The IEEE Computer Society task force on computer architecture

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Attracting and Retaining Women in Computer Science and Engineering: Evaluating the Results Abstract Computer science and engineering communities have been exploring a variety of activities and techniques to attract and retain more students, especially women and minorities, to computer science and computer engineering degree programs1. This paper briefly describes the efforts and results of a plan for actively recruiting young women into undergraduate computer engineering and computer science programs hosted by the University of North Texas (UNT). It also describes a series of activities aimed at improving the retention rate of students already in our programs, particularly during the freshman year. Such recruitment and retention efforts are critical to the country’s efforts to increase the number of engineering professionals, and are a priority for the Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) Department at UNT. We initially designed a three-part plan to achieve our recruitment and retention goals: • Sponsorship of portable and mobile summer computer engineering robotics camps for middle and high-school women students, coordinating with the regional Girl Scouts councils and other organizations to help with the recruitment; • Creation of an Ambassador program using young women currently enrolled in the upper division of current computer science and computer engineering programs as a form of outreach to area high schools and junior colleges; and • Expansion of our successful undergraduate mentoring program by using the Ambassador cohort mentioned above as mentors for incoming freshman and first-year transfer women entering our programs. This paper will focus primarily on the summer camp program and present an analysis of the results we have seen to date after 2 years of camp activities. Results from student surveys and parent surveys will be presented. The paper concludes with recommended changes and improvements in the program, as well as a discussion of adaptations that would create programs suitable for implementation at other institutions as well as programs aimed at a different target population. The three phases previously enumerated each build upon currently accepted educational practices. The robotics summer camp in particular used problem-based learning approaches, similar to those described in The Power of Problem-Based Learning2. This study clearly demonstrates the significant benefits of teaching students how to think by using a problem-based approach. We also developed a mobile laboratory so that the summer camp can be held at several locations, thus broadening and expanding the reach of the camps to traditionally underserved populations and geographical regions. Similarly, both the ambassador and mentoring programs derive from research showing how the recruitment and retention of women in engineering- related fields can be increased by providing opportunities to develop student-to-student relationships3, 4.

It is with pleasure that the IEEE Computer Society welcomes this opportunity to participate with ACM members concerned with education of computer scientists and computer engineers. It is hoped that this cooperation will continue in the future. Described in this panel presentation will be the results of two years of concentrated development by members of the IEEE Computer Society Education Committee towards cohesive and flexible model curricula for 4-year computer science and engineering programs. This effort was initiated in May 1974, and since has resulted in eight working sessions, has involved 20 active module developers, has called upon nearly 40 outside reviewers, and has sought cooperation with academia, industry, the ACM and the DISE Committee. The first test of the model curricula was held in June 1976 at a IEEE Computer Society Educators Workshop; a test that seemed to be passed as judged by those attending the workshop.Specifically, this panel presentation will introduce the IEEE Computer Society effort, will place the effort in historical perspective, and will describe in detail the need as seen by many educators. It will dwell briefly on past contributions by similar committees, will provide a definition of computer science and engineering and will provide a pictorial outline of the 17 modules that comprise the five subject areas of the proposed curricula. This will be followed with selected examples of possible implementation strategies. The presentation will close with a summary of future work and a short comparison of the IEEE and ACM efforts.

There is an emphasis today throughout many academic programs on developing and sustaining information assurance (IA) programs. While we often refer to such programs collectively as information assurance, they tend to be decidedly different in approach and content depending on many factors. This paper does not attempt to differentiate between such approaches but rather outlines a discovery approach to information assurance pedagogy – regardless of course content or curriculum. Such an approach is applicable whether or not the IA curriculum is a standalone degree or contained within a computer science, business information systems, or computer engineering program. The examples given in this paper were from a computer science and engineering program.

