subject selection

This is the last year that we will be using a website that I developed, the website being a way for students to do online subject selection. It has been a useful development into web development through php/mysql and allowed me to develop so much information. One thing that I think about is how to could have been updated. The look and feel of it was old school. No fancy graphics, simple design and allowed students to change there selections at any time. This allowed for students to have conversations with parents and make the change.

Best thing was that with the simple design is that it worked on mobile devices, tablets without me having to make any changes to the css.

Issues I have had over the years have been mostly due to the data coming in, verification of data is a big issue and when the data in your Student Management System is faulty you tend to have a number of parents e-mailing that they can not access the material. It seems that a couple of years ago our current Student Management System changed dates of birth. Other issues have been the introduction of 6 character subject codes.

I am currently awaiting the student file, so I can start to go through and edit to put into the database and awaiting what subjects are going in this year to be chosen.
The 2014 Curriculum Handbook has arrived and a copy put in your pigeon holes for your use in assisting and advising students in subject choice. Please note the following details re the issuing and collection of subject choices for next year;-

Timeline

• Issued to students in Yr 9-12 at tutor time on Monday 2 August (Week 2)
• Tuesday 13 August Careers and Curriculum Evening for Yr 9-12 students and parents, 6-8.30 pm (Week 3)
• Subject choice (9-12) and Achievement Target interviews (11-13) 29/30 August in Assembly time and FT (for -12)(Week 5)
• Tournament week (week 6)
• Student Subject Choices close on line Monday 9 Sept at 4pm (Week 7)
• Individual subject selections summary generated for Form Tutors to check with students at form time Wednesday – Friday 11-13 September (week 7)
• Return individual student subject selection sheet to box in staff room by end of interval on 13 September (Week 7)

Other things to note
Student’s name appearing on the subject choice sheets is the students Birth Certificate name and it is also what will appear on NCEA papers.
Students have 5 weeks from receiving the 2014 Curriculum handbook until subject choices are due on 9 Sept. They need to take note of subject prerequisites, how well they perform in the school exams and careers advice from the Careers/Curriculum evening when making their selection. Exam performance of students will be taken into consideration when we look at classes for next year as this will determine the number of classes offered likely to be offered.

Human Computer Interaction

As part of my edem626 course I am to review a book related to the subject, in this case in Computer Science the special topic I have chosen to look at in depth is Human Computer Interaction.

The book I ordered has finally arrived, Designing with the Mind in Mind, by Jeff Johnson. First thing I notice about this book is how tactile it is, the cover and embossed fonts and the MK in the bottom corner. It is a book with texture.

The book is a simple guide to understanding user interface design rules.

Looking at the standard Level 1 and Level 2 what knowledge do we need as teachers to pass onto our students?

Level 2 Computer Science Report

COMMENTARY
91371

Candidates who clearly demonstrated understanding of basic concepts from computer science wrote in their own voice, providing evidence from their own work and experience to support any referenced material.

Candidates who simply reproduced information from sources such as Internet sites and teacher notes often did not demonstrate their own understanding.

Reports that reproduced supplied or sourced material without relating the identified knowledge to a specific context such as a digital device often did not demonstrate understanding.

The use of annotated photographic and diagrammatic evidence developed to demonstrate their understandings assisted candidates to achieve. Photographs and diagrams presented as evidence without specific annotation often did not demonstrate understanding.

In considering human computer interfaces, some candidates confused functionality of devices with usability. Some candidates did not refer to the usability heuristics.

Some reports followed the exemplar too closely with just minimal changes of the data. This practice did not contribute to an Achieved grade.

Candidates who produced well-formatted documents particularly well formatted code and screen shots were advantaged as this assisted the markers to establish clearly candidate understanding.

Candidates were disadvantaged where evidence for the standard was presented in a report longer than the specified 14 pages.

STANDARD REPORT
91371 Demonstrate understanding of advanced concepts from computer science

ACHIEVEMENT 
Candidates awarded Achievement commonly:
• described ways in which different types of data could be represented using bits, such as text, colour, audio, numbers and images
• described the concept of encoding information using compression coding and typical uses such as images and audio
• described the concept of encoding information using error control coding and typical uses such as parity and ISBN
• described the concept of encoding information using encryption and typical uses such as Caesar Cypher
• provided examples from human-computer interfaces, such as a chosen device, and described how they illustrated usability heuristics.

