ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

Distributed Expertise for Teaching

Computer Organization & Architecture
Lillian (Boots) Cassel (Co-Chair) Mark Holliday
Department of Computing Sciences Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
Villanova University Western Carolina University
Villanova, Pennsylvania (USA) Cullowhee, North Carolina (USA)
cassel @acm.org holliday@cs.wcu.edu

Deepak Kumar (Co-Chair) John Impagliazzo

Department of Mathematics & Computer Science Department of Computer Science
Bryn Mawr College Hofstra University
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania (USA) Hempstead, New York (USA)
dkumar@ brynmawr.edu csejzi @Hofst ra.edu

Kevin Bolding Murray Pearson

Department of Electrical Engineering Department of Computer Science
Seattle Pacific University The University of Waikato
Seattle, Washington (USA) Hamilton (New Zealand)
holding @spu.edu mpearson @cs.waikato.ac.nz

Jim Davies Gregory S. Wolffe

Computing Laboratory Department of Computer Science & Information
University of Oxford Systems
Oxford, England (UK) Grand Valley State University
Jim.davies @comlab.ox.ac.uk Allendale, Michigan (USA)
wolffe@csis.gvsu.edu

William Yurcik
Department of Applied Computer Science
Illinois State University
Normal, Illinois (USA)
wjyurci @ilstu.edu

represents a mid-point of an ongoing two-year study.

Abstract
This report presents preliminary results from our
project on creating distributed expertise for teaching
computer organization & architecture course(s) in the
undergraduate computer science curriculum. W e
present the details of an online survey designed to
gather information f r o m faculty on the current state of
teaching this course. T h e survey also tries to identify
specific areas of need for creating distributed expertise
as reported by various faculty. W e also present several
resources that h a v e been identified that are available
for use by faculty teaching the course(s). This report
Following a discussion of the currently identified
needs, we discuss ways to address t h e m and conclude
the report with a plan of action that will follow in the
next phase of the project.
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n
Basic principles about the organization and operation
of a computer occupy a place in the core of most
computing curricula. Because these topics m u s t be
taught in virtually all programs, there are wide
variations in the expertise and interests of faculty
assigned to teach them. S o m e faculty w h o teach these
subjects are deeply involved in the topic areas, others

