Transcript learning outcomes - The Cyber Education Project

Cyber Science Learning Outcomes
Cyber Education Project
Learning Outcomes Committee
LAKEFRONT SHERATON HOTEL
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
4-5 NOVEMBER 2014
CO-CHAIRS
DAVID S. “HOOT” GIBSON, US AIR FORCE ACADEMY
ELIZABETH “BETH” HAWTHORNE, UNION COUNTY
COLLEGE, ACM EDUCATION BOARD
Learning Outcomes Committee Charter
www.cybereducationproject.org
 The primary objective of this effort is to provide the cyber education




community with useful guidance on developing undergraduate cyber
science curricula.
The Committee will build upon previous works to define related bodies
of knowledge and seek diverse perspectives to build an interdisciplinary
set of learning outcomes which broadly define cyber science education
a the undergraduate level.
The outcomes developed will also be used to guide the development of
criteria for cyber science program accreditation.
The Committee will develop learning outcomes which characterize
the knowledge, skills, and abilities gained by students in an undergraduate
cyber science program.
Ultimately the work of the Committee should lead to a cyber science
curricular guidance report formally endorsed by a professional
society such as the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Other Cyber Curriculum Development Work
 NSA/DHS Center for Academic Excellence (CAE) in
Information Assurance/Cyber Defense (IA/CD)
Knowledge Units (2014) -
www.cisse.info/pdf/2014/2014%20CAE%20Knowledge%20Units.pdf
 NICE National Cybersecurity Workforce Framework
version 2 (2014) - niccs.us-cert.gov/research/draft-nationalcybersecurity-workforce-framework-version-20
 Department of Labor Cybersecurity Industry Model (2014)
- www.careeronestop.org/competencymodel/competencymodels/cybersecurity.aspx
 Military Academy CYBER Education Working Group, Draft
Body of Knowledge and Draft Outcomes, unpublished, 2014.
Other Cyber Curriculum Development Work cont’d
 ACM ITiCSE Working Group Papers (2009-2011)



An Exploration of the Current State of Information Assurance
Education (2009) - dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1709457
Towards Information Assurance (IA) Curricular Guidelines
(2010) - dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1971686
Information Assurance Education in Two- and Four-Year
Institutions (2011) - dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2078860
 ACM/IEEE-CS Curriculum Guidelines for
Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science:
IAS KA (2013, p. 99) – cs2013.org
 ACM Toward Curricular Guidelines for Cybersecurity:
Report of a Workshop on Cybersecurity Education and
Training (2013) –
www.acm.org/education/TowardCurricularGuidelinesCybersec.pdf
Other Cyber Curriculum Development Work cont’d
 CERT Software Assurance Curricula All Volumes www.cert.org/curricula/software-assurance-curriculum.cfm
 CERT Software Assurance Curriculum Project
Volume II: Undergraduate Course Outlines (2010) resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetID=9543
 CERT Software Assurance Curriculum Project
Volume IV: Community College Education (2011) resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetID=10009
Other Cyber Curriculum Development Work cont’d
 U.S. Department of Energy Essential Body of
Knowledge (EBK): A Competency and Functional
Framework For Cyber Security Workforce
Development (2010) energy.gov/sites/prod/files/cioprod/documents/DOE_EBK_June_201
0_Revision_clean_v01public.pdf
 DHS IT Security Essential Body of Knowledge
(EBK): A Competency and Functional Framework
for IT Security Workforce Development (2007) www.amcleod.com/mcleod9.pdf
 (ISC)2 Common Body of Knowledge - www.isc2.org/cbk/
Why the Learning Outcomes Approach?
 Focus is on student achievement rather than on
existing disciplines and courses (minimizes turf wars
concerning who is in and who is out)
 Supports inclusive approach (it is easier to add many
outcomes than many whole courses of study)
 Supports development of new courses in a new and
evolving discipline
 Avoids traditional body of knowledge focus on
topics and contact hours that can grow unbounded
as new technologies emerge
 What
topics are eliminated to make room for the new?
Why the Learning Outcomes Approach?
 LOs: statements describe what students will be able
to do as a result of learning
 LOs: students understand expectations and
faculty can focus on student achievement
 LOs: specific measurement of student
achievement having a specific minimum acceptable
standard to pass (a threshold level)
Why the Learning Outcomes Approach?
 LOs are Active
 action verbs describe what students should be able to do
 LOs can be Aligned
 aligned with the rest of the curriculum; so LOs contribute
to achievement of course outcomes, which in turn
contribute to program outcomes
 LOs are Achievable
 written at the threshold level for a pass, not aspirational
 LOs can be Assessed
 possible to assess several learning outcomes with one
assignment and can also be assessed informally, based on
classroom tasks or discussions
Example Learning Outcomes
 Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy –
acmccecc.org/BloomsTaxonomy/
 CS2013 – Information Assurance and Security
Knowledge Area (IAS KA)
 Foundational Concepts in Security Knowledge Unit
LOs
Analyze the tradeoffs of balancing key security
properties (Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability)
 Describe the concepts of risk, threats, vulnerabilities
and attack vectors (including the fact that there is no such
thing as perfect security).