NOT ACHIEVED
Candidates awarded Not Achieved commonly:
• copied material verbatim from other sources (particularly the internet) and, in doing so, failed to show their own understanding
• copied material verbatim from other sources and did not differentiate between copied data and their own understanding
• described only one or two of the three required concepts
• lacked detail in their descriptions
• attempted to paraphrase without understanding
• described features in their chosen device but did not answer the questions in the standard
• used the allowed pages unnecessarily with cover sheets or extensive printouts of device specifications or tables of data from the Internet.

ACHIEVEMENT WITH MERIT 
Candidates awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
• demonstrated in-depth understanding of advanced concepts from computer science
• compared and contrasted different ways in which different types of data could be represented using bits, such as ASCII and Unicode, and discussed the implications
• discussed how a widely used technology, such as ISBN, JPEG, or ZIP, was enabled by one or more of compression coding, error control coding, or encryption
• evaluated a given human-computer interface, such as a chosen device, in terms of usability heuristics
• used annotated photographic and diagrammatic evidence to demonstrate their understandings.

ACHIEVEMENT WITH EXCELLENCE 
Candidates awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:
• demonstrated comprehensive understanding of advanced concepts from computer science
• articulated their understanding in their own words and from personal experience
• evaluated a widely used system for compression coding, error control coding, or encryption
• suggested a number of relevant improvements to a given human-computer interface based on an evaluation in terms of usability heuristics.

Computer Science Level One Reports

2012

STANDARD REPORT
91074 Demonstrate understanding of basic concepts from computer science

COMMENTARY
Every effort was made to ensure pages of reports are read in the intended order. This could not be guaranteed where a candidate did not staple their report as required in the specifications.

Every effort was made to ensure that a candidate’s identity was not known to the marker. This was not possible where candidates had written their names on their report.

Every effort was made to ensure the security of candidate reports by requiring candidates to write their NSN on the top right hand side of each page of the report. Candidates who did not write their NSN as required created an unnecessary risk.

Candidates whose report was printed in a font size less than the specified font size and whose submission size approached the maximum number of pages were disadvantaged by this decision

Candidates, who did not acknowledge copied text at the place in the report where the text was used, disadvantaged themselves by that decision.

Candidates who provided code or screen shots that were too small were disadvantaged if it cannot be read it cannot be marked.

Candidates who used the work they did to produce a specific outcome, for example a sorting process, and reflected upon this in their report generally demonstrated understanding. Candidates whose reports used concepts relevant to the specific context of their own experience and used examples drawn from the specific context of their own experience generally demonstrated understanding.

Candidates who relied upon a thesaurus to substitute words into text did not demonstrate understanding. Reports that were completely generic often did not convince the marker that the understanding demonstrated was actually the candidate’s own. Sections of reports completed as class activities often did not convince the marker that the understanding was the candidates own. Candidates who relied heavily on information provided from model answers or commercial resources inserted into templates generally failed to demonstrate understanding. Reports that were constructed as answers to closed questions often did not convince markers that the understanding was the candidate’s own. Candidates who relied heavily upon the reproduction of teacher notes or material from commercial sources generally failed to demonstrate understanding. Candidates who wrote in their own voice using their own words about things they had done and understood generally demonstrated understanding.

In producing the Algorithm section of the report, candidates who provided photos of their own sort process coupled with an explanation of what they had done often succeeded. 

Candidates, who described first iteration through loop and then said “and so on”, did not describe the whole process in their example. Clear distinctions need to drawn between sort algorithms and search algorithm. Candidates appear to consider sorting and searching as the only algorithms possible.

Candidates were often loose in their use of  terminology, “a programme is a collection of algorithms’, informal instructions is pseudocode…” Informal instructions imply assumed knowledge and programmes are written in a formal programming language. Candidates need to describe/explain personal examples to demonstrate their understanding of these concepts.

Candidates using programmes for comparison of costs for sorting algorithms need to reference the source, and give explanation/conclusions in their own words to demonstrate their understanding.
When using graphs the axes must be determined, as must the data source. An explanation of how the data was produced and an interpretation of its representation is also required. The graph by itself is simply an image. If colour is used for reference in graphs, then work should be printed in colour.

When sorting an absolute minimum of five items is required. Both small and large numbers should be used for comparison of sorting algorithms. When a sort is, being described a clear description of context and process is required. Candidates who used better examples of a high-level programming language than HTML were often advantaged. Some candidates put forward the incorrect assumption that Scratch is a low-level language.

