[Year 12 SofDev] Mobile devices in SD

[Mark]

And I do appreciate your noble fight against VCAA's aversion to glossaries
and "including", Paula.

:-)

On 21 August 2015 at 14:44, Christophersen, Paula P <
christophersen.paula.p at edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Just a little bit of light Friday afternoon information. In the current
> study design Software Development, approximately 26% of key knowledge
> contain 'including'; in the reaccredited study design Software Development
> to be introduced next year approximately 43% of key knowledge contain
> 'including'.
>
> Regards
> Paula
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 21 Aug 2015, at 2:13 pm, "Mark" <mark at vceit.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, the new design is less prescriptive than the current one
> (e.g. prescribed data types are no longer listed in each unit).
>
> I think we're being given a little more leash from VCAA.
>
> It's a pleasant change - but may be a bit scary to those who like to know
> exactly what needs to be taught and what will be examinable. A short leash
> and specific assessment parameters let teachers and textbook writers use
> their limited class time and pages much more efficiently.
>
> I've heard that VCAA is frowning on:
> (a) the inclusion of glossaries, and
> (b) the use of "including..." in the key knowledge of new study designs.
>
> This means that theory becomes more vague and increases the chances of
> textbooks and teachers teaching theory than the examiners won't be
> considering.
>
> As you mentioned, Adrian, teaching broad topics like "creative thinking
> techniques" raises many possible factors. The study design does not mention
> de Bono's six hats but it seems logical to cover it, but the exam cannot
> name that method or examine it directly. So teachers and writers have to
> wonder what to include and what to leave out. Fingernails will be bitten.
> Many posts here in 2016 will begin with the words, "Should I be teaching
> <theory topic> for this outcome?"
>
> And yes - Informatics U4O1KK02 "techniques for generating design ideas"
> also made me wonder whether to include de Bono's hats in the Informatics
> textbook.
>
> I did.
>
> But then again, I also included the technique of locking people in a small
> room and beating them with a cricket bat until they contributed a good
> design idea.
> The editor at Cengage made me take that out. Sigh.
> Adrian, you're lucky being your own editor.
>
> This is how I feel, sometimes...
>
>
>
>
> On 21 August 2015 at 13:27, Adrian Janson <janson.adrian.a at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's right - no mobile devices or constraints like there is in the
>> current study. Having gone through it all in a very granular fashion -
>> there is much more that has been taken out than added (IMO!)
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mark <mark at vceit.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings, ethos-promoters,
>>>
>>> I've just noticed something.
>>>
>>> In the current (2010-2015) study design, programming focuses on mobile
>>> devices.
>>>
>>> While mobile devices have done nothing but proliferate in the past few
>>> years, the new (2016-2019) SD study design does not even mention mobile
>>> devices or the constraints of their interfaces.
>>>
>>> That's odd. I wonder why.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> * ​ Everyone you meet knows something you don't. You're surrounded by
>>> ​potential ​ teachers.*
>>>
>>> Mark Kelly
>>>
>>>
>>> mark at vceit.com
>>> http://vceit.com
>>>
>>> --
>
> * ​ Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes that reason is you're an
> idiot who makes really bad decisions.*
>
> Mark Kelly
>
>
> mark at vceit.com
> http://vceit.com
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-- 

*​If I referred to your spectacles, would that be an optical allusion?*

Mark Kelly


mark at vceit.com
http://vceit.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/sofdev/attachments/20150821/5a9f35b2/attachment-0001.html