111
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports
h a v e substantial e x p e r i e n c e but a different p r i m a r y
focus, a n d still others are clearly t e a c h i n g outside their
area o f e x p e r i e n c e a n d expertise. In all cases, the
faculty are c h a l l e n g e d to r e m a i n current in the topic
a n d to address both the f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s a n d
r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f recent d e v e l o p m e n t s .
T h e goal o f this w o r k i n g g r o u p is to d e t e r m i n e the
seriousness o f the p r o b l e m and to consider ways to
s u p p o r t teachers. T h e u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n h a s been
that there are p e o p l e t e a c h i n g in this subject a r e a w h o
are not entirely confident about the topic m a t e r i a l they
are teaching. T h i s situation can arise for a n y o f the
categories mentioned above. Even the most
e x p e r i e n c e d a n d i n v o l v e d r e s e a r c h e r in c o m p u t i n g
h a r d w a r e m a y not be current or c o n f i d e n t in s o m e
subtopics considered significant for i n t r o d u c i n g
students to the subject. C e r t a i n l y p e o p l e teaching
outside their interest a r e a are likely to be m o r e in n e e d
o f support t h a n others, but the need is widespread.
T h e basic a s s u m p t i o n s w e r e investigated t h r o u g h a
s u r v e y d e v e l o p e d a n d a d m i n i s t e r e d u n d e r a grant f r o m
the United States N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n ( N S F
E H R / D U E 9951352). T h e s u r v e y was a n n o u n c e d at
S I G C S E 2 0 0 0 at the N S F S h o w c a s e a n d further
p r o m o t e d t h r o u g h m e s s a g e s to the S I G C S E m a i l i n g
list.
A n u m b e r o f p e o p l e sent m e s s a g e s saying they h a d
h e a r d about the s u r v e y f r o m a colleague w h o s a w the
notice on the S I G C S E list a n d h a d a question or a
c o m m e n t . W e h a v e no w a y of t r a c k i n g h o w m a n y
p e o p l e h e a r d about the s u r v e y f r o m those we contacted.
T o date, 82 i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e c o m p l e t e d the survey.
T h e s u r v e y r e m a i n s online I a n d n e w entries a p p e a r
regularly.
T h e s u r v e y a i m s to identify w h i c h topic areas are
commonly taught in courses in computer
o r g a n i z a t i o n / a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d w h e r e faculty, teaching
those courses, h a v e low c o n f i d e n c e levels about their
c o m m a n d of the topics. T h e s u r v e y also identifies topic
areas that are not taught. T h e survey distinguishes
between those w h o do not teach the topic because they
do not h a v e a n y interest in i n c l u d i n g that topic in their
course a n d those w h o w o u l d like to include a specific
topic but do not for o n e reason or another. T h e survey
a l l o w e d a c h o i c e o f faculty or text as the limiting
factor. H o w e v e r , a n u m b e r o f s u r v e y participants said
they would teach s o m e o f these topics if they h a d m o r e
time.
2. O v e r v i e w of s u r v e y results
T h e s u r v e y has two distinct parts, general i n f o r m a t i o n
in the first p a r t a n d specific c o n f i d e n c e levels in the
second part. T h i s section addresses general i n f o r m a t i o n
about c o m p u t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n classes, while specific
c o n f i d e n c e levels are a d d r e s s e d later in Section 6.
http://christie.netlab.csc.villanova.edu/survey.html
t12
O f the respondents, 4 1 % use o n l y lectures for teaching,
while 4 3 % use lectures a n d labs together. 16% r e p o r t e d
u s i n g o n l y labs (open or closed) for teaching. T h i s
implies that the m a j o r i t y o f resources s h o u l d be d e v o t e d
to m a t e r i a l s to aid instructors in lecturing. A v a r i e t y o f
g r a d i n g m e c h a n i s m s are used. T h e p e r c e n t a g e of the
g r a d e o b t a i n e d f r o m e x a m s is a g o o d i n d i c a t o r o f the
general structure of the course. T h e m a j o r i t y ( 6 5 % )
d e t e r m i n e between 5 0 % a n d 7 5 % o f the g r a d e f r o m
e x a m s . 2 1 % o f the courses rely on e x a m s for less t h a n
h a l f o f the grade, a n d 13% use e x a m s for m o r e t h a n
t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the grade. In general, projects m a k e
up the b u l k of the r e m a i n i n g grade, with 6 9 % o f the
classes d e t e r m i n i n g between 2 5 % a n d 5 0 % o f the
g r a d e based on projects. F r o m these results, it is clear
that resources that h e l p design e x a m s a n d projects
would also be v e r y well received.
A l m o s t all r e s p o n d e n t s use a t e x t b o o k in t e a c h i n g the
course. A wide variety of texts a r e in use, but o n l y a
f e w s e e m to be w i d e l y used. T h e table b e l o w lists the
p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s u s i n g p a r t i c u l a r texts for all
texts that w e r e m e n t i o n e d m o r e t h a n once. T w o - t h i r d s
o f the courses r e p r e s e n t e d in the s u r v e y are t a u g h t
u s i n g either P a t t e r s o n / H e n n e s s e y , T a n e n b a u m , or
Stallings. R e s o u r c e s tied to o n e o f these texts are
likely to be well received, w h i l e t h o s e d e p e n d e n t on
other texts will find s m a l l e r audiences. See section 5.2
for a list o f all the texts m e n t i o n e d b y s u r v e y
responders.
Textbook Author Percentage
Using Text
D a v i d A. Patterson a n d 35%
J o h n L. I-Iennessey
A n d r e w S. T a n e n b a u m 19%
W i l l i a m Stallings 10%
M. M o r r i s M a n o 4%
G r e g W. S c r a g g 4%
Carl Hamacher and 3%
Zvonko Vranesic
All others 25%
T h e lab m a t e r i a l s used v a r y w i d e l y f r o m c o u r s e to
course. A m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s use l o c a l l y d e v e l o p e d
materials. H o w e v e r , several did m e n t i o n u s i n g the
S P I M s i m u l a t o r (see section 5.8 on S i m u l a t o r s below)
in their labs as well. It a p p e a r s that there is a g r e a t
n e e d for s o m e s t a n d a r d lab m a t e r i a l s to h e l p in
teaching computer organization.
Overall, there 13 a wide v a r i e t y o f a p p r o a c h e s to
t e a c h i n g this course. A b o u t the o n l y g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s
that can be m a d e are 1) m o s t courses d e t e r m i n e a r o u n d
o n e - h a l f o f the g r a d e f r o m e x a m s , a n d a r o u n d o n e -
third f r o m projects, and 2) m o s t courses use o n e o f the
t h r e e m o s t c o m m o n textbooks, as s h o w n in the table
above.
Our project a i m s to p r o v i d e s u p p o r t for t e a c h i n g faculty
without specifying h o w the faculty s h o u l d c o n d u c t their
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports
course. Thus, this is not a curriculum recommendation
and no suggested syllabus is included. This report
presents a comprehensive list of existing resources that
faculty can use now. W e also present the list of topic
areas, identified by our survey, that are most in need of
support. Since this is a part of an ongoing project, this
report represents a first analysis of the survey results;
more will follow in future reports.
3. M o t i v a t i o n
It is clear that a treatment of computer organization
and architecture should be required in any curriculum
for an undergraduate degree in computer science. For
example, the Computer Science Accreditation
Commission (CSAC) of the Computing Sciences
Accreditation Board (CSAB) states in its Criteria for
Accrediting Programs in Computer Science in the
United States, J1] adopted in January 2000, that "All
students must take a broad-based core of fundamental
computer science material ... The core materials must
provide basic coverage of ... computer organization
and architecture."
Topics covered in the required course or courses have
been stable for a number of years. For example, the list
of topics in Computing Curricula 199112] and the draft
C o m p u t i n g Curricula 200113] (current draft is dated
March 6, 2000) closely overlap. The draft Computing
Curricula 2001 report has been developed by the Joint
Task Force on Computing Curricula of the IEEE
Computer Society and of the Association for
Computing Machinery. This report identifies what
should be in the required core material on computer
organization and architecture within its CS Body of
Knowledge appendix. T h e m a i n topics listed are:
AR1. Digital logic and digital systems
AR2. Machine level representation of data
AR3. Assembly level m a c h i n e organization
AR4. M e m o r y system organization
AR5. I/O and communication
AR6. CPU implementation
4. V a r i a t i o n s in c o u r s e d e s i g n
There are several approaches to assembling the core
material on computer organization and architecture
into one or m o r e courses. Not recognizing the existence
of these different approaches can cause confusion when
discussing "the computer organization course"
(especially when considering the appropriateness of a
particular textbook). Beyond the required course(s),
there are elective courses that typically do a more
detailed treatment of uniprocessor m e m o r y and
processor design, address parallel architectures, or
focus on microcomputer interfacing. There are three
c o m m o n approaches to the number and format of the
required courses in computer organization and
architecture within the undergraduate computer science
curriculum.
113
The most thorough approach requires three courses
which are typically the following:
I. A digital logic course (the s a m e course that
electrical engineering and computer engineering
students take), which covers digital logic and
digital systems (AR1).
II. A course on the p r o g r a m m e r ' s view of
computer architecture; this course covers m a c h i n e
level representation of data (AR2) and assembly
level machine organization (AR3). This treatment
includes topics such as linking and loading and
the difference between RISC and C I S C instruction
set architectures.
III. A course on implementation of the instruction
set architecture (AR4-AR6).
The less thorough approach consists of a two course
sequence that covers AR1-AR6. Different divisions are
possible although these topics naturally divide as
follows: the first course covers A R 2 and AR3 and
lightly covers the other topics. The second course m o r e
deeply covers the other topics (AR1, AR4-AR6).
The least thorough approach teaches AR1 through AR6
in a single course.
There are m a n y reasons for choosing one approach or
another and for selecting the topics for a particular
course. This project attempts to identify resources that
will be of use in a particular course regardless of its
design and its goals. T h e next section presents a
comprehensive set of resources that are currently
available through the World W i d e Web.
5. E x i s t i n g r e s o u r c e s
In this section we review existing resources. Due to the
large volume and diversity of materials, a key issue is
how to categorize potential resources for these topics.
W e decided to categorize resources by source type.
Examples include curricular recommendations,
textbooks, conferences, and simulators. These are
described in the remainder of this section.
5.1 Curricula recommendations
T h e primary current r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for teaching
computer organization and architecture in the
undergraduate computer science curriculum are:
I. CSAC Criteria for Accrediting
Programs in Computer Science in the
United States [ 1]
II. A C M / I E E E C o m p u t i n g Curricula 1991
[2] This is the current approved
recommendation for the required coverage
of computer organization.
III. I E E E / A C M C o m p u t i n g Curricula 2001
report [3].
ITiCSE 2000 WorkingGroup Reports
5.2 T e x t b o o k s
Many books could and have served a~s textbooks for
computer organization courses (too many to list here).
The goal of this subsection is to provide a
representative list of currently used textbooks. We
focus on textbooks for the required undergraduate
computer organization course(s) and not on textbooks
intended for undergraduate elective or graduate
computer architecture courses. As an example of this
distinction, Patterson and Hennessy's Computer
Organization and Design, Second Edition[5] .is. widely
used for a required first course in computer
organization while Hennessy and Patterson's Computer
Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, Second Edition
is usually used for a more advanced undergraduate
elective or graduate course.The following list is derived
from responses in our survey (in alphabetical order):
I. Kenneth J. Ayala, The 80251 Microcontroller,
Prentice Hall, 1999 (ISBN: 0139075518).
Specific architecture focus (80251)
II. Sivarama P. Dandamudi, Introduction to
Assembly Language Programming: From 8086 to
Pentium Processors, Springer Verlag, 1998
(ISBN: 0387985301). Specific architecture focus
(Intel)
III. Irv Englander, The Architecture of Computer
Hardware and System Software: An Information
Technology Approach, John Wiley & Sons, 2000
(ISBN: 0471362093). Undergraduate general
focus
IV. James R. Goodman and Karen Miller,
Programmers View of Computer Architecture:
With Assembly Language Examples from MIPS,
RISC Architecture, HBJ College and School
Division, 1993. (ISBN: 0195131096). Specific
architecture focus (MIPS)
V. Carl Hamacher and Zvonko Vranesic,
Computer Organization 5 th edition, McGraw Hill,
2000, (ISBN: 0071143092). Undergraduate
general focus
VI. Vincent P. Heuring and Harry F. Jordan,
Computer Systems Design and Architecture,
Addison-Wesley, 1997 (ISBN: 080534330X).
Undergraduate general focus
VII. Kip R. Irvine, Assembly Language for lntel-
Based Computers 3 ra Edition, Prentice Hall, 1998
(ISBN:0136603904). Specific architecture focus
(Intel)
VIII. Morris Mano, Computer System Architecture
3 ra Edition, Prentice Hall, 1992 (ISBN:
0131755633) Undergraduate general focus
IX. Karen Miller, An Assembly Language
Introduction to Computer Architecture, Oxford
University Press, 1999. http:
114
Ilwww.cs.wisc.edul-smolerlx86text.html (ISBN#
019-512-376X)
X. David A. Patterson and John L. Hennessy,
Computer Organization and Design: The
Hardware/Software Interface, Second Edition,
Morgan Kaufmann, 1997 (ISBN: 1558604286).
http ://www.mkp.com/
books_catalog/catalog.asp?ISBN= 1-55860-428-6
Undergraduate focus, often considered advanced
XI. G-~eg W. Scragg, Computer Organization: A
Top-Down Approach, McGraw Hill, 1992
(ISBN:0070558434). Undergraduate general
focus
XII. William Stallings, Computer Organization
and Architecture: Design for Performance, 5 th
edition Prentice Hall, 2000 (ISBN: 0-13-081294-
3). h ttp://WilliamStallings.com/COA5e.html
Undergraduate general focus
XIII. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Structured Computer
Organization 4 th Edition, Prentice Hall, 1998
(ISBN: 0130959901).
http://cw.prenhall.com/bookbindl
pubbooks/tanenbaum2/ Undergraduate general
focus
XIV. David Weaver and Tom Germond, The
SPARC Architecture Manual Version 9, Prentice
Hall 1993 (ISBN: 0130992275). Specific
architecture focus (SPARC)
Future subcategorization of textbooks by the following
categories is under development. (Watch the project
web page[6] for updates):
the AR1-AR6 categories in the Computing
Curricula 2001 CS Body of Knowledge
instruction set architectures (for example, MIPS-
based versus Intel-based)
type of supporting software provided
the degree of inclusion of digital logic, assembly
language, and operating system content
publication date
A cross listing of course links and author links with
these textbooks is also under development. (Watch the
project web page[6] for updates).
5.3 C o n f e r e n c e s
Various computer science education conferences and
workshops either focus on computer architecture
education or host sessions on the topic. Some examples
follow:
I. Workshop on Computer Architecture
Education (WCAE). These workshops are held in
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