Candidates who understood the difference between usability and familiarity were advantaged. These candidates were often able to consider the subtle differences between user friendly, usability, ease of use, user experience.

ACHIEVEMENT
Candidates who were awarded Achievement demonstrated the required understanding. They commonly:
• described the roles of algorithms, programmes and informal instructions
• described an algorithm for a task in their own words, showing understanding of steps in an algorithm
• discussed the concept of cost for a specific algorithm of a particular size
• described some characteristics of programming languages such as syntax, input and output statements, control structures, storage, with reference to their own experience and examples
• described roles of levels of languages with reference to humans and computers
• mentioned high level language, low level language and compiler in correct context
• described the usability of the interface of a computer or electronic system showing understanding of the user interface and not just features of the device or programme.

NOT ACHIEVED
Candidates awarded Not Achieved commonly:
• lacked detail in their discussion of the concepts of algorithms, programmes and informal instructions
• were unable to describe an algorithm for a specific task in their own words
• paraphrased text without understanding
• were confused in their description of the programming languages NCEA Technology Level 1
• described features and functions of devices or programmes without discussing the user interface.
• described only one or two of the concepts.

ACHIEVEMENT WITH MERIT 
Candidates awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
• explained in their own words the distinctions between algorithms, programmes and informal instructions
• generated their own description of an algorithm
• used their own work to show understanding of the sequential, conditional and iterative structures in an algorithm
• discussed with in-depth understanding the cost of an algorithm
• explained in detail and in their own words the importance of the roles of high and low level programming languages
• explained the need for translation between high and low level programming languages
• explained how different factors of a user interface for a device or programme in their own experience contributed to the usability of the interface, and not just the usefulness of the programme or device.

ACHIEVEMENT WITH EXCELLENCE 
Candidates awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:
• compared and contrasted the concepts of algorithms, programmes and informal instructions, in their own words and examples
• compared the cost of two different iterative algorithms in terms of steps required for the same problem of the same size of input data
• compared and contrasted the levels of programming languages and the different ways that high level languages are translated into machine languages, relating accurately to their own work
• compared and contrasted related interfaces to illustrate how different factors of an interface contribute to its usability
• used personalised explanations and contextually sound language
• explained in depth and detail with own words giving student voice to demonstrate comprehensive understanding.

2011

91074 Demonstrate understanding of basic concepts from computer science
COMMENTARY 

Candidates whose work was presented in a variety of font sizes and styles were not advantaged. Candidates who produced well formatted and well structured documents were advantaged as formatting and structure do make a contribution to demonstration of understanding. In particular, small screen shots, text too small to read, and graphs with unlabeled axes did not contribute to a demonstration of understanding.

Candidates who clearly demonstrated understanding of basic concepts from computer science wrote in their own voice, providing evidence from their own work and experience to support any factual or referenced material.

Candidates who applied sourced material in a specific context made good use of the sources. Where knowledge identified from a source was applied in the specific context, it was obvious that the candidate had demonstrated understanding.

Candidates whose reports relied heavily on NZQA exemplars, internet sites, commercially available resources or supplied notes did not often clearly demonstrate their own understanding and often earned Not Achieved grades.

Candidates with templated reports often did not demonstrate understanding. In particular, reports which consisted of answers with no context demonstrated no understanding.

Candidates whose reports did not adequately distinguish between a supplied question and the candidate’s response often did not demonstrate understanding. Reports that reproduced supplied or sourced material without relating the identified knowledge to a specific context often did not demonstrate understanding. For example, a common task for algorithms was the quicksort. Candidates who explained by means of their own experiment often demonstrated understanding. Candidates who simply reproduced an explanation from a website often found understanding difficult to demonstrate.

Some candidate reports contained a gap between the evidence presented and a genuine demonstration of understanding. Some reports did not distinguish adequately between an algorithm and a program, making relatively simplistic claims. For example, candidates claimed, ‘a program is a lot of algorithms together’, without reference to a program’s characteristics: precise language, rules of syntax, and coding structures. Also, some candidates presented tables of numbers ‘relating’ to algorithm costs without reference to how the numbers were produced. Often in this type of report, descriptions had been reproduced without any reference to specific context. This reproduction reflected the candidate’s lack of understanding of the basic concepts.

In considering Human Computer interfaces, some candidates confused functionality of devices with usability. Candidates who were clear on the difference between how easy a device is to use (usability) and what the device can do (functionality) presented evidence relating to usability and avoided presenting evidence relating only to function. Candidates who presented evidence relating to mainly to functionality often did not demonstrate the required understanding.

