\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[]{smalltalk}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{doublespace}
\usepackage{verbatim, code, hyperlatex}
\usepackage{mysects}


\textheight 8.6in \textwidth 6.5in \topmargin -0.25in
\oddsidemargin 0in \evensidemargin 0in


\newcommand{\proposalTitle}{Media Computation to Motivate Women and Non-Majors in Computer Science }
\newcommand{\mycomment}[1]{\textbf{\emph{#1}}}


\begin{document}

% Definition of title page:

\title{\Large \proposalTitle}
\author{
    PI: Mark Guzdial \\ Co-PI: Blair MacIntyre
}
% \date{October 2001}    % optional

\maketitle

\thispagestyle{empty}

%\vspace*{.5in}

\noindent


{\Large\bf Project Summary}

\vspace{.5em}

\noindent

\begin{spacing}{1}
The problem being addressed by this proposal is the disinterest in
computer science exhibited by large groups of students, especially
non-CS-majors and women---a particular problem at institutions
like Georgia Tech where an introductory computing course is
required.

We just had a trial offering of a course in \emph{Introduction to
Media Computation} aimed at non-CS-majors. The course was quite
successful at its goals. 121 students enrolled -- 2/3 women. 89\%
of the class earned an A, B, or C in the course.  60\% of the
respondents on a final survey indicated that they would like to
take a second course on the topic.  We have gathered external
interest in the course, including a trial offering at a 2-year
college and a book contract.

We now propose (a) growing the course to a full-scale rate (of
more than 600 students per year) with multiple teachers and at
other institutions, (b) assessing the course more objectively, (c)
introducing a longitudinal assessment to study how the students
use their new knowledge and interests, and (d) introducing a
second course to make \emph{Media Computation} a viable path into
computer science.

\emph{Intellectual Merit}:  The intellectual merit of the proposal
is to scale up, study, and further develop a course holding
promise for interesting women and non-majors in computer science.

\emph{Broader Impacts}: The potential broader impacts is to
demonstrate a viable alternative development path for introductory
computer science courses that can appeal to students not usually
interested in computer sciences.
\end{spacing}

\newpage

%Table of Contents Page
    \thispagestyle{empty}

\begin{center}
    {\Large \proposalTitle
}
\end{center}

\begin{spacing}{1}
\tableofcontents
\end{spacing}

\newpage

%Body of Proposal

\begin{center}{\Large \proposalTitle}
    \end{center}

\pagenumbering{arabic}

\begin{spacing}{2}

\section{Goal: A New Route to Computer Science}

% CS1 is not currently successful

Computer science departments are not currently successful at
reaching a wide range of students who are taking introductory
computer science.  The evidence for this statement includes
international studies of programming performance
\cite{iticse2001}, declining retention rates
\cite{retention-sigcse}, and failure rates sometimes as high as
50\% \cite{failurerates}.  This comes at a time when the need for
Information Technology (IT) professionals is growing
\cite{freeman}.

At Georgia Institute of Technology (``Georgia Tech''), all
students are required to take an introductory course in computing,
including programming skills. Our traditional CS1 course, the only
one that met the requirement before our new course\footnote{A
second course for Engineering students only is at a prototype
stage.}, is undoubtedly one of the most unpopular courses on
campus, especially among those \emph{not} in explicitly
computing-related fields.  While this is certainly a problem for
the College of Computing at Georgia Tech (where the course has its
academic home), it points towards a larger problem for the field.

Alan Perlis in April 1961 made perhaps the first argument that
programming should be part of a liberal education for \emph{all}
students.  If Calculus is the study of \emph{rates}, and that's
important enough to be part of the liberal education, then so
should computer science.  Perlis argued that computer science is
the study of \emph{processes}, which is certainly relevant to even
more fields than those concerned with rates.  The argument has
been echoed and strengthened over the intervening years---by
Seymour Papert arguing for a programming as a way of learning
about learning \cite{papert-memo}\cite{mindstorms}, to Andrea
diSessa's arguments for ``computational literacy'' as a critical
component of many fields \cite{changingminds}.  As long as
non-CS-majors have such a dislike for computing, the hope is
diminished for computer science as an accepted part of a liberal
education and for computing generally to meet its potential for
intellectual impact across the range of disciplines, not just in
computational science and engineering.

% Most of all with women

Introductory computer science classes are also not meeting the
needs of women.  The rates at which women take computer science
classes are falling. While the factors causing women to avoid
computer science (and IT careers in general) are multi-faceted,
the curriculum does play a significant role \cite{margolis}.  A
report in 2000 by the American Association of University
Women~\cite{tech-savvy} suggested that part of the problem, at
least for women, is that computer science courses are, frankly,
too boring.  Specifically, they claim that computer science
courses are ``overly technical'' with little room for
``tinkering.''  At a session on increasing enrollment of women in
computer science at the latest ACM SIGCSE conference, speakers
reported that women who pursued computer science degrees were
surprised at how much ``creativity'' there was in later computer
science courses---introductory courses did not highlight that
aspect of CS~\cite{womensigcse2001}.  Additionally, women
undergraduate CS students tend to be interested in real
applications of computing, as opposed to simply computing for its
own sake \cite{margolis}\cite{tech-savvy}. If we can address the
reasons why women are avoiding computer science, we may be able to
interest more males, too---all those currently expressing
disinterest in computing. ``Women in engineering programs are kind
of like `canaries in the coal mine''', said Stephen W. Director,
Chair of the Engineering Dean's council. ``If women do well in a
program, most likely everyone else will also do well in the same
type of program.''~\footnote{Testimony by Stephen W. Director,
Chair, Engineering Dean's Council, American Society of Engineering
Education, to the Commission on the Advancement of Women and
Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development,
Washington, DC. July 20, 1999}

% Goals: Improved retention, better learning, better attitudes toward computer science

The focus of this proposal is \textbf{to use multimedia
construction
  projects as the domain of assignments and lectures in an
  introductory computer science course, explicitly aimed at
  non-CS-majors and women, to engage such students in computer
  science}.  The course, \emph{Introduction to Media Computation}, was
trialed in Spring 2003 with 121 students, 2/3 women, with
\emph{none}
  of the students majoring in CS or Engineering. These students were
  from the College of Architecture, Ivan Allen College of the Liberal Arts,
  Dupree College of Management, and the School of Biology. The hypotheses
of this effort are that this course will demonstrate: (1) Improved
student retention, (2) better student attitudes toward computer
science, and (3) better student learning of computer science.

The course was quite successful at its goals. 121 students
enrolled -- 2/3 women. 89\% of the class earned an A, B, or C in
the course.  60\% of the respondents on a final survey indicated
that they would like to take a second course on the topic.
Students wrote eight programs (six collaboratively and two
individually) creating or manipulating pictures, sounds, HTML
pages, and movies, with some of their programs reaching 100 lines
of code. We have gathered external interest in the course,
including a trial offering at a 2-year college (Gainesville
College) and a book contract with Prentice-Hall.

% Why this is a general path
We do not believe that media computation is the \emph{only}
context in which students not traditionally attracted to computer
science might succeed.  For example, we have described another
potential CS1 course organized around information management in
which students might build Web harvesting programs and data
visualizations \cite{sigcse-editorial}. The general approach we
are exploring is to use an application domain of information
technology that is rich in CS concepts and relevant to the
students, then explore introducing computing concepts in terms of
that domain.  The Media Computation project is a trial and model
of that approach.