conjunction with the International S y m p o s i u m on
High Performance Computer Architecture
(HPCA) and/or International Symposium on
Computer Architecture (ISCA): the first one was
held in 1994. I E E E Computer Society's Technical
C o m m i t t e e on Computer Architecture (TCCA)
publishes proceedings of some workshops in the
T C C A Newsletters. Links to some of the
workshop p r o g r a m s are available from the project
web page[6].
II. A C M Special Interest Group on Computer
Science Education (SIGCSE) Sponsored
Conferences2:
S I G C S E Technical S y m p o s i u m on Computer
Science Education
Conference on Innovations and Technology in
C o m p u t e r Science Education (ITiCSE)
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/cs ed/iticse/
III. Compilation of Research Conferences
http://www.cs.wise.edu/~arch/wwwleonferences.ht
m (maintained by University of Wisconsin
Computer Architecture Group)
links to m a n y manufacturers can be found at: http://
www.cs .wisc.edu/~ arch/www/commercial.html.
A m o r e exhaustive list with live links will be m a d e
available through our project web site
(http://christie.netlab.cse.villanova.edu-results/). The
following are third party product review web sites that
can also serve as a useful resource:
C P U Info Center (http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC/)
L Tom's Hardware Page
(http://www. tomshardware, com/)
II. AnandTech
(http://www.anandtech. corn/index, html)
Storage Review
(http ://www.storag e review, corn/)
5.7 Course material repositories
Several repositories have been developed to contain
links to course material developed by instructors. S o m e
of these are applicable to C o m p u t e r Organization:

5.4 Computer architecture course database

I. Computer Science Education links
This database 3, maintained by Edward Gehringer of
(maintained by Renee McCauley). This repository
North Carolina State University, contains
is organized by subject area and contains links to
approximately six hundred problems ( m a n y with
answers) used by instructors from around the world. course materials developed by instructors. T h e web
The database is only accessible by registered users who p a g e for this repository can be reached through
are usually instructors. Registered users are able to www.acm.org/sigcse.
search the database and download problems without II. Computer Science Education Resources
charge. Registered users are also encouraged to submit (maintained by Lewis Barnett). This repository
problems that they have developed. contains links to resources relevant to computer
science education in a broader sense than the other
repositories listed in this section. A web page for
5.5 General computer architecture websites this repository can be reached through
T h e Computer Architecture H o m e Page 4 contains a www.acm.org/sigcse.
comprehensive list of web-accessible resources of m a n y HI. Computer Science Teaching Center (CSTC).
different types focused primarily on computer T h e C S T C is a digital library of reviewed
architecture research. While m u c h of this material is resources for teaching computer science. C S T C is
probably too advanced for an introductory computer currently a f r a m e w o r k for developing and
organization course, it does provide an overview of the distributing visualization tools, computing
current state-of-the-art. laboratories, and multimedia resources but will be
expanded to include a variety of other resources
such as curriculum development, test banks,
5.6 Vendors and product review sites
lecture notes, and syllabi. A m o n t h l y newsletter
C o m m e r c i a l sites contain a wealth of information that keeps subscribers informed about the latest
is product specific or that addresses the current features additions to the library. C S T C is partially funded
of a class of products. Product review sites compare by the National Science Foundation and by the
and contrast different vendor products in illuminating A C M Education Board. C S T C web pages can be
ways. A web page (maintained by University o f found at: http:l/www.cstc.org/
Wisconsin Computer Architecture Group) that provides
IV. National Science Foundation Computer
Science Courseware Repository (NSFCSCR).
2 http://www.acm.org/sigcse/conference info.html N S F C S C R has been established to provide a
3 http://wwwassign.physics.ncsu.edu/compareh/ means to electronically disseminate the results of
educational computer science p r o g r a m s and
4 http ://www.cs. wisc.edu/-arch/www/

115
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports
projects funded by NSF. This repository contains
links to resources for computer science education
that has been developed as part of a National
Science Foundation grant. T h e web pages for the
NSFCSCR can be found at:
http://www, education.siggraph.org/nsfcscr/nsfcscr.
home.html
5.8 Professional organizations
T h e professional c o m p u t i n g organizations have links to
publications, conferences and other resources that m a y
be o f use to instructors developing computer
organization courses. T h e s e organizations include:
I. T h e A C M (http://www.acm.org). T h e A C M
Digital Library can be found at
http:/Iwww.acm.org/dl/. Note that some content
m a y require a subscription.
II. S I G A R C H ( A C M Special Interest Group on
C o m p u t e r Architecture). S I G A R C H serves a
unique c o m m u n i t y o f computer professionals
working on the forefront of computer design in
both industry and academia. It is A C M ' s
p r i m a r y f o r u m for interchange of ideas about
t o m o r r o w ' s h a r d w a r e and its interactions with
compilers and operating systems. T h e web pages
can be found at http://www.acm.org/sigarch/.
III. S I G C S E ( A C M Special Interest Group on
C o m p u t e r Science Education). S I G C S E provides
a f o r u m for problems c o m m o n among educators
working to develop, implement, and/or evaluate
c o m p u t i n g programs, curricula, and courses, as
well as syllabi, laboratories, and other elements
o f teaching and pedagogy. S I G C S E also
publishes a bulletin that can be found at:
http://www.acm.org/sigcse/bulletin/
IV. SIGMETRICS (ACM Special Interest
G r o u p for C o m p u t e r / C o m m u n i c a t i o n System
Performance). S I G M E T R I C S s promotes research
in p e r f o r m a n c e analysis techniques as well as the
advanced and innovative use o f known methods
and tools.
V. S I G M I C R O ( A C M Special Interest Group
on Microarchitecture and M i c r o p r o g r a m m i n g ) .
S I G M I C R O 6 specializes in the study o f computer
microarchitecture including instruction -level
parallelism and its implications on compiler
design.
I. I E E E C o m p u t e r Society (www.computer.org)
5 http://www, sigmetrics.org/
6 http://www, acm.org/sigmicro
116
II. IEEE Computer Society Digital Library
(http://www.computer.org/publicationsldlibl).
Note that some content requires a subscription.
T h e May/June 2000 issue of the I E E E M i c r o
M a g a z i n e is a special issue dedicated to
computer architecture education. It can be found
at http://computer.orglmicrolindex.htm
III. T h e T C C A (Technical C o m m i t t e e on
C o m p u t e r Architecture) Newsletter. T h e T C C A
is involved with research and d e v e l o p m e n t in the
integrated h a r d w a r e and software design of
general and special-purpose uniprocessors and
parallel computers. The TCCA annually
sponsors the International S y m p o s i u m on
Computer Architecture and publishes a
newsletter periodically c o n t a i n i n g meeting
reports, abstracts o f technical reports, call-for-
papers, and other a n n o u n c e m e n t s . A web page
for the TCCA can be found at
http:l/www.computer.org/tab/ tcca/index.htm
5.9 Simulators
Current software t e c h n o l o g y enables rich learning
environments for visualization and active learning o f
computer organization using a n i m a t e d simulators.
Students can learn the fundamentals o f c o m p u t e r
organization/architecture by visually observing and
interacting with animated data flow within a particular
hypothetical or real machine. V i e w i n g highlighted
operations within a computer and in slow m o t i o n can
be a powerful teaching tool. A representative sample o f
simulators used in teaching is s u m m a r i z e d in Table 1.
5 . 1 0 Computing history
A d d i n g elements o f c o m p u t i n g history can provide
motivation and context for the rest o f a c o m p u t e r
organization course. A recent publication entitled
"History in C o m p u t i n g C u r r i c u l u m " [6] shows h o w o n e
can integrate history in the curriculum. It also provides
a list o f books, periodicals, videos web sites, courses
and other information o f interest that m a y be useful to
teachers and students. T h e following associated web
site also provides a c h r o n o l o g y o f historical events:
http://www.Hofstra.edu/ComputingI-tistory.
6. P r e l i m i n a r y n e e d s a n a l y s i s - s u r v e y r e s u l t s
T h e first step in providing distributed expertise in any
subject area is to d e t e r m i n e w h e r e such assistance
might be desired. In this section, we attempt to
identify the areas within c o m p u t e r
organization/architecture w h e r e survey respondents
feel they are most in need of assistance. As described
previously, we use instructors' r a n k i n g s o f their own
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

capabilities and confidence in their ability to teach

particular topics and sub-areas within those topics.