ACHIEVEMENT
Candidates who were awarded Achievement for this standard demonstrated the required skills and knowledge. They commonly:
• demonstrated some understanding of the basic concepts from computer science
• described key characteristics of algorithms, programs, and informal instructions
• described an algorithm for a task, showing some understanding for the kinds of steps that can be in an algorithm
• attempted to determine the cost of an algorithm of a particular size
• described the role and characteristics of programming languages
• described the roles of high-level and low-level languages and the need for a compiler
• described the role of a user interface and factors that contributed to its usability.

NOT ACHIEVED
Candidates who were awarded Not Achieved for this standard lacked some or all of the skills and knowledge required for the award of Achievement. They commonly:
• did not demonstrate understanding of basic concepts from computer science
• described only one or two of the three required concepts
• lacked detail in their descriptions
• attempted to paraphrase without understanding
• did not provide evidence for all of the standard’s requirement when using a template.

ACHIEVEMENT WITH MERIT
In addition to the skills and knowledge required for the award of Achievement, candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
• demonstrated in-depth understanding of basic concepts from computer science
• explained how algorithms are distinct from related concepts such as programs and informal instructions
• showed understanding of the way steps in an algorithm for a task can be combined in sequential, conditional, and iterative structures
• determined the cost of an iterative algorithm for a problem of size n
• explained how the characteristics of programming languages are important for their roles
• explained the need for programs to translate between high-level and low-level languages
• explained how different factors of a user interface contributed to its usability.

ACHIEVEMENT WITH EXCELLENCE
In addition to the skills and knowledge required for the award of Achievement with Merit, candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:
• demonstrated comprehensive understanding of basic concepts from computer science
• articulated their understanding in their own words and from personal experience
• compared and contrasted the concepts of algorithms, programs, and informal instructions
• determined and compared the costs of two different algorithms for the same problem of size n
• compared and contrasted high-level and low-level languages
• explained the different ways in which high-level programming languages are translated into machine language
• discussed how different factors of a user interface contributed to its usability by comparing and contrasting related interfaces.

Comment/Reflecttion
One thing that I am finding interesting reading these report is the literacy word has not come up. It is more around Candidate has not shown understanding or lacked detail. These external standards count towards literacy credits.

Week two, algorithms

Tonights lecture was a difficult one for me, sections of it went way over my head and I contemplated how I would look in a lecture theatre of First year University Students working through these problems.

Though looking up, this is a Level One NCEA area, where students are to look basic computer science concepts and in this case
Demonstrate understanding of basic concepts from computer science involves:
• describing the key characteristics and roles of algorithms, programs and informal instructions
• describing an algorithm for a task, showing understanding of the kinds of steps that can be in an algorithm, and determining the cost of an algorithm for a problem of a particular size

We looked at the difference between algorithms, programs and informal instructions and how this could be taught to our students to meet the requirements.
The issue of describing an algorithm, it is a step by step process, to solve a problem, complete a task and always has a result. Where the difference between the program and algorithm is a program that has a specific implementation.
informal instruction, the simplest way to show this psudocode, that allows for the creator to use language that the computer may not be able to understand as it is informal. This allows for the developer to use language like "sort the list into order" in which the developer does not need to write the entire programming structure.

The focus of algorithms then comes into play. Schools are recommended to focus on three Linear, Binary and possibly Hashing, there are resources available through the csfieldguide(soon) and csunplugged that could help a teacher develop student voice.

Cost of algorithms is also required as part of the standard. We need to look not a just small numbers when doing algorithms, we need to look at more than 20 as most of the algorithms show little difference when that small.
Using tools from nzacditt that show various sorting algorithms in large numbers, shows number of items and time taken, these could be shown in a graph and talked about, discussed. The examples are written for python as well as scratch. Compare the costs, estimate how long 1 million, 10 million items could take, Or take as simple as your school library, combining it with another school library, how much longer will it take.

What needs to be talked about is what happens when a selections gets to a certain size, will it affect the way a program works. I love the video that shows a simple explanation of three algorithms.

There has been a number of discussions through tonights lecture that I am going to have to watch again on the course video. As I think I missed a number of key concepts and ideas. Or some concepts may have gone over my head

Though one thing that has come out is the possibly of a student instruction sheet for these standards that would assist teachers with a framework to help deliver to their students, Though on the front needs to be teacher guidance that this is not an exam or to be delivered as an exam.