% Scope of proposal: Description of Proof-of-concept course,
% assessment results, where we want to go next

In this proposal, we describe our proof-of-concept trial offering
of the course (funded by NSF CCLI grant {\#}0231176) and its
evaluation results.  We then describe our proposed plans under
this project:
\begin{itemize}
\item To continue development of the course as it ramps up to some 600
  students/term, has multiple teachers, and is adopted by more institutions. In addition,
  we are developing Java-based materials to be used in more
  traditional CS courses.
\item To assess the course more objectively.  Dr.~Donna Llewellyn,
  Director of Georgia Tech's Center for Enhancement of Teaching and
  Learning, has agreed to be the external evaluator of the project.
\item To explore the impact of the course on the students
  longitudinally.  We want to learn (a) how the course impacts the students'
  further exploration of computer science (e.g., do they take more CS
  classes?) and (b) how the course impacts their use of computation in
  their own disciplines? For example, might we expect students to
  learn Photoshop better or more easily once they understand better
  what Photoshop filters are doing?
\item Finally, we plan to develop a second course to make Media
  Computation a viable path into the degree.  Currently, students who
  take \emph{Introduction to Media Computation} and are interested in
  taking more computing need to start over with our traditional CS1.
  While the Media Computation course meets the requirements of a
  standard CS1 \cite{cc2001}, our traditional CS1 covers most of a CS1
  and CS2 curriculum.  We'd like to create a second course so that
  students can then enter into the rest of the CS curriculum without
  starting over.
\end{itemize}

\section{Results from Proof-of-Concept Trial}

\textit{Introduction to Media Computation} (CS1315 at Georgia
Tech) is our new introduction to computation and programming
contextualized around creation and manipulation of media. The
explicit goal is to interest groups typically disinterested in
such courses (especially women and non-CS majors). The course was
offered as a pilot in Spring 2003.

The course was a success by most measures.

\begin{itemize}
\item 89{\%} of the students who enrolled earned an A, B, or C. Our
  ``best-practice'' point of comparison in the literature had a
  66.4{\%} success rate for non-majors in a specialized CS1
  \cite{pair-programming}.
\item We attempted direct comparisons on problems on exams between our
  traditional CS1, a prototype engineering CS1 course, and the Media
  Computation class. We found that such comparisons are fraught with
  difficulties.  Nonetheless, student performance in a problem
  described in the literature on CS education was comparable between
  the Media Computation and traditional CS1 students.
\item Students found the course relevant, and the majority of
  respondents to a final survey indicated that they would like to take
  a second course if it were offered.
\item The course met its goal of getting female students to find CS
  interesting, relevant, and creative where they hadn't previously.
\end{itemize}

Our assessment of the course, and the comparison with the other
courses, went beyond measures of success to explore how and why
the class was successful, and who was successful.

\begin{itemize}
\item Collaboration may have played as much a role in the success of
  CS1315 as the context. When asked the open question on the final
  survey, ``What absolutely must
  \textit{not} change about the course?'', nearly 20{\%} of the Media
  Computation student
  respondents named the collaboration tool CoWeb and over 20{\%}
  mentioned collaboration in general.
\item The technology built for the course was more effective than we
  anticipated, given the pilot nature of the course and the software.
\item In general, students from Georgia Tech's \emph{Ivan Allen
    College for Liberal Arts} were the most positive about the course
  (e.g., had the largest percentage of students who would recommend it
  to others, who planned to use programming in the future, and who
  planned to take further CS courses).
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Implementation of the Course}
The choice of multimedia as the course context in this project
allows us to address several of the issues identified as critical
for increasing the number of women in computing.  Several of the
academic units at Georgia Tech emphasize that multimedia literacy
is a critical component of educated professionals in the future
\cite{medialiteracy}. Multimedia is a real applications
domain---especially true at Georgia Tech, with Turner
Broadcasting, CNN, and the Cartoon Network based within a few
miles of campus. Multimedia is clearly not computing for its own
sake.  Further, the multimedia approach allows us to give students
assignments that are open-ended and creative.  The emphasis on
multimedia allows the class to be more concrete, more relevant,
and more creative than traditional CS1 approaches.  The premises
and core concepts of the Media Computation course are:
\begin{itemize}
\item All media are being published today in a digital format.
Digital formats are amenable to manipulation, creation, analysis,
and transformation by computer.  Text can be interpreted, numbers
can be transformed into graphs, video images can be merged, and
sounds can be created.  We call these activities \emph{media
computation}.

\item Software is the tool for manipulating digital media.  Knowing
  how to program thus becomes a communications skill.  If someone
  wants to say something that her tools do not support, knowing how to
  program affords the creation of the desired statement.

\item Core computer science concepts can be introduced through
media computation. For example, programs can get large and
cumbersome. Abstraction is our tool for managing program
complexity and allowing programs to become even larger yet more
flexible. However, computing has limitations.  There are some
programs that cannot complete in our lifetime, and knowing that
these limitations exist is important for technological
professionals.
\end{itemize}

%Language of the course

We used the programming language \emph{Jython} for the course.
Jython\footnote{\url{http://www.jython.org}} is a variation of the
Python\footnote{\url{http://www.python.org}} programming language
which has been designed to be easily used by novices and
non-technical users.  Jython is a variation of Python written in
Java. Jython can instantiate and subclass Java classes, and Jython
can be used for virtually anything for which Java can be used. We
considered other languages (e.g., Java and Scheme), but selected
Jython based on survey responses from students and teachers
\cite{mediacomp}. Jython's design is based on the research
findings on studying novice programmers (e.g., \cite{looping},
\cite{noiterate}, \cite{pane01}).

\subsubsection{Curriculum}

The semester outline of the course appears below.  The course was
offered as a three credit hour course with five weeklong lab
activities, six homeworks, three in-class examinations, and two
take-home examinations (programming assignments) with optional
recitations.  The general structure of the course was 11 weeks of
media-relevant material (e.g., sound, pictures, movies, text
manipulation, network, and database), with four weeks of computer
science that answers questions that arose during the course of the
11 weeks.

\begin{itemize}
\item Week 1: Introduction to the course and the argument for why
  media computation. Introduction to variables and functions, in the
  context of playing sounds and showing pictures.
\item Weeks 2--3: Pictures as a media type, including psychophysics
  (why don't we see 1024x768 dots on the screen?), looping to change
  colors with a simplified \textbf{for} loop
  (Figure~\ref{fig:greyscale}), conditionals to replace specific
  colors, then indexing by index numbers to implement mirroring, rotating,
  cropping, and scaling.
  \begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{example}
def greyScale(picture):
  for p in getPixels(picture):
    intensity = (getRed(p)+getGreen(p)+getBlue(p))/3
    setColor(p,makeColor(intensity,intensity,intensity))
\end{example}
\caption{An example Jython program using our API to convert a
picture to greyscale\label{fig:greyscale}}
\end{figure*}

\item Weeks 4--6: Sound as a media type, including psychophysics (how
  human hearing limitations make MP3 compression possible), looping to
  manipulate volume,
   %(Figure~\ref{fig:normalize}),
   then indexing by
  index numbers to do splicing and reversing of sounds.
  %(Figure~\ref{fig:backwards}).
  Include discussion of how to debug and
  how to design a program, as those issues arise. One lecture on
  additive and FM sound synthesis.