6.1 C o n t e n t areas
Section 3 defines the main topics recommended as
fundamental to computer organization/architecture
courses. Each of the major topics is broken down into
several subareas. W h e n instructors indicated that they
teach in a major area, they were surveyed in more detail
about each of the subareas. T h e more detailed sections
of the survey

117
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

Simulator OS's Type Features

Supported
Easy CPU Windows Instruction Suitable for teaching an undergraduate assembly-language progrmnrning course
Level Uses an X86 like instruction set. Instructions shown in a s s e m b l y language format
in the computers memory.
Web page: http://www.cteh.ac.il/departments/education/cpu.htm
LC2 Unix Instruction Developed to support the teaching of EECS 100 at the University of Michigan.
Level Assembler available. Has simple scripting language to facilitate in the testing
and grading of programs
W e b page: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/-postiffm/lc2/lc2.html
Little M a n Web Based Simple V e r y simple single accumulator based architecture with a small number o f
Instruction instructions, Suitable for a first course in Computer Science. Has built in
Level assembler
W e b page: h t t p : / / 1 3 8 . 8 7 . 1 6 9 . 3 0 / l m c / d e f a u ] t . h t m
SPA Windows Instruction Shows very simple CPU datapath; Suitable for a first course in C o m p u t e r Science
Level W e b page: http://www.spasoft.co.uk/cpusim.html
SPIM Unix and Instruction A self-contained simulator for running MIPS R2000/R3000 a s s e m b l y language
Windows Level programs. The simulator provides a basic set of operating systems services.
W i d e l y used to support courses based on Patterson and H e n n e s a y " C o m p u t e r
Organization: The Hardware/Software Interface" and G o o d m a n and M i l l a r
"Programmers View of Computer Architecture". W i n d o w s version has a
graphical user interface while the Unix version uses a textual interface
W e b page: h t t p : / / w w w . c s . w i s c . e d u / - l a r u s / s p i m . h t m l
THR Windows Instruction A simulator f o r the Motorola 6 8 H C l l A 8 micro controller. Suitable f o r a
Siml 1 Level course on micro controllers where the emphasis is on interfacing to
other devices
W e b page: h t t p : / / w w w . h c l i . d e m o n . n ] / t h r s i m l l / t h r s i m 1 1 . h t m
DLX Sim Unix Instruction Described in Hennessy and Pattersons Book, Computer Architecture: A
Level Qualitative approach. W i l l c o l l e c t s t a t i s t i c s o n I n s t r u c t i o n a n d f u n c t i o n a l
u n i t u s a g e etc. ; H a s a b u i l t i n a s s e m b l e r a n d d e b u g g i n g f a c i l i t e s ; A C
c o m p i l e r c a l l e d d l x c c is a v a i l a b l e for t h e a r c h i t e c t u r e . V a r i o u s e x t e n d e d
versions of the simulator exist
W e b page: http://www.mkp.eom/books catalog/ca/hp2e res.hlm
Micro Mac Register M o d e l s a m i c r o p r o g r a m m e d architecture similar to the one described in
Archi- Transfer the book Structured Computer Organisation by A n d r e w T a n e n b a u m
tecture Level (Prentice Hall). Contains visual representation o f the datapath. Allows
single stepping at the Instruction or Microinstruction level
W e b site: http://www,ka~i,com/fab/msim.html
RTLSim Unix Register R T L level simulator for a simple non-pipelined MIPs C P U where the user acts as
Transfer the control unit setting control signals to get the data-path to perform required
Level operations, Contains a visual representation of the data-path
Web site: http://www.cs.waikato:ac.nzlcs/Teaching/O657.201/Simulators
MIPSim Unix Instruction A self-contained simulator for running MIPS R2000/R3000 asl programs Contains peripherals:
Level two serial ports, a timer, eight switches and a seven segment display
Web page: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/Teaching/0657.20 l/Simulators.html

T a b l e 1: A s a m p l e o f s i m u l a t o r s a v a i l a b l e for u s e in t e a c h i n g c o m p u t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d a r c h i t e c t u r e

118
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

queried respondents as to their confidence in teaching external storage, physical organization and drives
specific content sub-areas within these main topics.
The sub-areas are listed below. Alternative architectures
CISC, RISC
Digital logic parallel architectures (VLIW, SIMD, M I M D )
tight coupling
basic logic elements and switching theory
minimization and implementation of functions 6.2 Self-confidence index
propagation delays and hazards
In an attempt to characterize an individual's
technologies; flip-flops
assessment of their confidence in teaching each of the
devices (demultiplexers, decoders, comparators)
main topics covered in a computer
memories (ROM, PROM, R A M )
organization/architecture course, we have developed a
analysis/synthesis of synchronous circuits;
metric called the self-confidence index. W e use this
asynchronous circuits
index to identify those topics where instructors m i g h t
benefit from convenient access to quality resources.
Digital systems
register transfer notation
finite state machines The index is calculated by averaging survey
tri-states and bus structures respondents' self-confidence rankings across each of
the sub-areas within a topic. A L o w self-confidence
iterations
ranking in a sub-area was assigned a value of 1, a
decomposition, trade-offs, economics
Medium ranking was given a value of 2, and High
block diagrams, timing diagrams, transfer
rankings were assigned a value of 3. I f a respondent
language
selected "Not taught" or "Would teach i f ' for a
particular sub-area, it was not included in the index.
Machine level representation of data
(At this point, it is not possible to infer a self-
numeric data representation (binary, hexadecimal) confidence ranking from these "non-answers".)
non-numeric data (ASCII, Unicode)
basic organization (yon Neumann, data paths,
control paths) To illustrate how the index was calculated, consider the
functional units (ALU, memory, registers) following example. The topic of Digital Systems
includes the following sub-areas: register transfer
Assembly level machine organization notation, finite state machines, tri-states and bus
structures, iterations, decomposition and trade-offs, and
instruction sets and types block diagrams/timing diagrams. I f an individual
assembly and machine language ranked their abilities in these sub-areas as Medium,
addressing modes (direct, indirect, register) Medium, Low, Not taught, Low, and Medium,
control unit, instructions and operand fetch, respectively, their self-confidence index for the course
execution topic of Digital Systems would be 1.6 ((2+2+1+1+2)/5).
I/O and interrupts
hardware realization
m i c r o - p r o g r a m m i n g formats and coding An overall confidence ranking of an individual was
then assigned based upon the following ranges:
Memory system organization and architecture
storage systems and technology
coding, data compression, data integrity
Confidence Range
space allocation and hierarchy Ranking
main m e m o r y organization, bus operations,
selection and addressing Low Index < 1.5
cache memory, read/write Medium 1.5 < Index < 2.5
virtual m e m o r y High Index > 2.5

Interfacing and communication Therefore, the individual in the hypothetical example

bus systems and control, D M A given above (self-confidence index = 1.6) would be
fault handling, reliability ranked as having a Medium self-confidence level in the
I/O control methods, interrupts topic of Digital Systems.
interrupt acknowledgment A self-confidence index was calculated for each
synchronization, open loop, handshaking individual for each of the seven m a i n topics. To gain

