<div dir="ltr">Wow....more info from College board.<div><div>Please remember not to share beyond our CS Matters team.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you,</div><div>Meg<br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Roman, Monica</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mroman@collegeboard.org">mroman@collegeboard.org</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM<br>Subject: AP CSP: 2020 materials<br>To: "Baker Franke (<a href="mailto:baker@code.org">baker@code.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:baker@code.org">baker@code.org</a>>, "Brook Osborne (Code.org) (<a href="mailto:brook@code.org">brook@code.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:brook@code.org">brook@code.org</a>>, "Cannady, Justin L (<a href="mailto:cannady@uteach.utexas.edu">cannady@uteach.utexas.edu</a>)" <<a href="mailto:cannady@uteach.utexas.edu">cannady@uteach.utexas.edu</a>>, Carol Ramsey <<a href="mailto:ramsey@uteach.utexas.edu">ramsey@uteach.utexas.edu</a>>, "Chinma Uche (<a href="mailto:chinmauche@gmail.com">chinmauche@gmail.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:chinmauche@gmail.com">chinmauche@gmail.com</a>>, "Dani McAvoy (<a href="mailto:dani@code.org">dani@code.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:dani@code.org">dani@code.org</a>>, "DeGraff, Michael W (<a href="mailto:mdegraff@austin.utexas.edu">mdegraff@austin.utexas.edu</a>)" <<a href="mailto:mdegraff@austin.utexas.edu">mdegraff@austin.utexas.edu</a>>, "emc (<a href="mailto:emc@cs50.net">emc@cs50.net</a>)" <<a href="mailto:emc@cs50.net">emc@cs50.net</a>>, "Evelyn Hunter (<a href="mailto:evelyn@codehs.com">evelyn@codehs.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:evelyn@codehs.com">evelyn@codehs.com</a>>, "Fries, Mary (<a href="mailto:MFries@edc.org">MFries@edc.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:MFries@edc.org">MFries@edc.org</a>>, GT Wrobel <<a href="mailto:gt@code.org">gt@code.org</a>>, "Hughes, Kimberly K (<a href="mailto:hughes@uteach.utexas.edu">hughes@uteach.utexas.edu</a>)" <<a href="mailto:hughes@uteach.utexas.edu">hughes@uteach.utexas.edu</a>>, jason Rausch <<a href="mailto:jrausch@pltw.org">jrausch@pltw.org</a>>, Jennifer Rosato <<a href="mailto:jrosato@css.edu">jrosato@css.edu</a>>, "Jeremy Keeshin (<a href="mailto:jkeesh@codehs.com">jkeesh@codehs.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:jkeesh@codehs.com">jkeesh@codehs.com</a>>, "jplane (<a href="mailto:jplane@cs.umd.edu">jplane@cs.umd.edu</a>)" <<a href="mailto:jplane@cs.umd.edu">jplane@cs.umd.edu</a>>, "Lake, Pauline H. (<a href="mailto:Pauline.Lake@trincoll.edu">Pauline.Lake@trincoll.edu</a>)" <<a href="mailto:Pauline.Lake@trincoll.edu">Pauline.Lake@trincoll.edu</a>>, Lea Sloan <<a href="mailto:lea@codehs.com">lea@codehs.com</a>>, "Mark, June (<a href="mailto:jmark@edc.org">jmark@edc.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:jmark@edc.org">jmark@edc.org</a>>, "Megean Garvin (<a href="mailto:megeangarvin@gmail.com">megeangarvin@gmail.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:megeangarvin@gmail.com">megeangarvin@gmail.com</a>>, "Moreland, Amy L (<a href="mailto:moreland@uteach.utexas.edu">moreland@uteach.utexas.edu</a>)" <<a href="mailto:moreland@uteach.utexas.edu">moreland@uteach.utexas.edu</a>>, Nancy Lindfors <<a href="mailto:nlindfors@pltw.org">nlindfors@pltw.org</a>>, "Tezel, Selim" <<a href="mailto:STezel@edc.org">STezel@edc.org</a>>, "Amy Pavelich (<a href="mailto:amy.pavelich@zulama.com">amy.pavelich@zulama.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:amy.pavelich@zulama.com">amy.pavelich@zulama.com</a>>, Lea Chidlow <<a href="mailto:lchidlow@emcp.com">lchidlow@emcp.com</a>>, "Nikki Navta (<a href="mailto:nikki.navta@zulama.com">nikki.navta@zulama.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:nikki.navta@zulama.com">nikki.navta@zulama.com</a>>, "Robin Yang (<a href="mailto:robin@codecombat.com">robin@codecombat.com</a>)" <<a href="mailto:robin@codecombat.com">robin@codecombat.com</a>>, Vicki Lang <<a href="mailto:vicki@codecombat.com">vicki@codecombat.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:dogrady@usmd.edu">dogrady@usmd.edu</a>" <<a href="mailto:dogrady@usmd.edu">dogrady@usmd.edu</a>><br>Cc: "Roman, Monica" <<a href="mailto:mroman@collegeboard.org">mroman@collegeboard.org</a>>, "Furman, Crystal" <<a href="mailto:cfurman@collegeboard.org">cfurman@collegeboard.org</a>><br><br><br>Hi All,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
As a reminder, ALL of this material is to be kept confidential and not shared with teachers at this time.<br>
<br>
Attached you will find:<br>
<br>
* CSP CF Final_08082018_3column_Final.<wbr>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.<br>
* Create_2020Draft_08082018_<wbr>FINAL.docx - This document needs to be copyedited before it is finalized.<br>
