MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532984024 · doi:10.1109/educon.2016.7474584

Is the computer science curriculum ready to teach students towards hardwarizing?

2016· article· en· W2532984024 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sasko Ristov, Nevena Ackovska, Vesna Kirandziska, Marjan Gušev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsCurriculumPaceSyllabusComputer scienceCloud computingThe InternetInformation technologyMultimediaWorld Wide WebMathematics educationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer technology changes rapidly, especially in the last decades. IEEE and ACM have developed curriculum recommendations for computer technology in the last 50 years and always add extensions or modify the content to keep the pace with the ongoing changes. Nowadays, five curricula are defined within the Computing Curricula: Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Systems, Information Technology and Software Engineering. Although some of them are updated in a period of 4-5 years, there are examples lasting for quite a long time, such as Computing from 2005 and Computer Engineering curricula from 2004. Still, the latest emerging technologies - Cloud computing, Internet of Things, Internet of Everything, Big Data, Machine to Machine and Human to Machine communications and interaction, software-defined everything, smart cities, high performance scaled computing, etc., raise the challenges if these curricula are ready to cover modern trends. Even more, the real question is whether they should be changed, upgraded or give rise to a new curriculum? This paper analyzes the new emerging trends and technologies and how they are covered in the current curricula that are present at our faculty (Computer Science and Computer Engineering). We present how a track of courses and their syllabuses are adapted towards these new emerging technologies, without changing the whole curriculum. There are multiple results of these changes. Students now can choose a track and learn the courses with increased interest; they can see the "whole picture" after finishing all courses of the track; they prepare more complex projects and they are happier with the changes. Finally, several diploma theses emerged that follow the current trends in the computer technology, which prepare the students to be already good engineers on the labor market. We strongly believe that with our new approach, the motivation for learning the hardware-based courses will be returned to the students, which will facilitate the trend of decreasing interest and number of engineering students.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.016

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207