119
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

insight into the distribution of responses within a topic

area, the individual index values were grouped to
construct histograms. T h r e e bins were selected for
each h i s t o g r a m , using the previously defined ranges as
the cutoffs. 3O
25
Analysis o f the self-confidence index h i s t o g r a m s
showed three general patterns e m e r g i n g . Survey
respondents as a whole either felt e x t r e m e l y confident
o f their ability to teach a topic, felt adequately p r e p a r e d
to teach it, or clearly indicated a need for assistance. 5
0
6.3 C o n f i d e n c e l e v e l s M s u b - a r e a s Low IVl~ium Hgh
For each m a j o r area, resutts are broken d o w n by Salf-oanfidant~ ImIIe~
subarea. For e a c h subarea, the n u m b e r of respondents
w h o reported c o n f i d e n c e levels o f "low," " m e d i u m , " or
" h i g h " is shown. A l s o the n u m b e r o f respondents w h o
did not teach in that subarea is shown. T h e "not
t a u g h t " portion is calculated by s u m m i n g the n u m b e r of S u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s a p p e a r to feel a d e q u a t e l y p r e p a r e d
r e s p o n d e n t s w h o did not teach in the m a j o r area (eg. to teach digital logic in general. H o w e v e r , t e a c h i n g
digital logic) with the n u m b e r w h o teach in the m a j o r resources i n v o l v i n g p r o p a g a t i o n delays, hazards, a n d
area, but not in the subarea (eg. m e m o r i e s ) . For this s y n c h r o n o u s and a s y n c h r o n o u s circuits w o u l d be well-
reason, the h e i g h t o f each bar is always equal to the received by s o m e instructors.
total n u m b e r of instructors w h o r e s p o n d e d that they
taught a n y of the areas.

6.4 Confidence level results and analysis Tead~ng a ~ Lo~e

-q~_~meaSe@-Oorldnnoe
W e n o w describe the results of the on-line survey for
each of the m a j o r topics. Within each topic we first
present an analysis o f the self-confidence index,
followed by the detailed sub-area results. mD hN ~ TaJ~it
nt-
nHgh
|N
| Medum
6.4. 1 Digital logic Bb
BLow
Analysis of the self-confidence index h i s t o g r a m for
digital logic shows that survey r e s p o n d e n t s as a whole
felt t h e m s e l v e s adequately p r e p a r e d to teach this topic. % eo
T h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s with a L o w self-
confidence index was 19%, and m o s t individuals' i n d e x
fell in the r a n g e we c a t e g o r i z e as M e d i u m .

W i t h i n the sub-areas, we found that basic logic is

taught by n e a r l y all r e s p o n d e n t s a n d the vast m a j o r i t y
feel confident in their abilities to teach the subject. T h e
r e m a i n i n g sub-areas of digital logic are taught by one-
h a l f to two-thirds of the respondents. T w o areas of
need stand out: P r o p a g a t i o n D e l a y s / H a z a r d s and
S y n c h r o n o u s / A s y n c h r o n o u s circuits. E i g h t out o f 25
instructors w h o p r o p a g a t i o n delays a n d h a z a r d s
indicated a low level o f self-confidence. Likewise, ten
out o f 25 instructors indicated that they teach
s y n c h r o n o u s / a s y n c h r o n o u s circuits, but h a v e low
confidence in their abilities. It is also notable that very
few instructors rated themselves with "high"
confidence in those two areas.
6.4.2 Digital s y s t e m s
In contrast to digital logic, digital systems is
representative o f an area w h e r e s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s
clearly did not feel confident o f their level o f
p r e p a r e d n e s s to teach the topic in general. The
p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s with a L o w self-confidence
index was 32%. Also, the self-confidence indices w e r e
evenly distributed a m o n g the three r a n k i n g s (Low,
M e d i u m , High), as o p p o s e d to b e i n g c o n c e n t r a t e d in
the M e d i u m range.

120
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

The topic in general is taught by relatively few
instructors. With the exception of Register Transfer
Notation, all sub-areas were mentioned by fewer than
one-third of those surveyed. Because of the small
number of instructors that teach these sub-areas, it is
difficult to m a k e m a n y conclusions about needs. For
example, it is notable that most instructors who teach
Decomposition and Trade-offs consider themselves to
be poorly qualified in that sub-area, but this material is
often taught in a separate digital logic design class.
Since machine-level representation of data is one of the
most basic areas of computer organization, it would be
expected that most instructors would be very confident
of their teaching abilities in all sub-areas within this
topic. It would appear that instructors in general are not
in need of additional resources in this area.
TeachingI V l a ~ m ~ r - ~ ~kxl
~ SelNoonlidks~Lewis

We conclude that although a large percentage of those t~Na Taug~

respondents teaching digital systems are in need of OHgh
assistance, they m i g h t be better served searching for II IV~urn
resources developed for logic design classes.

%%%%
Digital Systems
% % \ O-Oo
~,~ ~, ~

30 %
25
2o

// // //
0
Medium 30
Low High
Self-confidence Index 25
g'a~
~. 15
10
ii~
Teaching Digital Sy~enn6
Subarea Self-confidence Lewis 5
0
Low IVl~trn Hgh
ohm J 8elf~~dex
M~lium

6.4.4 Assembly-level machine organization

~,~. ,.. ~. ~..
6.4.3 Machine-level representation of data
Machine-level representation of data was the area in
which survey respondents indicated the highest degree
of self-confidence in their ability to teach the topic. The
percentage of respondents whose self-confidence index
was Low was only 7%. Furthermore, it was the only
histogram in which most respondents' index fell in the
High range.
The topic of assembly-level machine organization is
another one that survey respondents in general felt
adequately prepared to teach. The percentage of
respondents with a L o w self-confidence index was only
13%. Most individuals' index fell in the range we
categorize as Medium.
The topic in general is taught by almost all instructors,
with the exception being m i c r o p r o g r a m m i n g , which is
taught by very few. The sub-areas of Addressing
Modes, I/O and Interrupts, and Hardware Realization
all have significant "low" self-confidence responses.
Hardware realization, in particular, has a large
percentage of non-confident instructors.

1'Z1
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

6.4.5 Memory system organization and

Analysis a n d correlation of the results for this topic is
rather c o m p l e x . U p o n e x a m i n a t i o n of the detailed sub-
area results, it is e v i d e n t that instructors likely r a n k e d
t h e m s e l v e s with " h i g h " confidence in the areas o f
Instruction Sets, A s s e m b l y L a n g u a g e , A d d r e s s i n g
Modes, a n d Control Unit. T h e " h i g h " r a n k i n g s in
these areas, w h e n c o m b i n e d with the " l o w " r a n k i n g s
reported for I / O & Interrupts and Hardware
Realization, still result in at least a M e d i u m confidence
r a n k i n g for the topic as a whole. W e conclude that even
though the topic in general received a M e d i u m ranking,
because o f the l a r g e n u m b e r s o f instructors teaching
a n d i n d i c a t i n g difficulties with the sub-areas o f I / O &
Interrupts and H a r d w a r e Realization, it would be useful
to p r o v i d e access to resources directed at those topics.
architecture
Memory system organization and architecture is
a n o t h e r topic w h e r e survey r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d a
satisfactory level o f confidence. T h e p e r c e n t a g e o f
r e s p o n d e n t s with a L o w self-confidence i n d e x was
21%, but again, m o s t i n d i v i d u a l s ' self-confidence
i n d e x fell in the r a n g e we c a t e g o r i z e as M e d i u m .
M o s t sub-areas within M e m o r y S y s t e m s are taught by
o n e - h a l f to two-thirds o f all respondents. C o d i n g , D a t a
C o m p r e s s i o n & D a t a I n t e g r i t y is t a u g h t b y the fewest
instructors, a n d of those w h o teach it, the m a j o r i t y
indicated a "low" self-confidence.