One area that we looked at was wang tiles, could these tiles have an infinite size,

I had a teacher at my last school try to use an algorithm to see if he could solve the eternity II puzzle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_II_puzzle although it was a physical puzzle it could be programmed into a computer, he tried using a brut force method to try and solve it.

I have tried to be careful not to give too many things away as I am sure students would search the internet for this.

One thing that I missed from my first post was the merit and excellence sections

Merit:

Demonstrate in-depth understanding of basic concepts from computer science involves: 

• explaining how algorithms are distinct from related concepts such as programs and informal instructions 

• showing understanding of the way steps in an algorithm for a task can be combined in sequential, conditional, and iterative structures and determining the cost of an iterative algorithm for a problem of size n

Excellence

Demonstrate comprehensive understanding of basic computer science concepts from computer science involves: 

• comparing and contrasting the concepts of algorithms, programs, and informal instructions 

• determining and comparing the costs of two different iterative algorithms for the same problem of size n

and from the Explanatory Notes:

3 The basic concepts from computer science are: the concept of an algorithm; the concept of a programming language; and the concept of a user interface and its usability. 

4 An algorithm is a precise unambiguous specification of how to accomplish some computational task in a finite number of well-defined steps. An algorithm is distinct from a computer program. An algorithm has a cost (the number of steps it will perform) for a task. Different algorithms for the same task may have different costs.

Wednesday: It has taken a while to get access to the video at school, RMTP protocol was not allowed through the firewall, thought with some work this has now been fixed. It has been great to access the video and work through the work at a pace where I could repeat sections and work through my notes. It is also interesting hearing myself. 

Learning is a two way street

Just been show an excellent article, - Learning is a two way street, an interesting read, and for me what makes it better is that it was written by a student.

He makes some excellent points around Learning records, and In-class surveys

• Learning records — A document accessible by both student and teacher that contains on-going comments based upon assignments, assessments, and in-class activities. I was pleased to see my English teacher put this strategy into practise this year; I don't think the tools are quite there yet, but just having the ability to know where I'm going well, and where I need to improve, is invaluable. Having the opportunity to then respond and carry on the conversation is another critical component in encouraging progress. After all, an end of year report is far too late a stage to address any weaknesses.
• In-class surveys — I've seen alarmingly few opportunities to give my teachers feedback in the past, and it's always requested on the last few days of the year, when neither teacher nor student are invested in the results. The alternative is to give students a short survey during, and at the end of, each topic. Make it simple—a 1-5 scale for progress and enjoyment, and few simple questions, such as "Did the powerpoint assignment help you understand the topic?" and perhaps more ambitiously, "How could I teach differently to help you better understand the topic?" Follow up on any issues raised and adapt accordingly. Also, remember to only use the survey sparingly and encourage students to answer honestly.

Christchurch Schools Friday

Interesting one of the possible solutions to come out of the quakes is a possible change to schooling. Albany Senior High School suspends the timetable one day each week for individual projects to take place. With vocational pathways and the youth guarantee act coming into play Friday we see a number of our seniors go out on gateway placements, work experience and tertiary pathways. The idea now comes that Friday is starting to be a difficult day to do anything.

Why not have the field trips, sports exchanges, gateway, work experience all put on the one day with individual projects based around the New Zealand Curriculum 2007 happening on that day. How often are music and art students out of class working on their portfolios. Technology as well as Digital Technologies also need this time.

Now this isn't looking at happening for the entire school. Junior classes, Year 9 & 10 still need to happen. But senior classes could be a start.

Interesting idea. I wonder how I could use this to link in with the creative city.

informal lecture

Today we had a catchup on where we are at with our first assessment, and we had a visiting lecturer, Prof. Valentina Dagiene, talk to us about an informatics project that has been going since 2004,

The bebras project is a competition for all ages of students at school using a system of multichoice and interactive puzzles to get students to understand what informatics is.

The idea of Bebras was born in Lithuania, by Prof. Valentina Dagiene. Bebras is the Lithuanian word for “beaver”. The thought rushed into head during the travel around Finland in 2003 and discussions how we could attract pupils to learn informatics. The activity of beavers on strands was so noticeable, that it suggested the symbol of the contest… Beavers look like persistent stickers, who endeavour for perfection in their field of activities and beaver away to reach the target. Their everyday job seems to be a trial: the one who pulls down more trees will stem more streams... Therefore, our competition was named after the hard-working, intelligent, and lively beaver.

