<div dir="ltr"><div>We are now halfway through the 'new' study design and moves will be underway before too long to start designing the next study design. You might want to start sharpening your pencils and knives for that bunfight.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To start the buns flying, I would suggest:</div><div><br></div><div>- Study design in general - </div><div><br></div><div><div>- Can we (I?) please get guidance on how defining scope is different to determining solution requirements? As I see it, defining one's functional and non-functional requirements necessarily also defines scope. If they don't completely define scope, what is missing?</div>
<div><br></div><div>- A personal annoyance of mine in the mandated PSM is that determining evaluation criteria is part of the design phase. Surely it's part of logical design, not physical design, and could and should happen during analysis?</div>
<div><br></div><div>- The PSM leaves out training from the development phase.</div><div><br></div><div>- Implementation has been omitted from the PSM. I think it needs to return, as a separate step or at the end of development.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Let's make sure the detailed examples actually obey the mandated requirements of outcomes: ITA U4O2, I'm looking at YOU.</div><div><br></div><div>- Make sure mandated requirements actually appear in mandated sections of the study design, and not in the "Advice" or "Recommendations" sections - ITA U4O2's "organisations" with a significant S, I'm still looking at YOU - was just unfair.</div>
<div>- All significant changes to a study design should be clearly flagged, and not subtly changed.</div><div><br></div><div>- There should be a single (online) point of truth for all mandated VCE IT course and task requirements: sprinkling them across a study design, assessment handbook, FAQs and VCAA bulletins (some up to 3 years old!) leads to accidental non-compliance by teachers.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div>- Units 1 & 2 - </div><div><br></div><div>- I'm pretty happy with the balance overall, but some 'sexying up' would help attract punters - e.g. programming web apps, image/audio editing. </div>
<div><br></div><div>- Perhaps an 'integrated project' to bring together several IT skills into one information product.</div><div><br></div><div>- Definitely keep the groupwork. </div><div><br></div>
<div>- Definitely keep the client project. I loved throwing them out into the real world on unsupervised excursions for most of the term 4 double periods :-)</div><div><br></div><div>- ITA - </div><div><br></div><div>
- Let's please kill databases and normalisation. They are killing us when kids ask what they have to look forward to in ITA. </div><div><br></div><div>- Let's once again mandate spreadsheets for one outcome.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Let's also remove the business-management remnants like tactical/strategic/operational decision making. Like project management, they are only tangentially-relevant to IT.</div><div><br></div><div>
- Some juicy communication-based outcome would help attract girls to ITA.</div><div><br></div><div>- SD -</div><div><br clear="all"></div><div>- Please let's sort out the strange attraction that the study design has for the physical layer of the OSI model. What is so magnetically attractive about that layer compared to the others, especially the more interesting higher layers? </div>
<div><br></div><div>- And what's with KK U3O1 KK04 - the OSI physical layer' connection to TCP/IP? AFAIK there is no connection. TCP/IP has its own parallel version of the OSI layers. Kevork may be able to help me better understand this baffling key knowledge.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- I'd like to see linked lists added to data structures.</div><div><br></div><div>- Let's remove laptops from the list of allowed "mobile devices". They are certainly not retarded computers any more. Mine is more powerful than my desktop!</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Let's also remove "gaming consoles". If it's meant to refer to handheld games, say so. Otherwise it infers that Xboxes are "mobile computing devices", which their cables certainly argue against!</div>
<div> </div><div>- Completely new fields of IT - </div><div><br></div><div>- Most of my suggestions have been mere tinkering with what is already in the study design. What important fields are unrepresented or under-represented in the current study design? Perhaps...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>- 3D printing</div><div>- Data centres</div><div style>- Social/psychological implications of omnipresent computing and communication facilities on children, students, workers, and governments. e.g. how many of the political revolutions in 2012 were incited and coordinated by social media?</div>
<div style>- Privacy in the digital age</div><div style>- Changing attitudes to information ownership - open source software, "acceptable piracy", Megaupload, Creative Commons, CopyLeft, GNU licences, Facebook privacy settings, Anonymous, Wikileaks, jailbreaking/unlocking (recently outlawed in USA) etc.</div>
<div style>- Artificial intelligence, e.g. IBM's Watson, Amazon's suggested buys, Siri, human/computer interfacing (e.g. Google glasses)</div><div style>- Changes in computing paradigms - mainframes/dumb terminals > smart standalones > cloud/dumb browsers.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Over to you guys. The beach is calling me...</div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr">
--<div>Mark Kelly</div><div><a href="mailto:mark@vceit.com" target="_blank">mark@vceit.com</a></div><div><a href="http://vceit.com" target="_blank">http://vceit.com</a></div></div>
</div>