Example Learning Outcomes cont’d
 CS2013 IAS KA cont’d
 Defensive Programming KU LOs
 Explain why input validation and data sanitization is
necessary in the face of adversarial control of the input channel.
 Demonstrate using a high-level programming language how
to prevent a race condition from occurring and how to handle
an exception.
 Network Security KU LOs
 Describe the architecture for public and private key
cryptography and how public key infrastructure (PKI) supports
network security.
 Describe virtues and limitations of security technologies at
each layer of the network stack.
Example Learning Outcomes cont’d
 CS2013 IAS KA cont’d
 Security Policy and Governance KU LOs
 Describe how privacy protection policies run in conflict with
security mechanisms
 Identify the risks and benefits of outsourcing to the cloud
 Digital Forensics KU LOs
 Describe the legal requirements for use of seized data.
 Conduct data collection on a hard drive.
Activity
 What should students learn in cyber science?
 What common categories have emerged?
The following slides show the technical and nontechnical categories of answers placed on sticky notes.
“Technical Sticky Clumps”
In no particular order
 Attack
 Math
 Cryptography
 Mobile
 Data Analysis
 Networks
 Database
 Operating Systems
 Defense
 Programming
 Ethical Hacking
 Reverse Engineering
 Forensics
 Secure Software
 Hardware
 Telecom
 ICS/SCADA
“Non-Technical Sticky Clumps”
In no particular order











Basic Principles
Education
Ethics
Human Factors
Lifecycle
Organizations
Policy, Governance and Law
Privacy & Confidentiality
Recovery
Risk Management
Strategy
Additional topics from follow-up meeting
 Threat landscape
 Psychological
 Intelligence

 Embedded systems




operations
Business continuity,
recovery
Risk management
Governance (triad with
policy and law)
International
standards, policy, and
law
Resilience
 Economics
 Systems design
 System safety
 Supply chain
 Artificial intelligence
 Linguistics
 History
Follow-on Questions
 How should cyber science outcomes differ from





computer science outcomes?
What is the best technical and non-technical mix?
Who are the subject matter experts?
What other questions should we ask?
Do you currently have a program in “cyber” or are
you considering developing one?
What makes your cyber program different from
other computing-based programs?
Learning Outcomes Development Timeline
 Early Dec 2014 – on-line organizational meeting
 Define roles of committee members and topic area leads
 Establish learning outcome format and repository
 Establish dates and locations for future meetings
 Jan-Feb 2015 – on-line meetings
 Discuss development of cyber science learning outcomes
 March 2014 – Face-to-face meeting (2 days)
 Draft cyber science learning outcomes document
 June 2015 – Present work at CEP Workshop
 Fall 2015 – Broad review and comment on outcomes
 Spring 2016 – Publish learning outcomes report
Getting Involved in Outcome Development
 Sign-up at: www.cybereducationproject.org
 Or contact Committee Co-chairs Beth or Hoot:
 Beth Hawthorne: [email protected]
 David “Hoot” Gibson: [email protected]