This is rather an interesting project as it does not mention the computer science concepts or theory around the puzzles until later, We are looking at Literacy within our school at present and particularly the Literacy required around our particular subjects. 

In the second week of November the competition is held throughout 30 countries, 24 have been doing these for a while and 6 of these had a trail period last year. 

There are 24 tasks to be completed, 9 of these are mandatory throughout all regions, the others come from a task vault that has been developed with a region submitting tasks, being checked, answers and the theory behind the answers.

the are about to release through there new worldwide site bebraslogic, which will allow for for interactive puzzles to be created rather than the multichoice ones at present.

There has been some work done in New Zealand around bringing the project here, but it has just been discussions at present. Could these be better than the current testing that is done through ICAS?

I look forward to seeing there new site operational, as these could provide a good do now in class when students come in, bebras are looking at a task of the week as well as a 15 minute challenge competition.

This is funded partly by google, I now start wondering what else there is available, how can we get a list of what google has funded? sponsored? that relates to what we are doing in education?

update:
Link to google sponsored cs4hs projects http://www.cs4hs.com/locations/

nethui youth forum

I have a group of students in my level 3 media class that found out about a exhibition at Te Papa last term that tried to convince me that we should do a field trip to attend. It would have been great to see the Game Masters exhibit, however with a week till it close and being the end of the term we were unable to go.

I then had a phone call from a Primary School teacher that I know through twitter asking me if I wanted to take a group of students to nethui, as this year they introduced a Youth Forum, 16-21 year olds talking about issues that are facing there use of the Internet.

EOTC form, flights, tickets for the bus all needed to be organised and paid for, plus tickets to the youth forum, these were unavailable on the nethui website and with many emails, tweets we managed to get 13 tickets, 12 students and one teacher.

Students up before 6am and meeting at the airport, I don;t think some of them have ever been awake at that time of the morning, we managed to get onto the plane, and look forward to an exciting day.

The students worked hard, listening and giving there ideas and issues that they are facing, both at school and at home. Interesting talking about the issues at school and the idea of an "open internet" why is it that schools block sites from students. Schools provide wifi coverage, yet they block social media sites and youtube. Both that are showing some signs of being used for educational contents.

We also looked at the role of the Internet and how Governments are trying to control the use of it. Pacific Fibre also came up in discussion. The Skynet law, privacy and copyright. It was great seeing the students taking part in the conversations and offering ideas in how these can be solved.  They were also able to talk about situations that they or fellow students have been in during the last few months at school or home.

I got to spend a little bit of time in the auditorium talking about education and the network for learning, however to the person talking about the school in Dunedin that just got 9 computers and went over their data cap of 10Gigs, thanks for ruining the session. Yes there is a disparity of ICT in schools in NZ, but there were other things we needed to find out.

Thanks to Ludwig and Amanda for running 3 great sessions that introduced students to an issue, discussed the issue and were able to give ideas/opinions.

To nethui, please can you run the youth forum again and get more high schools students to attend, I thought there would have been more Secondary School students from wellington in attendance.

Day long block course

First, thank you Tim, Jeff, Caitlin and Jack for providing us with such a wonderful day of activities and enjoyment.

Today has been a great day or learning, Human Computer Interaction, Algorithms, Formal Coding where all covered in detail. These areas are covered in the New Zealand Digital Technologies Computer Science standards.

Activities from csunplugged and the new csfieldguide have kept us busy.
Included in the day was a look at the new algorithms introduction video that allows teachers to introduce the concept to students in a fun and exciting way.
We even get to try a new widget as part of the csfieldguide, one around algorithms, find the cute toy... this will allow students to put what the learn with ping pong balls, weights and balances into more depth in their report. Also looking at how to do battleships as part of the http://csunplugged.org/teachers-edition



Human Machine interaction, we were given a lesson by Jeff Johnson, the author of Designing with the mind in mind and GUI bloopers. He gave us some understanding of where Human Factors Engineering was used since the 1940's when battle weary solders tried doing tasks under battle conditions, ie. changing a tyre, how could they remember what to do when being under fire. I look forward to reading his books.
We then looked at Applications and what could make a good interface, and referred to the work on the nzacditt website http://nzacditt.org.nz/resources/programming-and-cs/244-as91371-plan-of-work-and-accompanying-resources. Also looked at were baddesigns.com. We then had to look at our own phones, or someone elses, could they work out how to add an alarm for three days, and then change it again laster one, this provided some laughs.