%\begin{figure*}[htb]
%\begin{example}
%def normalize(sound):
%    largest = 0
%    for s in getSamples(sound):
%        largest = max(largest,getSample(s) )
%    multiplier = 32767.0 / largest
%
%    print "Largest sample value in original sound was",  largest
%    print "Multiplier is", multiplier
%
%    for s in getSamples(sound):
%        louder =  multiplier * getSample(s)
%        setSample(s,louder)
%\end{example}
%\caption{An example Jython program using our API to normalize sounds to a maximum volume\label{fig:normalize}}
%\end{figure*}
%


%\begin{figure*}[htb]
%\begin{example}
%def backwards(filename):
%  source = makeSound(filename)
%  target = makeSound(filename)
%
%  sourceIndex = getLength(source)
%  for targetIndex in range(1,getLength(target)+1):
%    sourceValue = getSampleValueAt(source,sourceIndex)
%    setSampleValueAt(target,targetIndex,sourceValue)
%    sourceIndex = sourceIndex - 1
%
%  return target
%\end{example}
%\caption{Return the sound in the file backwards\label{fig:backwards}}
%\end{figure*}

\item Week 7: Text as a media type: Searching for text, composing
  text, reading text from a file and writing it to a file. An example
  program parses out the temperature from a downloaded weather page.
\item Week 8: Networks,
  including making the temperature-finding program work from the
  ``live'' Web page. Introduction to HTML.
\item Week 9: Discuss media transitions.  Moving from sound to text
  and back to sound again.  Using Excel to manipulate media after
  converting it to text.
\item Week 10: Introduction to databases: Storing media in databases,
  using databases in generating HTML.
\item Week 11: Movies: How persistence of vision makes animations and
  movies possible, generating frames using the various techniques
  described earlier in the semester, manipulating whole directories of files.
\item Week 12: ``Can't we do this any faster? Why is Photoshop faster
  than Python?'' Introduction to how a computer works (e.g., machine
  language), and the difference between an interpreter and a
  compiler. Algorithmic complexity and the limits of computation.
\item Week 13: ``Can we do this any easier?'' Decomposing functions,
  modularity, and functional programming (map, reduce, filter, and
  simple recursion).
\item Week 14: ``Can't we do this any easier?'' Introduction to
  objects and classes.
\item Week 15: ``What do other programming languages look like?''
  Brief overview of JavaScript and Squeak.
\end{itemize}

Student homework assignments started with simple Photoshop-style
filters (Figure~\ref{fig:hw1}) (average score 92\% with a standard
deviation of 22.1). We moved on to sound, and students' first
take-home exam was to splice and reverse sounds
(Figure~\ref{fig:te1}) (average score 92.1\% with a standard
deviation of 15.3).  Some of the assignments invited creativity,
such as the third homework
%(Figure~\ref{fig:hw3})
which required creation of a collage, but without concern for
\emph{what} was in the collage (average score 86.3\% standard
deviation 26.0). These homework results became sizable--the
average number of lines of code (of students who gave us consent
to look at their homework results) was 64 with a standard
deviation of 32.4. The largest was 166 lines of code.  Several
students posted their collages in the shared collaboration space
as a creative and social space (Figure~\ref{fig:collages}).  The
final homework assignment involved programmed Web access and
creation of animations (Figure~\ref{fig:hw6}) (average score
84.6\% standard deviation 29.2). Final exam questions spanned a
wide range of computing concepts, including issues of networking,
databases, and computing theory.
\end{spacing}

\begin{spacing}{1}
{\small
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{|p{6in}|}\hline
Write a program named \textbf{hw1} to accept a picture as input,
and change its pixels as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item Set the green component to 125{\%} of its current value
\item Decrease the blue by 25{\%}
\item Decrease the red by 75{\%}
\end{itemize} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{First homework assignment by \emph{Media Computation}
  students\label{fig:hw1}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{|p{6in}|}\hline
At the Feb. 7 class, we recorded this sound
\emph{thisisatest2.wav} (``This is a test.''). Using MediaTools,
we found the end points for each of the words in the sound: (Table
omitted)

Write a function \textbf{backSpliced} that splices the last word
(``test'') into the front of the word, but \textit{backwards}, so
that the result is:``Tset is a test.'' \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{First take-home exam assignment by \emph{Media
Computation}
  students\label{fig:te1}}
\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}
%\begin{tabular}{|p{6in}|}\hline
%Create a collage of the same image at least three times fit onto the 7x9.5in
%blank JPEG. (You are welcome to add additional images, too.) You can do any
%of
%
%\begin{itemize}
%\item scaling the image,
%\item cropping the image,
%\item creating a negative of the image,
%\item shifting or altering colors on the image,
%\item and making it darker or lighter.
%\end{itemize} \\ \hline
%\end{tabular}
%\caption{Third homework assignment by \emph{Media Computation}
%  students\label{fig:hw3}}
%\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{StudentCollages2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Four student collages shared from the third homework
  assignment\label{fig:collages}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{|p{6in}|}\hline
\emph{http://www.cnn.com} is a popular news site. You are to write
a function (named ``hw6'') that will input a directory as a string
then:

\begin{itemize}
\item Visit \emph{http://www.cnn.com} and pick out the
  \textit{top three} news stories headlines in the \textbf{More News}
  section.
\item Create a ticker tape movie on the 640x480 canvas of all three
  news stories. Have one come across at y=100, another at y=200, and
  the third at y=300. Generate 100 frames, and don't have the ticker
  tapes move more than 5 pixels per frame.  Store the
  frames to files in the input directory.
\end{itemize}
 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Final homework assignment by \emph{Media Computation}
  students\label{fig:hw6}}
\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}
%\begin{center}
%\begin{tabular}{|p{6 in}|}\hline
%
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Your father calls you. ``My tech support people are saying that the
%company website is down because the database program is broken. What does
%the \textit{database} have to do with our company \textit{website}?'' You explain to him how databases can be integral to running large websites.
%Explain both (a) how the website comes to be authored through the database
%and (b) how the HTML is actually created.
%
%\item  What are three reasons why someone should use multiple functions in
%their programs, rather than one big function?
%
%\item What is a protocol and where is it specified in a URL?
%
%\item Is it possible to write a program to solve the \textit{Traveling Salesman} \textit{Problem}? Is it possible to
%write a program to solve the \textit{Halting Problem}?
%\end{itemize} \\ \hline
%\end{tabular}
%\end{center}
%\caption{Some final exam essay questions from the \emph{Media Computation}
%  class\label{fig:final}}
%\end{figure}
}
\end{spacing}
\begin{spacing}{2}
\subsubsection{Technology Development}

Three different software technology developments were used in the
course:
\begin{itemize}
\item There was no Jython development environment when we started this
  project.  We have
  developed \emph{JES} (Jython Environment for Students), modelling it
  after the popular DrScheme environment \cite{htdp}. Development of
  JES also included development of a simplified API for accessing the
  Java media library.  We were pleased to receive \emph{no}
  reports of crashes or failures of JES over the course of the
  semester.
\item Students also needed tools for exploring media: Recording and
  viewing sounds (and FFTs), investigating the RGB values of
  individual pixels, and assembling movies and bursting movies into
  individual frames. We created a cross-platform \emph{MediaTools}
  based on Squeak \cite{whitebook}.
\item We used our existing collaboration technology, CoWeb
  \cite{cowebjls, cowebiticse}, to support student question asking and
  sharing of media artifacts.  The \emph{constructionist} theory of
  learning suggests that the creation of public artifacts creates a
  strong potential for learning \cite{papertconstructionism}.  We have
  had good success in the past using our collaboration tools to
  support sharing of multimedia artifacts to encourage critique and
  motivate learning \cite{colleen}\cite{icls-2cool}\cite{coolstudio}.
\end{itemize}