In 2005, the ACM, together with the IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Information Systems, released Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report[1]. This document has proven to be one of the most widely circulated and influential documents ever produced on the topic of computing curricula, and included computing programs in computer engineering (CE), computer science (CS), information systems (IS), information technology (IT), and software engineering (SE). This document was recently updated and released as Computing Curricula 2020: Paradigms for Global Computing Education[2], and included the first 5 computing programs as well as cybersecurity (CSEC) and some of data science (DS). This paper takes an IT-centric look at this updated document, highlighting the changes and the additional insights this significant reference provides the computing educational community.

With parallel and distributed computing (PDC) now wide-spread, modern computing programs must incorporate PDC within the curriculum. ACM and IEEE Computer Society's Computer Science curricular guidelines have recommended exposure to PDC concepts since 2013. More recently, a variety of initiatives have made PDC curricular content, lectures, and labs freely available for undergraduate computer science programs. Despite these efforts, progress in ensuring computer science students graduate with sufficient PDC exposure has been uneven.This paper discusses the impact of ABET's revised criteria that have required exposure to PDC to achieve accreditation for computer science programs since 2018. The authors reviewed 20 top ABET-accredited computer science programs and analyzed how they covered the required PDC components in their curricula. Using their own institutions as case studies, the authors examine in detail how three different ABET-accredited computer science programs covered PDC using different approaches, yet meeting the PDC requirements of these ABET criteria. The paper also shows how ACM/IEEE Computer Society curricular guidelines for computer engineering and software engineering programs, along with ABET accreditation criteria, can cover PDC.

Graduates of computer science (CS) and software engineering (SE) programs are typically employed to develop industry-strength software. Computer engineering (CE) programs focus primarily on computing-system design, often with significant software components. These three programs have different emphases: development of new algorithms versus development of large, complex software systems versus development of small embedded software and device drivers. All three areas require good SE practices.

“What is computer engineering? What is the difference between computer engineering and computer science? What is the difference between electrical engineering and computer engineering? Why study computer engineering? What computer engineering programs are available in the U.S.? What opportunities are there after graduation? How much does a computer engineer get paid?”

Today, there's an urgent need for well-trained pervasive computing engineers and scientists. Pervasive computing has evolved into a critical field, influencing a broad range of industries from healthcare to manufacturing to defense. However, most computer engineering and computer science programs pay marginal attention, at best, to the field. In this issue, the authors of the Rochester Institute of Technology describes a set of courses on pervasive computing topics and a supporting laboratory designed for both computer engineering and computer science students

Computer Networks is one of the required courses that is being delivered to colleges and universities students who enroll electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science programs. The course introduces students to hardware, software and practical skills required to design, implement and maintain computer networks. Enrolled students to this course are exposed to all the transmission media, network software and interconnection devices needed to build them. In this paper, we presents a proposed teaching methodology for computer networks course as well as the required classroom and labs environment to ensure that the course objectives are satisfied.

During recent years the interest in Engineering Studies has declined at universities both in the United States and in many Western European countries including Sweden. In addition, among those students that do enroll, an increasing number drop-out. This paper presents an attempt to mitigate these worrying problems in the form of a new kind of introductory course for first-year engineering students studying on a 5-year long Master of Science program in Computer Science and Engineering. The course is novel in that it takes a holistic approach to motivate and prepare students for their further studies. Core subjects and useful tools are mixed together into an intense 10-week course with 12 separate course modules on different topics, often running in parallel. The course has a total of 21 individual examinations to take, tasks to carry out, and deadlines to meet. The examinations and tasks are chosen among those common in our School of Engineering. Evaluations show that, although demanding for the students, the course works well and fulfills its goals.

As cybersecurity issues become ever more prevalent in today’s society, it is imperative that our computer science and engineering programs train students to work in cybersecurity fields. The University of Cincinnati’s Department Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, part of a NSA Center of Excellence, is developing a new B.S. in Cybersecurity Engineering which will be coordinated with cybersecurity programs in Information Technology and in Political Science. We describe our current cybersecurity certificate progran and our proposed new B.S. in Cybersecurity Engineering, which will meet the criteria to apply for ABET EAC accreditation.

