<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Year 12 IT Apps] Year 12 Info Tech</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Hi all and Ken<BR>
<BR>
Yes<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><I>business funding, business case<BR>
development, core business functions, the need for information systems<BR>
to address core business requirements, business project management,<BR>
the role of venture capital, startups and entrepreneurial thinking,<BR>
ROI, etc etc etc. It was not about students using business<BR>
productivity apps <BR>
</I></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
So all of this business stuff would best be in a subject about business. Maybe we could call it business management. <BR>
<BR>
Then we could do Computing stuff in Computing.<BR>
<BR>
Where was the business case for facebook? It was not originally designed as a business! Ditto google NASA etc.<BR>
<BR>
And to follow up another comment:<BR>
<BR>
Why aren’t students taught to think in lower levels? They do thinking subjects...e.g. History, English, etc.<BR>
<BR>
(and yes I have had to rebuild my soapbox because I have been leaping on to it too often of late)<BR>
<BR>
Andrew <BR>
-- <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Apple Casual"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>Andrew Shortell<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<a href="mailto:shortell@get2me.net">mailto:shortell@get2me.net</a> <BR>
Leaving the <BR>
Heidelberg Teaching Unit at the end of 2011<BR>
Ph 9470 3403<BR>
Fax 9470 3215<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 8/12/11 9:31 AM, "ken price" <<a href="kenjprice@gmail.com">kenjprice@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> Some years back I was involved in a review of Comp Sci/IS courses,<BR>
> with a lot of input from the tertiary sector. One professor in the Inf<BR>
> Sys area (in universities in Aust and China) had very strong views on<BR>
> the relationship between IS and business, and suggested that their<BR>
> critical problem was students attempting IS without an understanding<BR>
> of business processes and principles. Basically, his view was that<BR>
> students without an understanding of business principles were<BR>
> completely wasting their time doing an information systems degree (and<BR>
> were unemployable).<BR>
> By this he meant the understanding of business funding, business case<BR>
> development, core business functions, the need for information systems<BR>
> to address core business requirements, business project management,<BR>
> the role of venture capital, startups and entrepreneurial thinking,<BR>
> ROI, etc etc etc. It was not about students using business<BR>
> productivity apps - that was irrelevant to his argument.<BR>
> <BR>
> Perhaps there is a difference between that sort of business<BR>
> understanding and what are sometimes called "business" courses in<BR>
> schools? There is a big difference between business understanding and<BR>
> office work.<BR>
> <BR>
> I'd agree with others that computational thinking is core to what we<BR>
> do, and very important (and won't be covered anywhere else). However I<BR>
> can see that there is another important element that needs to sit<BR>
> somewhere in the curriculum, related to why software is developed and<BR>
> the associated decisions behind it. Whether that is part of the<BR>
> "computing" area or something else I'm not sure.<BR>
> <BR>
> Ken<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Assistant Principal, Tasmanian eSchool<BR>
> President, TASITE<BR>
> www.tasite.tas.edu.au<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Andrew Shortell <<a href="shortell@get2me.net">shortell@get2me.net</a>> wrote:<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000">>> In many ways this encapsulates my worries.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> I learnt programming at Uni in 1977. We used assembler and MONECS fortran<BR>
>> and used punch cards.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> BUT (BIG BUT) I still use the concepts now as I teach the LOGIC of<BR>
>> programming, the logic of problem solving.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Design, logic, planning etc is in Computer Science the use of non-humans to<BR>
>> do the tedious bulk work so that we can do the thinking.<BR>
>> In Computer Science we use machines at the moment.<BR>
>> To paraphrase M.Smart : nano-computers and molecular computers are “that<BR>
>> close”.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> What are we doing to enthuse students about possibilities with thinking and<BR>
>> with using other things to do bulk repetitive tedious crunching to get out<BR>
>> the things that we find interesting?<BR>
>> In the old days very few humans could do enough number crunching etc to be<BR>
>> able to come up with “unusual or left field ideas”<BR>
>> Now thanks to computers many more people are able to process the sort of<BR>
>> data that can lead to great ideas.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Are we ENTHUSING them to do so? Are we giving them the thinking tools?<BR>
>> <BR>
>> In mY opinion in VCE IT apps we are NOT. So why do we do it?<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Teaching kids history is not meant to prepare them to work in an office<BR>
>> doing word processing. It is meant to make them think.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Teaching microsloth old fashioned pathetic software prepares them to work in<BR>
>> an office. It does NOT make them think<BR>
>> <BR>
>> If we want to prepare them for industry, to work in a business office then<BR>
>> let us make this a VET subject and call it office skills/ business skills.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> And then lets get back to computer science and call it a science<BR>
>> <BR>
>> So , off my soap box.<BR>
>> This might be a rant but I feel that I want to teach computing : thinking<BR>
>> advancing, not office skills.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Andrew<BR>
>> <BR>
>> --<BR>
>> Andrew Shortell<BR>
>> <BR>
>> <a href="mailto:shortell@get2me.net">mailto:shortell@get2me.net</a><BR>
>> Leaving the<BR>
>> Heidelberg Teaching Unit at the end of 2011<BR>
>> Ph 9470 3403<BR>
>> Fax 9470 3215<BR>
>> <BR>
>> <BR>
>> <BR>
>> <BR>
>> On 7/12/11 1:17 PM, "Roland Gesthuizen" <<a href="rgesthuizen@gmail.com">rgesthuizen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Here is a good link to a UK Observer article via @lindymac that resonated<BR>
>> with me and my thoughts about boosting the profile of computational thinking<BR>
>> in our schools.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Programming and Computational Thinking should take pride of place in our<BR>
>> schools<BR>
>> <a href="http://www.diigo.com/annotated/18e448bc88f295a362bf5967726506b9">http://www.diigo.com/annotated/18e448bc88f295a362bf5967726506b9</a> (to my Diigo<BR>
>> annotated version)<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Curious what others think of this comment about the government:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> ".. they're making the same mistake as those who saw ICT as a way of<BR>
>> preparing kids for the world of work by training them to use Microsoft<BR>
>> Office – ie designing a curriculum by looking into a rear-view mirror. What<BR>
>> we ought to be doing is giving the kids the ability to operate in – and<BR>
>> perhaps help to create – industries that nobody has even dreamed of yet."<BR>
>> <BR>
>> <BR>
>> Regards Roland<BR>
>> <BR>
</FONT><BR>
-- <BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>