We have pending a proposal to the NSF CISE Educational Innovations
program to fund further development of the technology.  In
particular, we hope to merge the MediaTools and JES
functionalities so that the MediaTools become effective as
debugging tools. In our observations of students using JES and
MediaTools, virtually no use of MediaTools occurred at all.
Currently, students create pictures and sounds, but to study how
individual pixel values get set or to see a visualization of the
generated sound (e.g., were any samples generated, or is the
volume too low to be heard?), students have to save the media out
to files, then start up MediaTools and open them there. We hope to
integrate media exploration into the programming environment so
that students can explore more easily their output media.

CoWeb was particularly successful in the class.The students made
extensive use of a collaborative website \footnote{at
  \url{http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/cs1315}}. For example, each of the assignments (homework, labs, and take-home exams)
  had Q{\&}A pages associated with them where extensive discussions
  took place. For each exam, a review page was posted where students could
  answer sample questions, ask questions about the questions or
  concepts, and critique each other's remarks. Each week, a new general ``Comment on the week'' page was put up
  for general feedback and discussion, with leading questions on
  issues in the course.
%\item Pages encouraging anonymous feedback were provided.
%\item A ``Soapbox'' section (student-editable) which appeared at the top of every CoWeb page encouraged
%  students to make public comments, which often led to lively
%  discussion.
%\end{itemize}

The CoWeb became a central place for question-asking and
discussion. We know that that's a critical role in CS1, since
comfort in asking questions has been highly correlated with
attrition in CS1 \cite{comfort-cs1}.  From interviews, we know
that the CoWeb increased that comfort.
\begin{spacing}{1.5}
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Q. Have you consistently felt comfortable asking
questions? } Student D: Not at the beginning. One on one, yes. In
lecture, not at the beginning because I felt that I was so far
behind other people and the ones who were putting things on the
web were the ones who really know stuff. But now I have no
problem.

\textbf{Q. Do you think the CoWeb is beneficial? } Student D: Yes.
And there's no reason to feel uncomfortable because if you feel
dumb, just don't put your name at the end! I did that a few times.
\end{quote}
\end{spacing}

\subsection{Evaluation Methods and Results}

Our evaluation effort had three hypotheses: (1) the prototype
course will improve student retention, especially among
non-CS-majors and women; (2) the prototype course will improve
student motivation toward computer science; and (3) the prototype
course will lead to good student learning, perhaps better than in
a comparable course.

Our evaluation effort was conducted under the review of the
Georgia Tech Human Subjects Review Board, to whom this proposal
and all our instruments were submitted for review as they were
developed.  Students were informed about the research project, the
instruments, how they might be impacted, and potential risks.
Assessment was organized such that the PI and the assessment
team\footnote{Graduate research assistants
  Andrea Forte and Rachel Fithian, and undergraduate research
  assistant Lauren Rich} designed the assessment, but the assessment
team gathered and analyzed all data apart from the PI, since he
was also the teacher of the course.

We gathered and analyzed several sources of data.
\begin{itemize}
\item We had demographic data which we used to address the
  retention question.  We had course work from consenting students.
\item We took surveys during the first week of the term, midway
  through the term, and in the last week of the term.  We used the
  same surveys in two other classes: A section of our traditional CS1
  course ($n=127$), and a section of the prototype Engineering-oriented CS1
  ($n=75$).
\item We attempted to develop and distribute polymorphic problems
  (same problem, but changed in language or other minor details for
  the course context) that were offered in all three CS1's on
  exams--for example, on computing an average test grade and
  determining an appropriate letter grade, and on the infamous Rainfall
  Problem \cite{soloway-yale-studies}.
\item We interviewed a sample of female students in the \emph{Media
    Computation} class on their attitudes toward computer science and
    the course. We had seven interviews in total--three early in the
    semester, and all three were interviewed again at the end of the
    term along with another student at the end.
  \item We also observed volunteer students working on their homework
    so that we could have a sense of strategies and problems,
    especially with the technology.  There were 11 observation
    sessions, including 6 with just one (male) student to track
    development.  The other observation sessions were all with female
    students.
\end{itemize}


\subsubsection{Evaluation of Retention}

Retention rate is defined operationally in this study in two ways.
The \emph{completion retention rate} is defined as the
  ratio of the number of students completing the course to the number
  of students enrolled in the course. The \emph{course success retention rate} is defined as the
  ratio of the number of students completing the course with a C or
  better to the number of students who enrolled in the course.
  (Several academic units at Georgia Tech require students to re-take
  courses if they received a D.)

The literature on both rates is rather negative.  Completion rates
of less than 30\% is not uncommon in CS1 \cite{failurerates}. In
an email survey on the ACM SIGCSE members list, course success
retention rates of less than 50\% were reported at several schools
\cite{retention-sigcse}. The ``best-practice'' comparison that we
have for non-majors, in a pair-programming CS1 class, had a 66.4\%
course success retention rate \cite{pair-programming} (in that
study, compared to a non-majors success rate of 55.9\% in a
traditional CS1). Our traditional CS class typically does
remarkably well in comparison with the literature, with a
completion retention rate of 80-90\% and a course success
retention rate better than 70\%, so it offers a high standard to
meet.

Our course completion retention rate for Spring 2003 was 98\%. Our
course success retention rate was 89\%.  During that semester, our
comparison section of our traditional CS1 had a 57.1\% course
success rate.

\subsubsection{Evaluation of Motivation}

The stated goal for the prototype course was to address the
disinterest in computer science, especially among non-CS-majors
and women.  We were concerned with three kinds of motivational
factors:
\begin{itemize}
\item Do students find the current course engaging?  An engaging
  course is more likely to lead to learning \cite{intrinsic}
  \cite{pintrich} \cite{pbl}.
\item Do students find computer science engaging?
\item Would students consider taking future computer science courses?
  While the goal of the prototype course is to simply address issues
  of disinterest, positive response to this question would suggest
  that the media computation (``data-first'') approach has potential
  for attracting potential CS majors.
\end{itemize}

When asked what they like about the class in the midterm survey,
the students affirm that we're succeeding at creating a course
that students recognize for its relevance, particularly for non-CS
majors:

\begin{itemize}
\item ``I like the feeling when I finally get something to work.''
\item ``Very applicable to everyday life.''
\item ``I dreaded CS, but ALL of the topics thus far have been applicable to my future career ({\&} personal) plans- there isn't anything I don't like about this class!!!''
%\item ``When I finally get a program to work like I want it to.''
\item ``The professor answers questions in class and online and is
concerned about our success in the class. He also seems to
understand that most of us are not engineers and most likely won't
do straight programming in the future- just the way of thinking is
important.''
\item ``I think that we're doing things that I could actually use as
an architecture major--I like dealing with pictures and sounds.
\end{itemize}

When we asked students ``What is something interesting,
surprising, or useful that you learned?'' we found that students
appreciated the relevance of the course and even found the
computer science interesting (again, all female respondents):

\begin{itemize}
\item ``The most useful things I have learned are the basics about computers and pictures/sound...interesting and useful to real life applications.''
\item ``Just general concepts about programming. It's pretty logical, sort of like in math, so it's understandable.''
\item ``Programming is fun and ANYONE can do it!''
\end{itemize}

Students who have positive attitudes about CS and who enjoy
computing are likely to continue in computer science. While it is
too early to tell what CS courses Media Computation students will
take in the future, we asked on the final survey whether or not
they would be interested in taking a more advanced media
computation course. 60{\%} of the female respondents answered that
they would take a second course (overall course average of
63{\%}).

