Grouping Computer Science and Computer Technology Feedback
From ACSEWiki
|
ACSE members, this is the second in a number of questions to be sent out to the mail list to get your views on the upcoming curriculum reforms. All questions (past and future) and summarized responses are available at: http://wiki.acse.net/index.php/Curriculum_Reform Reminders:
And now for the daily question... Should Computer Science and Computer Technology be grouped into its own "Computer Studies" document, as opposed to the proposed model of Computer Science on its own and Computer Technology in the Technology document? If you do feel these subjects should be grouped into their own document, why? What are the advantages? (Please score either +2 or +1 for this response.) If you feel that grouping these subjects into their own document would be detrimental, why? What are the disadvantages? (Please score either -2 or -1 for this response.) Please note that this question is different than yesterday’s, which dealt with Computer Science being removed from the Tech document and put into its own document. If you would like to comment on that topic, please reply to that email thread (subject line: "[acse] Removing Computer and Information Computer Science from the Technology Document - Tuesday, March 6") instead of this one. Thanks everyone! Peter Beens |
<back to Curriculum Reform>
Responses
- Brad - (+2) YES, +2 for me too. I completely agree with what rob said below here.
- Ian - Very strongly yes +2. It should be a seperate document. There is a seperate (but similar) knowledge base required for those courses than from other tech courses. The AQ(s) and ABQ courses are different from the Technology courses. And it would save on paper. The computer tech/science teachers would not have to have a thick document with all the technology courses in it. Both courses (technolgy and science) should be removed. I just reviewed the new course documents last night, and both the technology (engineering) and computer science courses are not that much different that what we are already doing in those course right now at our school. Other than some knowledge based material, the only thing we are not doing is the robitics material. If that could be covered by more complex interface projects, then we are good to go.
- Paul - (+2) Having read yesterday's discussion, I am starting to see that the responses may depend on the type of school that they come from. I am in an academic school where we have almost no 'Tech" except Communications Technology, and we have no qualified 'Tech' Teachers. Most of our computer science teachers for the last 8 years have been associated with the Math department. However, if I were in a school where there was a large and strong Tech Department, and where the qualified Tech teachers had been teaching computer science, I would probably take an opposite view. To answer the question: (2+) In our situation grouping these two together would be ideal since they are taught by the same people. We actually teach the a lot of the Computer Technology content in our Computer Science Courses. But to be fair to other schools, perhaps the answer should be both, and that individual schools should be able to choose which courses they offer (e.g. TIK2O or ICS2O, perhaps with subtle differences, but essentially the same course.) The real issue here is that the Ministry needs to empower schools to make decisions and follow frameworks that will lead to strong computer programming etc. courses of study.
- room221 - (-2) I do not suuport a move out of TECH. It simply $$$. If you aren't happy with the clients you are getting, do what I do -- recruit -- its simple. If you don't see any TERI funds, ask why. If you feel you dont get any support from your TECH dept Head, ask why, even better ...apply for the position when it comes up. We have ICS/ICE Tech heads, ... it works. To those who wish ALL computer courses will fall under one document ... good luck, I know my Business Dept WILL NEVER give up sections. BTW, this idea of all computer courses under one document has been around, and around, and around. Some previous responses articulated a senario I think is likely if we move TIK, ICS out of TECH. "For most schools there will never be enough sections for a Computer department to run on its own. Because of this we will be put into whatever department needs a few extra sections. This will mean that in some boards the computer courses could be administered by different departments from school to school. I realize that this is happening to some degree now, but I think having our own document will just compound the problem." Just my $0.02 worth, but as someone who has been on the scene a while, and been on the Collective Bargaining Team a long time, I can tell you, the above scenario is exactly how it will play out in many boards/schools. As I heard it at the table many times ... Be careful, you may get what you wish for
- Eugene - (+1) My rating would be +1, as I agree that Computer Technology (the old ICE) course offers a different perspective to Computers. I understand why it's currently in the Tech portfolio, since it can lead to certification in various areas, much like apprenticeship programs for the other trade areas in Tech. However, I also believe that there are elements in the new Computer Technology document that could be serviced more appropriately by those trained in either Computer Engineering or Computer Science, as opposed to one who might be trained as an Electrician.
- Dana - (+2) I would score a +2 that both Computer Science and Computer Technology courses should be grouped together. I agree with James in that no one seems to know where to put computer courses. Think of the parents and students who want to take a computer course. They need to look in business, tech, computers, and possibly others such as art or interdisciplinary studies, just to find the courses before making a decision. When I look at the expectations for these courses, programming is a necessary part of this course. It therefore needs to be taught in a computer lab. Most of the electronics expectations can be taught "virtually" with a computer simulator, eliminating the need for soldering irons, etc. The controls expectations can all be covered using "safe" items such as lego robots. Therefore the safety concerns that require this course to be in tech are eliminated. I'm afraid that in some schools, the computer tech courses (if left in the tech document) would become electronics courses with teachers who are unable to cover the programming expectations, which would be a real downfall to what could be an exciting course. I would however change the name from Computer Technology to Computer Control Systems (or something similar) when it is grouped with Computer Science.
- Elizabeth - (+2) 2+ on this idea. I think I already gave my reasons in the last question.
