English Version

Impagliazzo John
Hofstra University,Computer Science, Professor john.impagliazzo@hofstra.edu

Comparative Computing Education: East and West

The developments of computing education in the East and West have exhibited differences in content and approach as they evolved over past decades. For example, the recent recommendations set forth in the Applied Mathematics and Informatics curriculum grew from former curricula structures; it promises to provide new directions toward the manner in which university computing education will take place within Russia and beyond. As another example, Curriculum68 that ACM published in 1968 had provided the framework for university computing education in the United States and beyond and has led to a series of other curricula recommendations over the years such as the Computing Curricula 2001 report. Both approaches have similarities and differences, particularly in their philosophical purposes.

This abstract proposes a panel discussion on the perspectives of computing education, particularly as it applies to undergraduate university education. The panel will consist of experts in the field from the Former Soviet Union, from Western Europe, and from the United States. The conference International Program Committee will select at least two experts to represent Eastern advancements and perspectives in the area. The panel chair, who has helped author two of the current curricula reports from ACM and the IEEE Computer Society, will be one of the panelists. He will select two other individuals to characterize Western developments and viewpoints on the subject.

The panel should be approximately ninety minutes in length and each panelist will make an eight-minute presentation on his or her focus area. Additionally, panelists will provide to the audience written summaries of their comments and possibly provide related material. As full audience participation is critical to the success of this panel proposal, questions and comments will occupy the remaining time (approximately thirty-five minutes). The audience should anticipate a frank and vibrant discussion on this important topic.

2006 |