Surprisingly, when asked \textit{on the same survey} whether or
not they plan to take more CS courses, only 6{\%} of those same
female respondents responded affirmatively (9.3\% overall). Why
would 60{\%} be willing to take media computation, while only
6{\%} planned to take more CS courses? One possible explanation is
that there is currently no advanced media computation course, and,
given the current selection of CS courses, Media Computation
students don't see a compelling reason to take more. Another might
be interpretation of the question: Students may interpret ``CS
courses'' as ``traditional CS courses'' as opposed to specialized
courses like Media Computation.

Students indicated that the course changed their attitudes about
programming in general, into something that they could imagine
themselves doing in the future.  On the final survey, 30\% of the
students indicated that they believed that they will program again
in the future.  Table~\ref{tbl:college} looks at these final
survey results by College of major.  In interviews, students talk
about programming in the future.

\begin{spacing}{1.5}
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Interviewer: What do you think about the homework
galleries on the CoWeb?}

Student A: I don't ever look at it until after I'm done, I have a
thing about not wanting to copy someone else's ideas. I just wish
I had more time to play around with that and make neat effects.
But JES will be on my computer forever, so{\ldots} that's the nice
thing about this class is that you could go as deep into the
homework as you wanted. So, I'd turn it in and then me and my
roommate would do more after to see what we could do with it.
%
%\textbf{Interviewer: Have you ever written code outside of
%assignments?}
%
%Student B: Sometimes I would write other stuff on my way to an
%assignment but not just like I sat down and wrote something. I
%don't have time to play with it. Like, I'm not gonna delete JES
%off my computer, and I may play with it when I get some free time
%later on, but not yet.
\end{quote}
\end{spacing}

{\small
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{72pt}|p{36pt}|p{52pt}|p{52pt}|p{52pt}|p{52pt}|}
\hline & $N$ respondents.& Will use programming again in the
future.& Feel they learned to program.& Plan to take more CS. &
Would recommend 1315 to friends who didn't have to take it. \\

\hline Architecture& 8& 12.5{\%}& 50.0{\%}& 0.0{\%}&
37.5{\%} \\
\hline Ivan Allen (liberal arts)& 24& 41.7{\%}& 91.7{\%}&
17.4{\%}&
82.6{\%} \\
\hline Management& 19& 21.1{\%}& 68.4{\%}& 5.3{\%}&
68.4{\%} \\
\hline Science& 3& 33.0{\%}& 100{\%}& 0.0{\%}&
50.0{\%} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{Media Computation} student responses on final
survey by
  College of major\label{tbl:college}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
}

%A striking example of change in attitudes toward CS can be found
%in the following statement made by a female Media Computation
%student when asked whether or not the course had changed her
%perception of computer science:
%
%\begin{spacing}{1.5}
%\begin{quote}
%  ``YES, I'm not intimidated by it anymore. My mom was SO surprised
%  when I told her that I want to be a TA\footnote{All of our CS1
%    courses make extensive use of undergraduate teaching assistants.}
%  she almost fell on the floor, cuz she's heard me complain for 3
%  years about taking this class and now I want to go do it to myself
%  again!''
%\end{quote}
%\end{spacing}

Many students were clearly excited about the potential for using
media in ways they had not previously encountered. Two students
reported on the midterm survey that they had written programs to
reverse popular songs, in order to find out if there were hidden
messages. One student reported using Python to create an online
scrapbook. Students often turned in homework assignments that
included far more complex code than was required.

\subsubsection{Evaluation of Learning}

We developed several problems that we attempted to put on all
three courses' exams and quizzes. Unfortunately, logistical
considerations such as different rates of development and
sequencing of concepts in each course and different times and
numbers of exams and quizzes prevented us from distributing the
problems as uniformly as we would have liked. In addition, those
questions that did make it onto multiple exams were modified by
the individual course instructors and teaching assistant to such
an extent that it is difficult to compare them. In general, we
found that the different programming languages used, the
differences in directions given on exams, and the kinds of
examples provided on the exams created unique conditions for each
course and rendered the results fundamentally incomparable. For
example, the most common problem among the Engineering students'
was mishandling of \code{ELSE} clauses.  Media Computation
students never used an \code{ELSE} clause.  It's difficult to
compare these results in terms of learning.

A more reliable indicator of the Media Computation students'
programming achievement could be found in students' attempt to
solve a classically difficult problem, such as \textit{The
Rainfall Problem.} The rainfall problem is: ``Write a program that
repeatedly reads in positive integers, until it reads the integer
99999. After seeing 99999, it should print out the average.'' At
Yale in the mid-80's, Elliot Soloway gave this problem to several
groups of students \cite{soloway-yale-studies}. Of first semester
CS1 students, only 14\% of the students got it correct (completely
correct other than syntactic errors).  Only 36\% of CS2 students
got it correct, and only 69\% of students in a junior-senior level
systems programming course.  This was one of the first empirical
demonstrations that learning about programming was less than what
we might have expected. (This finding was replicated in
\cite{iticse2001}.)

Our students were not directly comparable to the Yale students.
For example, we hadn't covered the same things (e.g., at the time
of the exam, they had only seen \code{WHILE} once in class), and
we had to change the wording of the problem accordingly.
Nonetheless, 14 people out of 113 (12{\%}) who took the test ``got
it''--by Soloway's standards that means they had a correct
solution (aside from syntactic errors). With partial credit, the
average on the problem was 45{\%}.

The traditional CS1 also included a variation of the rainfall
problem on \emph{two} of their tests, but we were unable to get
the raw problems to code ourselves and compare. On the first test
(which stipulated the use of tail recursion), the result was an
average score of 53{\%}. On the second test (which was open to any
kind of iteration), the result was an average score of 60{\%}.

Overall, the rainfall problem continues to be a hard problem for
CS1 students. These results don't show that the Media Computation
students are learning programming remarkably well. But they do
show that these students aren't out of the ballpark either.  The
bottomline is that it's still an open question how much the Media
Computation students learned about programming and how they
compare to students in other classes.