Algorithms, Binary, Sequencial, Bozo
Comparing with examples, using ping balls and cups and using a sorted sort then using a search algorithm to find a result.
Looking at Analysis vs Empirical, Analysis being able to prove it mathematically vs Practically doing the task.
There are a number of scratch projects that will assist with this to allow students to see the changes in time(cost) based upon the number of objects.
Also came up with compilers vs interrupters, what the difference is and how we could inform our students about the ideas being delivered.

Formal Languages
How would you tell if something was a identifier or integer? An identifier would be a variable, in certain languages there is a certain way that they need to be designed, could a number start a variable, letter, special character?

We then got to play station conductor, working out wether to jump on train A or train B, how do we get to a certain station. This is something that can be done with principals to show them what we are trying to do with our students, I would have loved to know what other examples Tim uses to show principals what computer science is all about. This was the introduction to finate state automata, which allow the students to do a physical hookin with the treasure island csunplugged activity and allows for the ability to simplify notation. Regular expressions could be done under the Rede Dictionary which allows for a.e.i.o a*b* notation, which could a interesting introduction, I just have to find how to do this using the advanced features in Microsoft Word, as this would cause some fun with students to just realise how powerful Word is.

Jack showed us the 7 bridges problems as well as a couple of others that the bridge shows. I keep finding more hidden meaning everytime we are shown the bridge http://bridges.canterbury.ac.nz/

We then started talking about compression and coding and how these could be used within the course, How can computers guess what the next letters could be?

Finish of the day was looking at what is required for the assessment, 1500 words.

What a great day, thank you to the classmates on starting this journey. Now to look at the readings to do for the assessment. Designing with the mind in mind, Human Machine Interaction through the csfieldguide and comparing it with some other material. Holidays?

just for extra reading, we are not the only place having a struggle to get girls into computing http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/newsletter-spring-2013.pdf

The adventure begins

This is one that I thought I would not do, enter university to do a paper, people talk about there experiences about doing a masters in education of postgraduate study. The last one I did was through Manukau Institute of Technology to do some eLearning papers and tried doing two papers as well as a fulltime workload. Something I learnt from that was that I have to not try to do so much.

One paper, Curriculum Implementation for Computer Science, a paper that I have been waiting for, this will help close some gaps in my knowledge. I did a Certificate in Business Computing, Advanced Certificate in Business Computing, part of a Bachelor of Business Computing and a Bachelor of Information Technology. I touched on some aspects of computer science without realising it, most to do with Human Computer Interaction, I think I even did a paper in it.

Included is some feedback that I sent originally around what I would like from the course;

This has been a course that is in need, with the number of teachers attempting this standard with their students. It is one that has benefits as a number of teachers including myself only did business computing courses through polytechnic and don't have the pre knowledge to be able to teach this to our students. Myself would be one of the first enrollments in this course. There are a number of teachers throughout the country that would be glad to have this type of professional development. It is aimed at how to teach the concepts of computer science and through practical lessons. I look at today as my students sorted computer use agreements and would have loved to teach them alternative methods in there sort that would have taken them less time.
The course would have to cover the concepts for level 1, and 2. though those at level 3 would need to be different as there is way to much to cover, an introduction to each area and some clarity about what would be needed for the assessment. It is almost worthwhile to try and do the 3.14 standard in this case. The assessment is almost written in the form of the NCEA Achievement Standards that exist.

One suggestion is to help improve the number of maori and pasifica students having the ability to do confidently attempt this standard and improve the nationwide goal of 85% of students achieving NCEA level 2. (though this is covered in bullet point 7)
Through my interactions with teachers throughout the country this is a worthwhile and well needed course, not only for trainee teachers, but us that have been in for 10, 20 years.

Last week covered some information around the course, but mainly it was about getting in for distance learners. This week a number of issues had been solved around webcams and sound and the Adobe Connect session was working.

 The session looked at a number of papers that Tim and his collegues have written around the changes that have happened in the last 3 years in New Zealand education, especially around Programming and Computer Science and how the standards that have been written have been assessed to see where students have obtained credits and marks based upon the number of pages written. It is interesting to find out that you can obtain excellence with around 10 pages, or even get achieved with 1.5 pages. The 14/12 pages are only a guide, not a requirement.

