This paper provided an in depth look into what the industry (in 1991) expected students graduating in CS to know. It seems odd that the industry would be the ones to publish a paper stating how CS should be taught; it almost seems like a conflict of interest. Should the people who are looking for a certain group of graduates to do the work they need done be the ones publishing a paper trying to influence how CS is taught? Perhaps not, or maybe this paper serves as a guideline as to what students should know if they plan to move straight into the industry after graduating.

The thing I found most interesting about this paper were the four major goals it emphasized in CS education. The paper stated that "Overall, it (the framework laid out) attempts to integrate theory, abstraction, design, and the social context of computing…(Pg. 72)." While these four things were not suppose to be taught in one introductory course, it did raise an interesting point that the GISP has been discussing: do students learn better by seeing the theoretical side of CS first or by learning design and implementation of programs first? I was hoping that the paper would elaborate more on this, and perhaps offer more concrete date as opposed to speculation, but it didn't. Perhaps we could find more data on the subject.

What the paper did say about how introductory courses were taught was that "Many feel the amount of attention traditionally paid to the syntax of a programming language in the first course is excessive, and ought to be replaced with a more balanced introduction to the discipline. (Pg. 77)" How this should be interpreted is up to the reader: does it mean that we should take the 15 approach and teach concepts before syntax, or does it suggest a different approach of teaching theory and other less coding specific topics from the discipline first?

In addition to offering ideas about what should be taught, the paper included many ideas about how that material should be taught. Specifically, the paper thought that interactive lab sessions were very important. I think that interactive labs would be very useful in an introductory course. For students that have never used a computer and are learning basic things for the first time, having a knowledgeable person to answer questions would be very useful. In addition, having interactive demos emphasizing concepts being taught would be very helpful.

This paper raises many interesting questions. What is the best way to teach an introductory course, what should be emphasized in CS education, and should there be different tracks for those people who are headed for industry and those that are headed to graduate school? These are all topics that warrant more debate.