\subsection{Dissemination and Self-Sustained Distribution}

During the time of this project, we have been very active in
disseminating the results and materials, helping others to adopt
the materials, and taking steps toward self-sustained
distribution.
\begin{itemize}
\item At SIGCSE2003, Guzdial hosted a tutorial on \emph{Media
    Construction Projects in Computer Science Courses} which covered
  the basics of doing media computation in Python, Java, and Squeak.
  The 11 participants all stated on the final evaluation that they
  would recommend this workshop to others.
\item A similar tutorial and a paper on the planning and development
  of the Media Computation course was accepted for ITiCSE 2003
  \cite{mediacomp}, which will be presented in July 2003.
\item Guzdial spoke on the course at a meeting of
  representatives from all the CS departments of the University
  System of Georgia.  Several schools expressed interest in adopting
  the course.  Charles Fowler of Gainesville College, a two-year
  college, is offering the course as a trial this
  summer, with plans to offer two sections of the course in the Fall
  (letter of support included).  Guzdial was also invited to speak at
  Kennesaw College and
  Augusta State College, each four year colleges.  Guzdial is actively
  working with Kennesaw on their plans to trial the course.
\item Guzdial also gave a talk at DePauw University on the course.
\item Finally, Prentice-Hall has signed a contract with Guzdial to
  produce a book \emph{Introduction to Media Computation} with no
  completion date at this time.
\end{itemize}

\section{Project Plan}

While the results from the pilot offering of the course have been
quite strong, there is still much to do.
\begin{itemize}
\item We view our results with some skepticism.  The PI was also
  the teacher for the course.  There was probably a strong Hawthorne Effect
  (though that's not necessarily bad \cite{brown-design}) given the
  trial offering of the course.
\item The course materials have now worked \emph{once} at the
  developer's institution.  We will clearly need to adapt the course materials
  as we get feedback from other institutions.
\item We are very interested in the longer term effects of the
  course.  Do students take more computer science?  We would like to
  provide that second course that students state that they're
  interested in, and thus provide an entry
  way into the rest of the CS curriculum.  Do some students become
  computer science majors?  How does the course impact their use of
  computation in their own disciplines?
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Development Plan: Completing one course and creating a path}

We plan to continue developing \emph{Introduction to Media
  Computation} over the proposed three year period. The development of
the course will continue to be led by the PI, Professor Mark
Guzdial. There are several challenges that we will be facing that
will lead to changes in the course materials.
\begin{itemize}
\item The course will be ramping up in size.  During the Fall 2003
  semester, there will be two sections of 120, and three in Spring
  2004.  The initial pilot of 120 could be taught with incomplete
  materials by responding to many questions. As the class ramps up,
  the materials need to be better.
\item The course will be taught by others.  In the Spring 2004
  semester, Professors Blair MacIntyre and Colin Potts will each teach
  sections of the course (along with Guzdial), and most probably a full-time instructor
  will teach a section in Summer 2004.  The course materials will need
  to be adaptable easily by other instructors.
\item The course will be taught elsewhere.  Currently, it's being
  taught at Gainesville College with close cooperation from Georgia
  Tech, but eventually, it will be taught by others without our
  knowledge.  We want to evaluate the initial offerings elsewhere so
  that we can learn what needs to be changed for other audiences.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Creating a path}
In addition, we want to develop a second course that will serve as
a follow-on to our Media Computation course.  Our plan is for
Media Computation plus the second course will be accepted as a
pre-requisite for our CS2, so that students can use Media
Computation as a path into the major.

The definition of the second course falls out from what is
commonly in a CS1 course according to the ACM/IEEE Computing
Curriculum 2001\cite{cc2001}.  The current Media Computation
course covers well the knowledge units in the topics \emph{PF1
Fundamental programming constructs}, \emph{PF2 Algorithms and
problem-solving}, and \emph{SP1 History of computing}.  However,
we only touch on \emph{PF3 Fundamental data structures} (just
strings, lists, and arrays, with little trees and no graphs or
linked lists) and \emph{AL3 Fundamental computing algorithms}
(linear search, some binary search, but no graph traversals or
sorts).  The second course would need to cover the rest of PF3 and
AL3.

We would use a media-oriented approach for some of the course, but
not just media. The second course would also be a second course
for the prototype Engineering CS1, again, as a pathway into
computer science.  The Engineering CS1 course plus the second
course would also meet the pre-requisite for our CS2. In general,
the second course will be a \emph{data-first} approach, as the
Media Computation course is.

Undergraduate computer science courses tend to emphasize the
processing of any kind of data at all.  In a sense, it's
\emph{data agnostic}---all data should be treated exactly the
same.  In this way, focus can be shifted to abstracted data
representations laid on top of the data. However, most
non-CS-majors come to computers because \emph{they want some
processing of data of interest}.  The focus for them is on their
data.  By paying attention to the data that the students care
about, we may be able to increase their motivation for learning
programming.  In the terms of the ACM/IEEE Computing Curriculum
2001, our approach is ``data-first''---we start from the data that
students care about, then introduce computing as a way of
creating, manipulating, and transforming the data that they care
about.

Co-PI Professor Blair MacIntyre will be leading the effort to
develop the second course during the second year of the grant, and
working with us on evaluation during the third year of the grant.
Professor MacIntyre has a strong interdisciplinary research
background, especially in applications of computer science to
liberal arts concerns, and a strong interest in undergraduate
education. Professor MacIntyre's research is in augmented reality,
and he does extensive work with faculty in our Ivan Allen College
of Liberal Arts who are developing new media. In particular,
Professor MacIntyre works with Professor Jay Bolter in digital
storytelling with augmented reality \cite{augreality}.

\subsubsection{Media Computation for majors}
We are already developing Java versions of some of our materials,
and using them (in our recent SIGCSE2003 workshop).  We view the
Java materials as being more likely to be adopted
 in courses aimed at CS majors.  Our goal is not to
change all CS1 courses into Media Computation, but to make it
easier to include media-focused projects that motivate students
into Java-based CS1 courses. We believe that Media Computation may
engender similar excitement among CS majors as what we're seeing
among non-majors, and may help to raise retention rates in
introductory CS courses among majors as well. We agree with the
quote from Stephen Director earlier---women and non-majors may be
``canaries in the coal mine'' and what works better for them might
work better for men and CS majors, too.

We plan to continue developing the Java materials, and in years
two and three of the proposed project, develop these into a book
for a course supplement. These materials will be available
throughout the period of the grant on our website and in
workshops, and we will seek out a publisher during year three for
sustained dissemination of the materials.  Prentice-Hall has
expressed interest in the Java version of the book.

\subsection{More objective, credible evaluation}

The current evaluation will become more credible simply by
continuing the current evaluation protocols!  We would hope to
have more success on the learning evaluation when it's across
multiple terms, i.e., it was harder to coordinate among the other
course instructors and TA's since it was just a single term
effort. As the class moves out of it's trial period, and as others
start to teach the class, we will probably see some diminishment
of the euphoria surrounding the first offering of a CS1 course for
non-majors. In the next year to two years, we should see results
that better reflect the effectiveness of the course.  We also plan
to continue comparisons with the existing, traditional CS1 course.

We also plan to expand our interviews to males, as well as
females. Though we're pleased to see that we are meeting the goal
of keeping females' interest, we hope that we are not achieving
that goal at the expense of the men!  We want to understand,
generally, the gender impact of the course.

The evaluation will also become more objective and credible by
separating the PI from the evaluation process. For that reason,
evaluation will be taken over by the Director of Georgia Tech's
Center for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CETL), Dr.~Donna
Llewellyn. Dr.~Llewellyn has extensive experience in evaluation
and in studying issues of gender at a technical institution.  The
PI and his team will be involved in design of the studies, but
will not be overseeing the data collection and analysis.

We also plan to work with schools adopting our course, who are
willing to be part of our evaluation.  Gainesville College is
working with us now, using similar surveys to ours, so that we can
evaluate how well the class is working in other situations, and
can adapt the materials accordingly.