Assend0~level Maddne Organization

3O

gm
.-n

g
I,I.

M~lu~ H~
Low Medium I-igh
Self-co~dence Index

t~tmren t~tf-tx~dlmea I . a t ~

I,mD
Nc~Tau~W
DHQh
iMBcIum
10 Low

,~9 " ..... ; a @ ,x'~ % Oo.~ ~ . o_ ~.

IBt.~

,-% %- ~'o. v%. "%_"'>0.~%,.

% . % % "-o,. % ~ % %
oo ,-.4. ~^ ~ . ~,, ,-,,_%.

. % % ~'-,.

M a i n M e m o r y O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d C a c h e M e m o r y are
taught by m o s t instructors a n d are m u c h better
understood, but still stand out as areas w h e r e
instructors could use additional resources.

122
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

6.4.6 Interfacing and communication

I ~ n g and Oomrmric~ion
Interfacing and Communication is the second topic in
which survey respondents indicated they did not feel
confident teaching the topic in general. The percentage
of respondents with a Low self-confidence index was
38%. Self-confidence indices were more evenly
distributed a m o n g the three categories, and more
respondents had a Low self-confidence index than had
a High index.
Interfacing and Communication as a topic is taught by
fewer than one-half of the respondents. Of those who
do teach it, significant percentages of instructors
reported low self-confidence in all sub-areas. Low Ivl~um Hgh
Fault Handling & Reliability and Synchronization & Self-co~dence Indax
Handshaking are apparently poorly understood, but are
taught by only a small percentage of instructors.
However, we do recommend that additional resources
be provided to assist instructors in the sub-areas of Bus Teaching Interfacingand Communication
Systems & DMA, I/O Control Methods, Interrupts, and Subarea Self-confidenceLevels
External Storage. These sub-areas are taught by about
one-half of respondents and the Low self-confidence
index of a large portion of them indicates this is an area 4~ []Not Taught
where instructors could use help. OHigh
[Medum
15 , mLow
,o !m
ol , , , , , ,

%,o "o.o % %
% % %.
% %% %

6.4. 7 Alternative architectures

Survey respondents indicated a satisfactory level of
confidence in the general topic of Alternative
Architectures. There were m o r e individuals with a Low
self-confidence index than with a high, but the majority
of the indices fell in the Medium range.
The sub-areas within this topic are taught by very few
instructors, with the exception of CISC/RISC concepts.
About one-half of the respondents teach Parallel
Architectures, although a significant percentage have
little confidence in this area. Tight Coupling is skipped
by most instructors.
In general, the low number of instructors that teach
these subjects does not indicate a need to provide m o r e
resources for these topics within the context of a
computer organization/architecture course.

123
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports

resources, a s k i n g students w h o h a v e t a k e n such a

~a'nati've ,~n:l'~zctures course, a n d obtaining f e e d b a c k f r o m those "in the
know."
In an a t t e m p t to d e t e r m i n e the types o f resources
instructors w o u l d be m o s t likely to use, we c o n d u c t e d a
second survey. T h i s p r e s e n t e d a list o f t e a c h i n g
resources:

Re$o~rc~
Textbook resources ( A u t h o r ' s s u p p o r t p a g e s )
O t h e r s ' lecture notes
Others' programming assignments
Low MEdurn Hgh
Others' laboratory assignments
S e l f ~ li-ti~;,( P r o b l e m / S o l u t i o n sets
"White papers"
Posters/diagrams
C o m m e r c i a l W e b sites
Teaching AJtemative Architecture Simulators
Subarea Self-confidence Levels
Animations
Videos/movies
On-line FAQ
[] Not TaughI ] Discussion g r o u p / C h a t r o o m
[] His h I Email colleagues/experts
Medium G u e s t lecturers
[] Low

Attendees were asked: if/when they h a d to t e a c h a n e w

course, which of the a b o v e types o f r e s o u r c e s h a d they
used in the p a s t a n d w h i c h w o u l d they use i f they w e r e
,<3 easily available?

T h e I T i C S E attendees are not a r a n d o m s a m p l e o f

.1.
6.5 Resource surveys
T h e w o r k i n g g r o u p u n d e r t o o k a survey during the
I T i C S E conference, p r e s e n t i n g the simple scenario:
S u p p o s e you w e r e s u d d e n l y a s s i g n e d to teach a course
in c o m p u t e r organization. It asked for r e s p o n s e to the
following t h r e e questions:
(a) H o w would you find resources?
(b) H a v i n g f o u n d resources, h o w would you k n o w
w h i c h ones to choose?
(c) W h a t else would you need (or do)?
T h e m o r e p o p u l a r responses to part (a) were to obtain a
c u r r e n t syllabus, course m a t e r i a l s a n d texts, to explore
textbook web sites of publishers a n d other schools, to
ask colleagues, a n d to consult the A C M Digital
Library. P o p u l a r responses to p a r t (b) were to c h e c k
m a t e r i a l s f r o m s p o n s o r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as A C M
or IEEE/CS, to become familiar with
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f colleagues a n d publishers, to m a k e
decisions b a s e d on p r e f e r e n c e a n d p h i l o s o p h y of the
instructor, a n d to establish a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between
course syllabus a n d the chosen textbook. For p a r t (c),
r e s p o n s e s i n c l u d e d looking for online educational
faculty, o f course, since they h a v e e n o u g h interest in
t e a c h i n g to attend a c o n f e r e n c e on the topic. Further,
the n u m b e r o f r e s p o n d e n t s was too s m a l l to p e r m i t
generalizations; s o m e interesting o b s e r v a t i o n s can be
m a d e by c o m p a r i n g survey answers. For e x a m p l e ,
about h a l f o f the attendees h a d used p r o b l e m / s o l u t i o n
sets. O f those w h o h a d not, all i n d i c a t e d that they
would use p r o b l e m / s o l u t i o n sets i f they w e r e easily
available. In contrast, about h a l f o f the attendees h a d
also m a d e use of others' lecture notes. H o w e v e r , for
those w h o h a d not, the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y said
they w o u l d not use others' notes, e v e n if t h e y w e r e
easily available. Clearly, these instructors p r e f e r to use
their o w n lecture notes.
T h e s e k i n d s of observations, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e y could
be g e n e r a l i z e d to the larger p o p u l a t i o n o f instructors,
m i g h t direct areas in w h i c h r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t
efforts w o u l d be m o s t effective.
the
6.6 Addressing the needs - s course roadmap
A repository of "best p r a c t i c e " m a t e r i a l s m u s t be
established in order to address the n e e d s p r e s e n t e d in
the a b o v e analysis. T h e typical m e t h o d o f d e s i g n i n g a