* APCSP_CreateTask_2020_Rubric_<wbr>08082018_FINAL.docx - This document needs to be copyedited before it is finalized.<br>
* C4 - CSP Practices 2018-04-16_CF.docx - Updated Computational Thinking Practices<br>
* APCSP_ScoringGuide_Global CRs.docx - These are the curricular requirements with examples of how teachers might implement them in the classroom.<br>
* CSP Framework_2020 VS 2018 comp_8-8-2018.docx - This is an updated version of the <a href="http://code.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">code.org</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
We are working on a schedule for the following work and we will keep you updated on our progress:<br>
<br>
* Copyediting of materials<br>
* Numbering of the curriculum framework<br>
* Example Explore stimulus questions developed for providers to use<br>
* Communication plan to notify teachers<br>
<br>
<br>
Provider Feedback<br>
<br>
Action<br>
<br>
Providers felt that there was not enough time to implement changes for 2019.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Providers expressed concern over moving the Explore PT to a curriculum requirement and assessing these skills via MCQ stimulus.<br>
<br>
This was an agonizing decision for the DC. However, they have concluded that Explore is its current state is not working as an assessment.<br>
<br>
We will proceed as planned.<br>
<br>
Providers have expressed concern over explore stimulus questions resulting in reading comprehension questions.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Providers have requested samples of the stimulus<br>
<br>
We are working on how to generate samples for the providers. We will keep providers posted on this progress.<br>
<br>
Providers expressed concern over changes to the create task and the inclusion of "test cases"<br>
<br>
The DC worked to clarify this language as inputs into the selected procedure and expected result<br>
<br>
Providers expressed concerns over the additional requirement of "lists"<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The requirement limits choice and will result in students doing the same types of questions.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Complaints over wording and grammar<br>
<br>
The documents may change even more after they go through copy editing, but many of these have been addressed.<br>
<br>
Groupings of Big Ideas<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Providers expressed concern over the inclusion of software development process.<br>
<br>
The development committee agreed and made the following changes:<br>
<br>
We have removed "software" from the LOs and Eks when referring to the development process<br>
<br>
We changed "requirements gathering and analysis" to "investigating and reflecting". We also described what we meant by an investigation.<br>
<br>
Modified the 2nd EU to be more "maker" friendly.<br>
<br>
Added a specific EK regarding programming through exploration<br>
<br>
Removed 2 LOs:<br>
Explain how requirements affect the development of a program.<br>
<br>
Explain how programs meet requirements outlined in a program specification.<br>
<br>
The design phase is more ideas that a rigid process.<br>
<br>
Were afraid "test cases" meant "unit test cases" which is a much more difficult topic than we intended.<br>
<br>
<br>
Replaced test cases with "Identify inputs and corresponding expected output or behaviors that can be used to check the correctness of a program."<br>
<br>
Collapsed 2 Eks into 1.<br>
<br>
Larger emphasis on programming<br>
<br>
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:<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Scope of this section was looked at and reduced.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Concern over the ability to teach the data section with spreadsheets<br>
<br>
The DC ensured that the language of the CF included spreadsheets as an option. This is absolutely an acceptable way to approach this material.<br>
<br>
For big idea 3, providers felt starting with undecidable problems was a mistake.<br>
<br>
The DC agreed and moved this to the end of the big idea.<br>
<br>
Networks should be limited to the Internet<br>
<br>
We have made sure that we narrowed networks to "computer networks".<br>
<br>
An LO was added to this section to further call out the Internet.<br>
<br>
Add back in TCP IP<br>
<br>
We have added this back in, as well as HTTP.<br>
<br>
Big idea 5 seems like a laundry list of fact<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Big Idea 5 seemed overly negative<br>
<br>
The DC has added many positive aspects of CS.<br>
<br>
The DC removed Eks that they felt weren't necessary, such as "hackers"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please let us know if you have any questions<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Crystal and Monica<br>
<br>
</div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Megean Garvin, Ph.D.</div>
</div></div></div>