\subsubsection{Longitudinal evaluation}

An additional area of evaluation that we plan to introduce is
longitudinal tracking of Media Computation students as they
continue their careers. We want to know:
\begin{itemize}
\item Do these students take more computer science courses?
\item Do these students become computer science majors?
\item How does the course impact the students' use and learning of computation
  within their own majors?  For example, do Liberal Arts majors who
  use Photoshop learn it more easily or use it better (by their own
  estimation) than students who do not take the course?  Do
  Architecture majors learn AutoCAD more easily or use it better?
\end{itemize}

Our plan is to use a combination of email surveys and in-person or
phone interviews.
\begin{itemize}
\item At the end of each year, 10\% of the students who have taken the
  Media Computation course will be surveyed by email to ask about the
  CS classes they've taken and their use of computational tools.
\item At the end of each year, some small sample of students who have
  taken the course (perhaps 3--5 students) will be interviewed (by
  phone or in person) to understand how the course has effected their
  later careers and interaction with computation.  These data will
  also be used to inform further development of the course materials.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Dissemination and self-sustaining distribution}

Our further plans for dissemination are:
\begin{itemize}
\item We will continue to write papers as results arise and propose
  workshops/tutorials at ACM SIGCSE, ITiCSE, and IEEE/ASEE FIE
  conferences.  For SIGCSE2004, we plan to submit papers on the
  course results overall, on the female attitudes toward the
  course, and on the comparison between the three CS1 courses
  that we studied this year.  Depending on acceptances and travel
  budgets, we plan to present at one-to-two conferences per year.
\item We will continue to make materials available on our development
  website\footnote{\url{http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/mediaComp-plan}},
  and we plan to create a project website (with a more easily
  remembered URL) for wider dissemination.
\end{itemize}

We already have a plan for self-sustained distribution of the
materials, through a contract with Prentice-Hall.  We plan to
continue developing the materials during year one and publishing
the book sometime in year two of the proposed project.  As
mentioned, we also plan to seek a publisher for our Java materials
that we plan to develop in years two and three.

\section{Conclusion: Deliverables}

At the end of the funding period, several resources will be
available publicly to others who would like to use this method at
their own institutions, such as the books, lecture slides and
technologies, as well as the course planning website, where the
rationale for the course decisions is made explicit, and the
assessment instruments and evaluation results.  All of these
materials will be made available at the development website, at a
project website that we are setting up, and at the course CoWeb.

We believe that Media Computation is a viable approach to making
CS more relevant and improving retention rates in introductory
computing courses.  It's not the only approach, and we see that
our \emph{process} of development (which has involved faculty
advisors from across campus, on-line surveys of students, with
close ties to evaluation) is part of what we are studying and
disseminating. That's the point of our ITiCSE paper
\cite{mediacomp} and a recent SIGCSE invited editorial
\cite{sigcse-editorial}.  We hope that, by developing this
approach, we can improve the success of both non-majors and majors
in computer science.


\end{spacing}

%End Matter
    \newpage

\begin{spacing}{1}
%\bibliographystyle{sigcse}
%\bibliography{proposal2}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}

\bibitem{tech-savvy}
{ AAUW}.
\newblock {\em Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age}.
\newblock American Association of University Women Education Foundation, New
  York, 2000.

\bibitem{cc2001}
{ ACM/IEEE}.
\newblock Computing Curriculum 2001.
\newblock {\em \url{http://www.acm.org/sigcse/cc2001}\/} (2001).

\bibitem{pbl}
{ Blumenfeld, P.~C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.~W., Krajcik, J.~S.,
Guzdial, M., and
  Palincsar, A.}
\newblock Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting
  the learning.
\newblock {\em Educational Psychologist 26}, 3 \& 4 (1991), 369--398.

\bibitem{brown-design}
{ Brown, A.~L.}
\newblock Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in
  creating complex interventions in classroom settings.
\newblock {\em The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2}, 2 (1992), 141--178.

\bibitem{icls-2cool}
{ Craig, D., ul~Haq, S., Khan, S., Zimring, C., Kehoe, C., Rick,
J., and
  Guzdial, M.}
\newblock Using an unstructured collaboration tool to support peer interaction
  in large college classes.
\newblock In {\em International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2000}. Ann
  Arbor, MI, 2000, pp.~178--184.

\bibitem{changingminds}
{ diSessa, A.}
\newblock {\em Changing Minds}.
\newblock MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.

\bibitem{htdp}
{ Felleisen, M., Findler, R.~B., Flatt, M., and Krishnamurthi, S.}
\newblock {\em How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and
  Computing}.
\newblock MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.

\bibitem{freeman}
{ Freeman, P., and Aspray, W.}
\newblock {\em The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United
  States}.
\newblock Computing Research Association, New York, 1999.

\bibitem{whitebook}
{ Guzdial, M.}
\newblock {\em Squeak: Object-oriented design with Multimedia Applications}.
\newblock Prentice-Hall, Englewood, NJ, 2001.

\bibitem{cowebiticse}
{ Guzdial, M.}
\newblock Use of collaborative multimedia in computer science classes.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 2001 Integrating Technology into Computer
  Science Education Conference}. ACM, Canterbury, UK, 2001.

\bibitem{retention-sigcse}
{ Guzdial, M.}
\newblock Summary: Retention rates in CS vs. institution.
\newblock Message posted on ACM SIGCSE moderated members list, Georgia Tech,
  April 23 2002.

\bibitem{mediacomp}
{ Guzdial, M.}
\newblock A media computation course for non-majors.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Innovation and Technology in Computer
  Science Education (ITiCSE) 2003 Conference\/} (New York, 2003), ACM, ACM,
  pp.~In--Press.

\bibitem{cowebjls}
{ Guzdial, M., Rick, J., and Kehoe, C.}
\newblock Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative
  activities in higher education.
\newblock {\em Journal of the Learning Sciences 10}, 3 (2001), 265--279.

\bibitem{sigcse-editorial}
{ Guzdial, M., and Soloway, E.}
\newblock Computer science is more important than calculus: The challenge of
  living up to our potential.
\newblock {\em Inroads -- The SIGCSE Bulletin 35}, 2 (June 2003), 5--8.

\bibitem{colleen}
{ Kehoe, C.~M.}
\newblock {\em Supporting Critical Design Dialog}.
\newblock Unpublished ph.d. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology,
  2001.

\bibitem{augreality}
{ MacInytre, B., Bolter, J.~D., Moreno, E., and Hannigan, B.}
\newblock Augmented reality as a new media experience.
\newblock In {\em International Symposium on Augmented Reality\/} (2001),
  pp.~197--206.

\bibitem{intrinsic}
{ Malone, T., and Lepper, M.}
\newblock Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for
  learning.
\newblock In {\em Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction.}, R.~Snow and M.~Farr,
  Eds., vol.~3 of {\em Conative and Affective Process Analyses}. LEA,
  Hillsdale, NJ, 1987, pp.~223--253.

\bibitem{margolis}
{ Margolis, J., and Fisher, A.}
\newblock {\em Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing}.
\newblock MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002.

\bibitem{iticse2001}
{ McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D.,
Kolikant, Y.
  B.-D., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., and Wilusz, T.}
\newblock A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of
  programming skills of first-year CS students.
\newblock {\em ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 33}, 4 (2001), 125--140.