124
ITiCSE 2000 WorkingGroup Reports
computer organization course involves a myriad of
tactics for finding resources and blending them into an
appropriate course. The most common method -
borrowing a syllabus from an existing course - fails to
bring to light the decisions m a d e in designing the
course. Without knowledge of the design decisions
behind a particular course, the instructor m a y m a k e
m a n y mistakes and choose a course design that is
inappropriate for the instructor's teaching style and
course's interaction with others in a particular
program. Thus, rather than simply providing course
syllabi and supporting materials, a complete roadmap
for designing a computer organization course is
proposed. Moreover, since the current best practices in
teaching a course such as computer organization
rapidly evolve, a dynamic forum or repository of
information should be established. A course roadmap
should include:
I. A list of available textbooks with
accompanying resources: instructor's manual,
suggested presentation, and exercises with
solutions. There m a y also be an explanation of
how each text might work with a particular
curriculum, or a particular student population.
II. A high-level list of topics and categories
that reflect possible goals of the course.
Suggestions for possible lists of mandatory and
optional topics should be included along with a
rationale for these suggestions -- together with
matching course profiles.
III. Supplementary materials beyond textbooks.
These include transparency masters, video
material, web sites, bibliographies, and other
supplementary resources for individual topics,
not necessarily associated with a chosen course
text.
IV. Pointers to student-oriented material:
selected exercises and projects for students,
sample examination questions, and suggested
short essay assignments.
In addition to the course specific items listed above, the
following items are relevant in these topic areas as well
as I more general course specific needs.
I. Sample questions to ask a colleague who has
already taught the course such as how to take
over a course, how to account for different
student populations, and how to establish a
forum for exchanging views across institutions.
It might even contain lists for subject specialists
to create a point of contact for practitioners
across different institutions.
II. Suggestions of how to assess students' level
of attainment, an account of how open-book
examinations and take-home assignments
contrast with the m o r e formal in-class
assignments and examinations. In such cases,
the roadmap could also address the problems and
issues of plagiarism.
125
7. S u m m a r y and plan of action
The work reported here provides a first view of the
survey conducted on what topics related to computer
organization/architecture people teach, where there are
challenges in teaching those topics well, and what
kinds of support would appear to be most useful to
faculty teaching these topics. The report includes a
comprehensive listing of resources available on the
World Wide Web to support these courses. At this
time there is no direct correlation of the resources to
the specific needs of the survey responders. The survey
was used to confirm that there are m a n y faculties
teaching topics where they have low confidence in their
own understanding of the material. This provided the
motivation for a review of available materials. The
materials are organized here by category. Future work
will include matching resources to specific areas of
faculty unease.
A larger task is to identify the needs not met by
existing resources and to undertake development of
appropriate materials. Preliminary discussion of the
possibilities has begun and all m e m b e r s of the working
group are interested in input from readers who have
thoughts about this.
Still another future activity is a careful analysis of the
effectiveness of the survey instrument in meeting the
goals of this project. Several shortcomings have been
noticed already. For example, the choices available in
some places were not sufficient. The survey was
designed to be easy to use, with the intention that its
length would not be overly burdensome. Further
analysis of the user interface will be done as well. The
goal in this post-survey analysis of the instrument is to
m a k e a more effective vehicle for use in future surveys
of a similar type in the context of other subject areas.
A significant issue in any compilation of resources is
the matter of sustainability. A web site is currently
under development to provide a front door to W e b
based resources in the areas of computer organization
and architecture. Development of the site is a volunteer
effort. The site will be proposed for inclusion in the
NSF DUE National S M E T E Digital Library. The web
site is available at
http ://www.acs.ilstu.edu/faculty/wjyurci/caale/
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Carol Weiss and John Kelley of
Villanova University for assistance in designing the
survey. W e would like to thank Kishore Bulusu,
Kavitha Dantuluri, and Peter Katsanis for assistance in
setting up the online version of the survey. W e would
like to thank the organizers of ITiCSE2000 for
providing access to all of the resources (computers,
internet access, meeting room, copying facilities, etc.)
at the University of Helsinki. W e would also like to
thank all faculty who participated in our online survey.
Maija Aksela served as facilitator for this working
group during ITiCSE 2000.
ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports
Several people participated in the online discussions
prior to convening the working group at ITiCSE 2000.
Though they were not able to be with us at the
conference, their comments and participation in the
preliminary discussions were valuable and represented
significant contributions to the group's work. We here
acknowledge the contribution of Edward Gehringer of
North Carolina State University (USA) and Cecil
Yehezkel of Weizmann Institute of Technology
(Israel).
References
I. Computer Science Accreditation Commission
(CSAC) of the Computing Sciences Accreditation
Board (CSAB), Criteria for Accrediting Programs
in Computer Science in the United States, January
2000, http://csab.org/criteria2k_vl0.html
II. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula
of the IEEE Computer Society and of the
Association for Computing Machinery,
Computing Curricula 1991 report (1991).
Copyright is held by authors.
126
1~
III. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula
of the IEEE Computer Society and of the ACM,
Computing Curricula 2001 Report (March 6,
2000 draft), http://
www. computer, org/education/cc2001/report/index
.html (main page), http://www.computer.org/
education/cc2001/report/AR.htnfl (core topics in
computer architecture) [This is the draft
recommendation for the required coverage of
computer organization, including the subject
categories described above. ]
IV. IEEE Micro, Special Issue of Computer
Architecture Education, May/June 2000 IEEE
Press
V. William Stallings, Computer Organization
and Architecture: Design for Performance,
Prentice Hall, 1995 (ISBN: 013359985X). http:H
WilliamS tallings.com/COA5e.html
VI. Impagliazzo, J. et al History in the
Computing Curriculum. IEEE Annals of the
History of Computing, v21, no 1, pp 4-16