1. What activities are formalizing changes and relationships
Informaticists in residence – philosopher, musician, … working w/CPATH team.
Focusing on outcomes facilitates sustainability.
Important to align w/what other depts want.
Grass roots connections esp. to relevant parts of other fields: chats, society sections, Ph.D. program interest in computational training for their students, …

2. How to measure success Does the change continue after the grant ends?
Does the effect percolate through other courses (does it create student demand)?
Does it attract the intended enrollment?
Do university policies change (e.g. to count course as math/sci/gen ed)?
Professional assessment helps!

3. Challenges Need to understand what other dep’ts want.
Our words can be a barrier: we use the same words but mean different things.
Stretching to our limits – staffing, support, disciplinary range.
NSF encouragement for recognition in faculty promotion/tenure.
Assessment of outside adoptions: they have little incentive to play along.

4. Ways the CPATH community or NSF can help
Expand existing dissemination of materials. Metadata; contextualization; guidelines; “last 10%” grant: transition supplement + time.
Repository (nation’l curric?) for computing + X.
Visibility for Computational Thinking? National conference? Use CCSC? Article in Science or Nature? Need to go beyond CS, enrich understanding.
Connections within (CPATH) community too!

5. Other ideas, surprises encountered
Significant interest from graduate programs in other fields: other PhDs need computational base
Credit for adopting/enhancing what others have developed?
Repository for computing + X curricula

6. Key changes or connections to sustain after the grant

7. Securing administrative support