\bibitem{noiterate}
{ Miller, L.~A.}
\newblock Natural language programming: Styles, strategies, and contrasts.
\newblock {\em IBM Systems Journal 20}, 2 (1981), 184--215.
\newblock Languages require iteration where aggregate operations are much
  easier for novices.

\bibitem{pair-programming}
{ Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzil, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K.,
Miller, C., and
  Balik, S.}
\newblock Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming.
\newblock In {\em Twenty-fourth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science
  Education\/} (New York, NY, 2003), D.~Joyce and D.~Knox, Eds., ACM,
  pp.~359--362.

\bibitem{pane01}
{ Pane, J.~F., Ratanamahatana, C., and Myers, B.}
\newblock Studying the language and structure in non-programmers' solutions to
  programming problems.
\newblock {\em International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 54\/} (2001),
  237--264.

\bibitem{papert-memo}
{ Papert, S.}
\newblock Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about
  mathematics.
\newblock Ai memo no. 249 and logo memo no. 4, MIT, 1971.

\bibitem{mindstorms}
{ Papert, S.}
\newblock {\em Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas}.
\newblock Basic Books, New York, NY, 1980.

\bibitem{papertconstructionism}
{ Papert, S.}
\newblock Situating constructionism.
\newblock In {\em Constructionism}, I.~Harel and S.~Papert, Eds. Ablex
  Publishing Company, Norwood, NJ, 1991, pp.~1--11.

\bibitem{womensigcse2001}
{ Pfleeger, S.~L., Teller, P., Castaneda, S.~E., Wilson, M., and
Lindley, R.}
\newblock Increasing the enrollment of women in computer science.
\newblock In {\em The Proceedings of the Thirty-second SIGCSE Technical
  Symposium on Computer Science Education}, R.~McCauley and J.~Gersting, Eds.
  ACM Press, New York, 2001, pp.~386--387.

\bibitem{pintrich}
{ Pintrich, P.~R., and Schunk, D.~H.}
\newblock {\em Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications}.
\newblock Prentice-Hall, 1996.

\bibitem{failurerates}
{ Roumani, H.}
\newblock Design guidelines for the lab component of objects-first cs1.
\newblock In {\em The Proceedings of the Thirty-third SIGCSE Technical
  Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2002}, D.~Knox, Ed. ACM, New York,
  2002, pp.~222--226.
\newblock WFD (Withdrawl-Failure-D) rates in CS1 in excess of 30%.

\bibitem{looping}
{ Soloway, E., Bonar, J., and Ehrlich, K.}
\newblock Cognitive strategies and looping constructs: An empirical study.
\newblock {\em Communications of the ACM 26}, 11 (1983), 853--860.

\bibitem{soloway-yale-studies}
{ Soloway, E., Ehrlich, K., Bonar, J., and Greenspan, J.}
\newblock What do novices know about programming?
\newblock In {\em Directions in Human-Computer Interaction}, A.~Badre and
  B.~Schneiderman, Eds. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, 1982, pp.~87--122.

\bibitem{medialiteracy}
{ Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., and Hay, K.~E.}
\newblock Reading and writing in the 21st century.
\newblock {\em EDUCOM Review 28}, 1 (1993), 26--28.

\bibitem{comfort-cs1}
{ Wilson, B.~C., and Shrock, S.}
\newblock Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A
  study of twelve factors.
\newblock In {\em The Proceedings of the Thirty-second SIGCSE Technical
  Symposium on Computer Science Education}, R.~McCauley and J.~Gersting, Eds.
  ACM, New York, 2001, pp.~184--188.

\bibitem{coolstudio}
{ Zimring, C., Khan, S., Craig, D., Haq, S.-u., and Guzdial, M.}
\newblock Cool studio: Using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the
  design studio.
\newblock In {\em Design Thinking Research Symposium}. MIT, Cambridge, MA,
  1999.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{spacing}

\newpage

\section{Budget Justification}

% Just asking for funding to support evaluation, iteration, and dissemination

To fund this effort, this proposal includes a budget request for a
three year project.
\begin{itemize}
\item One summer month of the PI's time in Year One, and 0.75 of a
  summer month in each of Years Two and Three to develop the course
  materials (both for the Media Computation class and the Java-based
  materials) and work with evaluation,
\item One summer month of the co-PI's time in Years Two and Three to
  develop the follow-on course and work with evaluation on the pathway
  into CS through Media Computation,
\item Two graduate student research assistants to focus on evaluation
  with Dr.~Llewellyn,
\item One graduate student research assistant to help development of
  the course materials,
\item Our costs for these personnel include fringe, computing charges (for support within the College of Computing), and graduate student tuition,
\item Travel support for attending conferences to disseminate
  materials and results.
\item Materials and supplies, to support the development and
  evaluation effort.
\end{itemize}


\newpage
\section{Facilities}
The College of Computing maintains a variety of computer systems
in support of academic and research activities.  These include
more than 50 Sun, Silicon Graphics, and Intel systems used as file
and compute servers, many of which are quad-processor machines. In
addition, there are more than 1,000 workstation class machines
from Sun, Silicon Graphics, Intel, and Apple especially for
student use.  A number of specialized facilities augment these
general-purpose computing capabilities.  The hardware that will be
purchased for this project will be of similar quality to what the
students use, for testing purposes, but will be set up to
facilitate development.

The Graphics, Visualization, and Usability (GVU) Center houses a
variety of graphics and multimedia equipment, including
high-performance systems from Silicon Graphics, Sun, Intel, and
Apple.  The affiliated Multimedia, Computer Animation, Audio/Video
Production, Usability/Human Computer Interface, Virtual
Reality/Environments, Electronic Learning Communities,
Computational Perception, Software Visualization, Biomedical
Imaging, Collaborative Software, and Future Computing Environments
labs provide shared facilities targeting specific research areas.
These laboratories' equipments will be of use in developing our
multimedia projects.

PI Guzdial is the Director of the Collaborative Software Lab,
affiliated with GVU.  The Collaborative Software Lab has a bank of
ten servers supporting our experimental software for studying
computer-supported collaborative learning.  In addition, we have
three Linux workstations, two NT workstations, and two Apple
workstations used for development.  The focus of the Collaborative
Software Lab is on facilitating multimedia collaboration, so
multimedia facilities available include a high-end Alesis
keyboard, projection facilities, a Canon digital video camera, and
a Nikon digital camera.

All of the College's facilities are linked via local area networks
which provide a choice of communications capabilities from 10 to
1000 Mbps.  The College's network employs a high-performance OC12C
(622 Mbps) ATM and GigabitEthernet (1000 Mbps) backbone, with
connectivity to the campus ATM network provided via OC12C.  The
primary campus Internet connection is provided by a direct 100
Mbps link to the service provider's Atlanta switching center,
augmented by OC3C ATM and OC12C connections, respectively, to the
NSF vBNS (very high performance Backbone Network Service) and
Abilene research networks.  Georgia Tech is also leading southern
regional gigabit network efforts (SoX.net, the Southern
Crossroads) as part of Internet2.

Additional computing facilities are provided to the Georgia Tech
campus by the Institute's Office of Information Technology (OIT),
including five public-access clusters of Sun, Apple, and Dell
workstations, a collection of Sun multi-processors which are
treated as a single computational resource via login load sharing,
and various mainframes.

\end{document}