- Esteban - (0) My rating would be 0. I think that all the computers courses should be in one document. This would include the tech ICE courses, the CS and the business applications courses. I think they should be all together somewhere. There are both reasons to put them all in the tech area (apparently funding) or to put them all within the academic stream (probably to make them more attractive to academic students).
- Esteban - (+2) Advantages: More coherence for students and teachers. It will be much easier to find information about all the computer related courses. Hopefully it will lead to some sort of a standardized "qualification" for computer courses. Right now it is still somewhat confusing for me. For example, I understand that ICE courses should be taught by tech teachers. Any tech teachers? Why is it that the Computer Science AQ Course is considered academic when at present Computer Science Courses (ICS) are within the Tech documents?
- mdicleme - (+2): Strongly Agree. If I were to be blatant, I think the Ministry needs to go further. The Tech document is a veritable beast of a document and comprises vastly different subjects. I often believe it should be rent in two with an 'Information/Computers and Communications' group comprising one document. 1)The two courses involve very similar skill sets from a teaching and learning perspective. 1a) The vast majority of students who take Computer Engineering in my school do NOT go on to Colleges or to receive technical certifications / diplomas. Those that pursue Computers often do so with University Computer Science. 2) Differentiate it from courses like Auto, Construction, which have a strongly negative image among young women. I get plain and honest reactions from girls who say simply that they are not interested in Tech subjects full of boys. Many don't even look at the Tech document, or skip right to Comtech. 3) Emphasizes the pervasiveness of the subject across disciplines and careers. Allows students in any discipline to readily see Computer Studies as a candidate for an elective which can enhance their career path. 4) Computer Engineering isn't just about becoming a technician and obtaining tech certifications. I often market it to students who just USE computers, and simply want to understand the innards a little more so they don't seem so intimidating.
- nasser - (+2) Yes, strongly agree, so I give +2. We have to put computer science and computer engeneering in the same document. At this level (secondary) , I think is obvious to regroup those two subjects , they make sense and we are not at the specialisation level. At the specialisation level, university we can focus on science programming and in particular on algorithmics At this level, the algorithmic becomes applied mathematics and then it's so far than hardware.
- nicole - (+2) Definitely together - they are related and of the same clientèle and often the same teachers; there should be collaboration between the students and the teachers
- PeterM - (+2) Without repeating myself from yesterday. I view moving ICS out of tech as the first step in consolidating all computer courses into one document. Even though it will be confusing to now have computer courses in 3 different documents (Computer Studies, Tech Studies, Business Studies) it is hopefully short-term pain for long term gain.
- rino - (+2) For me, this just makes sense. I think we need to look at what students need to take with them when they leave a computer program. Providing just the ICS courses will only cover half the picture. The engineering courses help students tie together software and hardware. When students enter the work force, even if they are just a programmer, they will need to understand these engineering skills as they will interact with networking specials, hardware specials etc on a regular basis. Our CS students are the students to target for these courses not the tech students who take construction or cosmetology - it just doesn't fit for them. Additionally, if we are preparing students for careers in computer science and computer technology (engineering), why would we even think about including other courses like BTT in the computer groupings? Will the students we are targeting benefit from these courses? Are these courses relevant to computer science and engineering?
- Robert - (+2) since both courses are similar (I teach both of them), I think that having the two together does make a lot of sense.
- Gail - (1) This ongoing discussions have been embedded with many layers of considerations. First, there is an AQ question. The ICE qualification has never been fully satisfied in my opinion. Some ICS teachers are best equipped to teach it, and some of the old curriculum electronics teachers are best equipped. We now have a ICE AQ, but a teacher who holds an AQ in ICE may or may not be safe or qualified to support tech. courses, even at the TTI level if a shop is used. Student safety must come first, but AQ's tend to speak to who can and can not work in a shop. If an ICE qualified teacher, because they hold a 'tech' qualification, is placed into a shop as a result of timetabling constraints, but who really does not have shop background, what does that do to our students? On the other hand, there are ICS teachers who just don't have enough solid background to step into an ICE course. These are growing pains which are not the fault of the curriculum, but parallel to the process. Second, if argument is made to move all computer courses to a computer document, we can not limit it to the existing discussion of ICE, ICS, BTT, BTA, BTX. What about TCJ which use a tremendous amout of computers? What about art-media arts? What about the GIS course? What about the data management course? All these courses have significant computer applications to it. Where do we draw the line? A difficult call when you look at the entire secondary curriculum. We have to be careful to not confuse curriculum document alignment with departmental alignment where, in many schools within Peel, department alignment combines 2 different departments. School organization for curriculum leadership is often different that curriculum document divisions. I would suggest that a curriculum document with ONLY ICS is too small to be sustainable over time. It will be absorbed into another curriculum document over time again. There was, in the past, a computer document which held ICS and ICE. I suggest that both must be together in the same document for a host of reasons, may rooted in the statements above. As a new document, schools then will need to determine administratively where to place it within department alignment. That is OK ... as long as the teachers teaching ICS and ICE are qualified.
- Valentina - (0) HOw to group the computer courses is a tough question. Considering the major groups (application - BTT/BTA/TDJ/TGJ; Hardware/software-ICE; Programming -ICS) focus on different aspects of computer use I believe all computer courses should be together, however I also think that teaching qualifications may become a bit of a problem in that case especially in a smaller department or school where two-three teachers have to cover a broad range of courses.
