My email did come across as a little harsh reading back.<br>The point is the IT subject enrollment is declining in numbers.<br>Last i looked there was zero 0 jobs for IT teachers in secondary.<br><br>My contract ends term2 and so naturally I am annoyed at the status quo but things might pick up who knows.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Steven Bird <<a href="mailto:sb@csse.unimelb.edu.au">sb@csse.unimelb.edu.au</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[Adrian -- thanks for picking a more appropriate subject line now that<br>
discussion has moved away from data flow diagrams.]<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM, andrew barry <<a href="mailto:jagguy999@gmail.com">jagguy999@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I prefer to just teach an IT subject which is just programming and some<br>
> programming design eg psuedo code.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree. Students should learn how to walk before learning how to<br>
run, i.e. they should be competent with "programming in-the-small"<br>
before they spend much time on "programming in-the-large" (incl SDLC).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Including so much theory doesn't get any student excited about learning IT<br>
> at Uni. After all we are trying to promote IT beyond yr12 are we not? Are we<br>
> not trying to get more people to do it?<br>
<br>
</div>I agree with Adrian that rigour is important, and this cuts across<br>
analysis, design, implementation, documentation, etc. The SDLC is one<br>
source of theory but I question its suitability at this level. It's<br>
intended for software engineering projects where you have to manage<br>
whole teams of developers, client relationships, project deliverables,<br>
etc. When students aren't already experienced at small-scale<br>
programming the emphasis often falls on a rather heavy document<br>
process, which has to be one of the least exciting aspects of software<br>
development.<br>
<br>
Another issue I have with the emphasis on SDLC as a major source of<br>
theoretical content is that it focusses too much on the software<br>
development process. Of course that's entirely appropriate given the<br>
title of the subject, but there's some other areas of computing theory<br>
that would be useful and accessible at this level, including<br>
algorithmic problem solving and the limits of computing. Here's a<br>
couple of introductory books that cover these topics in a<br>
non-mathematical yet rigorous and intellectually stimulating way:<br>
<br>
Algorithmics: The Spirit of Computing (3rd Ed, David Harel, Addison<br>
Wesley, 2004)<br>
<br>
Computers Ltd: What They Really Can't Do (David Harel, Oxford<br>
University Press, 2000)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-Steven Bird<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><a href="http://www.csse.unimelb.edu.au/%7Esb/" target="_blank">http://www.csse.unimelb.edu.au/~sb/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.edulists.com.au" target="_blank">http://www.edulists.com.au</a><br>
IT Software Development Mailing List kindly supported by<br>
<a href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au" target="_blank">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au</a> - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and<br>
<a href="http://www.vitta.org.au/vce/studies/infotech/softwaredevel3-4.html" target="_blank">http://www.vitta.org.au/vce/studies/infotech/softwaredevel3-4.html</a> - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association Inc<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>