This white paper argues that formal methods need to be better rooted in higher education curricula for computer science and software engineering programmes of study. To this end, it advocates improved teaching of formal methods; systematic highlighting of formal methods within existing, ‘classical’ computer science courses; and the inclusion of a compulsory formal methods course in computer science and software engineering curricula. These recommendations are based on the observations that formal methods are an essential and cost-effective means to increase software quality; however computer science and software engineering programmes typically fail to provide adequate training in formal methods; and thus there is a lack of computer science graduates who are qualified to apply formal methods in industry. This white paper is the result of a collective effort by authors and participants of the 1st International Workshop on Formal Methods – Fun for Everybody which was held in Bergen, Norway, 2–3 December 2019. As such, it represents insights based on learning and teaching computer science and software engineering (with or without formal methods) at various universities across Europe.

This Research to Practice Full Paper discusses an approach to motivating graduate computer science and electrical engineering students in the study of quantum computing. The U.S. Congress and other governmental and industrial organizations have recognized that teaching Quantum Computing in university-level Computer Science and Electrical Engineering programs is strategically important for workforce development along with technology development. Success in this endeavor requires generating genuine interest in the topic and motivating potential students. Quantum Computing requires an understanding of relatively difficult related subjects including physics, math and computer science. Many computer science and electrical engineering students shy away from quantum computing because of its complexity. This paper discusses our success with generating interest in quantum computing among graduate students and motivating them through exploring, in related courses, some aspects of quantum computing that have the potential to generate discontinuities. The approach is also examined in terms of the Scientific Learning Cycle as discussed by Wankat & Oreovicz. Opportunities and challenges of adding Quantum Computing to Computer Science and Electrical Engineering programs were studied through a student small group project in a cybersecurity course. The work built on extensive research into the effectiveness of small group projects and the role of “play” in learning. Our small group project on quantum computing was introduced three years ago into a cybersecurity course which is required for all students in our university's Masters in Computer Science and Masters in Electrical Engineering programs. The basic goals of the project are to teach students some basics of quantum computing by allowing them to “play with it” and to alert students to the fact that quantum computing is a rapidly developing new field that they need to follow during at least the next decade. The small group project helped students to explore the potential of quantum computing to substantially undermine current Public Key Cryptography and, at the same time provide a new approach to encryption that is even more secure than Public Key Cryptography. A qualitative analysis of discussions and assigned tasks suggests that this strategy succeeded in generating significant interest in quantum computing among students. They became motivated and immersed in a difficult subject despite the requirement for investment of significant time and effort to understand a complex combination of physics, math and computer science.

This paper builds from over a decade of engagement with an equity-focused initiative, the Computing Alliance for Hispanic Serving Institutions, an effort to both transform and supplement the educational experiences of computing students attending HSIs. This grassroots effort engages faculty, primarily department chairs in computer science and computer engineering programs at Hispanic-serving Institutions, in developing and implementing research-based educational practices to support the recruitment, retention, and advancement of Hispanics in computing fields. While we have addressed how CAHSI activities influence student experiences in becoming computer scientists in other work [1,2,3] we turn to the faculty to understand how faculty at Hispanic Serving Institutions act on their roles as educators at institutions with traditions of inclusive missions in a technical field. The research questions that direct the paper are: How do faculty perceive their role in educating underrepresented students in STEM? How do institutional contexts and current events in computing education constrain and support faculty action towards equitable practice in computing?

Susan Eggers, professor emerita at the University of Washingtons Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, has been honored with the 2018 Eckert-Mauchly Award in recognition of her outstanding contributions to the field of computer architecture. The award, which is sponsored by the ACM and IEEE Computer Society, is the computer architecture communitys most prestigious honor. Eggers was cited in particular for her work on simultaneous multithreaded processor architectures and multiprocessor memory sharing and coherency. Eggers is the first woman to receive the Eckert-Mauchly Award in its 39-year history.