond reading comprehension and require
students to make connections to what has been taught in class to what is
presented in the stimulus materials.


Providers have requested samples of the stimulus

We are working on how to generate samples for the providers. We will keep
providers posted on this progress.

Providers expressed concern over changes to the create task and the
inclusion of "test cases"

The DC worked to clarify this language as inputs into the selected
procedure and expected result

Providers expressed concerns over the additional requirement of "lists"

The DC has made provisions for other structures that store data, such as
data bases that are used in App Inventor, to be allowed to be used.

Lists are required by HE equivalent classes and is current part of the
course. This alignment is critical for credit and placement since we will
not make additional changes to the course until 2025 (7 years from now)

List component is included as an Achievement Level 5, to differentiate
students between 4 and 5. The change to the algorithm requirement removed
level 5 requirements, so the addition of list means that we will be testing
students across all ranges.

The requirement limits choice and will result in students doing the same
types of questions.

We currently already see a lot of the same type of program. This seems to
be inevitable as students will mirror what they have learned in the
classroom.

While the DC recognizes that the additional requirement may narrow the
choice in some ways, it forces a level of complexity that will help to
ensure credit and placement. Most non-trivial programs require the use of a
data storage structure, such as lists.

Complaints over wording and grammar

The documents may change even more after they go through copy editing, but
many of these have been addressed.

Groupings of Big Ideas

Big ideas are not units, so while it may seem better to group certain LOs
together because they are taught in the same unit, the big idea structure
requires that more than one big idea is taught in a unit and the a big idea
is threaded throughout the school year and being taught in more than one
unit. They are really themes for the course. BUT, as providers you get to
order the course as you see fits best in units.

Providers expressed concern over the inclusion of software development
process.

The development committee agreed and made the following changes:

We have removed "software" from the LOs and Eks when referring to the
development process

We changed "requirements gathering and analysis" to "investigating and
reflecting". We also described what we meant by an investigation.

Modified the 2nd EU to be more "maker" friendly.

Added a specific EK regarding programming through exploration

Removed 2 LOs:
Explain how requirements affect the development of a program.

Explain how programs meet requirements outlined in a program specification.

The design phase is more ideas that a rigid process.

Were afraid "test cases" meant "unit test cases" which is a much more
difficult topic than we intended.


Replaced test cases with "Identify inputs and corresponding expected output
or behaviors that can be used to check the correctness of a program."

Collapsed 2 Eks into 1.

Larger emphasis on programming

While the programming section may appear larger, all the LOs reflect what
students are already learning in CSP. Some reasons for why this section
appears larger:
Some of the LO and EK statements in the current version, are actually too
larger. An LO is mean to be taught over a class period or two, but these
were being taught over several units. As example: EK 4.1.1A has sequencing,
selection and iteration all in 1 EK statement. In some cases this is an
entire unit or two units in a course.

We have included the quick reference in the curriculum framework to ensure
teachers are aware that it need to be taught to students. This contributes
to the size of this section significantly; however, it is extremely
valuable for teachers to have this material matched up with what they are
expected to teach. We have done this for all our courses that have exam
references or formula sheets.

Scope of this section was looked at and reduced.

Parallel list traversals (which is currently tested on the exam), have been
removed from the 2020 CF and an exception has been added to ensure that
they are out of bounds.

Concern over the ability to teach the data section with spreadsheets

The DC ensured that the language of the CF included spreadsheets as an
option. This is absolutely an acceptable way to approach this material.

For big idea 3, providers felt starting with undecidable problems was a
mistake.

The DC agreed and moved this to the end of the big idea.

Networks should be limited to the Internet

We have made sure that we narrowed networks to "computer networks".

An LO was added to this section to further call out the Internet.

Add back in TCP IP

We have added this back in, as well as HTTP.

Big idea 5 seems like a laundry list of fact

The DC has attempted to cut back on the number of "facts" a student needs
to memorize that seem disconnected from the rest of the course.


Big Idea 5 seemed overly negative

The DC has added many positive aspects of CS.

The DC removed Eks that they felt weren't necessary, such as "hackers"




Please let us know if you have any questions

Best,

Crystal and Monica




-- 
Megean Garvin, Ph.D.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSP CF Final_08082018_3column_Final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 61523 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0006.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Create_2020Draft_08082018_FINAL.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25722 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0007.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APCSP_CreateTask_2020_Rubric_08082018_FINAL.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 29247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0008.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C4 - CSP Practices 2018-04-16_CF.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0009.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APCSP_ScoringGuide_Global CRs.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 33036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0010.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSP Framework_2020 VS 2018 comp_8_8_2018.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 102718 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/csmatters/attachments/20180810/97ab5020/attachment-0011.docx>

More information about the Csmatters mailing list