Level One looks at Basic Computer Science techniques

Level Two looks at Advanced Computer Science techniques

and Level Three looks at Complex Computer Science techniques

Resources that we are looking at or recommended reading are:

• Hazzan, Orit , Lapidot, Tami., Ragonis, Noa; Guide to teaching computer science : an activity-based approach;Springer, 2011.
• Kadijevich, Djordje M. , Angeli, Charoula., Schulte, Carsten; Improving computer science education; Routledge, 2013 (Details at http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9780415645379/ (available through the UC Library as an e-book)).
• Margolis, Jane. , Fisher, Allan; Unlocking the clubhouse : women in computing; MIT Press, 2002 (Available from UC EPS library).

and also the main resource of the Computer Science Field Guide, student version available at http://cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/csfieldguide 

As part of our course a diary about our experiences within our classes is required, as well as our lectures, we are also required to make comments about how others are going, giving encouragement. The group is using a Google Plus community to help provide this aspect. An interesting idea that could be used with our own students later on. 

Tim looked at why the numbers of students doing computer science have dropped from the boom of the Y2K, computers becoming a part of people's lives, the dot com bust, saturation in the industry, fear of overseas outsourcing have all had an impact on CS numbers. One area that is of concern is the number of female CS students and professionals.

Changes that are happening and they are just starting is the introduction of code.org, codecademy.com and the introduction of computer science clubs at Canterbury University. 

Computer studies has users, there is only one other industry that referes to its stakeholders as users and its not exactly one that we want to be associated with. 

Computer programming, making software, where CS comes into play.

Computer Science means making software;

• fast
• efficient
• reliable
• secure
• usable
• scalable
• delightful
• intelligent
• visual

CS deals with those issues, and a number of examples were given about how we see these issues in todays environment and in our work.

Purpose of CS standards at school was looked at; we are making students aware of the issues, looking at making developers, not users, and preparing students for tertiary and industry. 

Program or be programmed, http://socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2010/11/01/a-review-of-program-or-be-programmed/ is one that thing that we have been asked to look at, as well as what other resources could we review, think, look at the ideas, develop key points and recommend to student to read. 

Also talked about was programming in Vietnam where high school students are solving problems that google engineers cannot solve in an interview.

The issue of when should a person learn to program and in what language came up, with some experiences being shared about when we started.

Then we looked at a quick introduction of a number of the areas of Computer Science.

I look forward to the day long course on Saturday.

programming level 3

I have been sitting here for a while looking at my year 13 programming class, I must say while I have a couple of competent students programming wise, The others are struggling with the work.

Things I think I may need to change;

• programming environment
• the timing of the course

Is python a good language to get students to develop in as their first GUI language, probably not. There is far too much understanding that hey have to do, using a IDE would be better for them.

Ensure that in your finished program:

• there is at least one indexed data structure and it has: a modular structure; an input and output; procedural structures that combine sequential, conditional, and iterative structures; a graphical user interface and event handling; and that includes classes and objects (inheritance is not required)
• interaction between modules is minimised, modules are reused rather than duplicated, and the procedural structure of each module is efficient
• classes and objects are sensibly encapsulated
• you annotate your code and use explanatory variable/module names so that the purpose of each part of the program is clear. Document the program with comments on the function and behaviour of the classes and modules.
• Justify the decisions you made as you developed your GUI program.

now looking at changing the assessment from the calculator to a more suited task that is design using what hey have learnt from the tasks that they have completed in the last two weeks. It is more of a currency converter. 

I still think that I will look at changing the program next year.

Planning tools

I have been busy working through the planning process for the NCEA Digital technologies planning standard for programming. Students have been working through there own planning methods, however when it has come to the assessment they have found an online planning tool. It is interesting when one student finds something that it makes its way around the class quite quickly and other students find it works as well.

The website is https://www.lucidchart.com/

This also allows for the addition into your Google Apps for Education environment, a quick form to fill in, configure for your domain and away it goes, They said 24-48 hours for the request to go through, I had it in two.

I plan to use this with the level one students as well as increase its usage in junior and senior DT programmes this year

best laid plans

I was reminded tonight that I have $10,000 worth of licenses that I haven't used this year as well as a free githib license as well. The best laid plans that I had late last year I forgot about.

I have been to a couple of sessions now where wing ware was mentioned as a good development environment for python for students rather than the Pyton IDLE environment. They even have a free license for schools.

Searching Competition

One thing that we take for vantage is assuming that students can use the tools that are provided for them at school, we assume that they can use email and search. I have put that to the test this week and had some surprising results. around 70% of the class were capable of what was required, yet there were 7 students that struggled with searching or the ability to use google mail, two had issues with both. These students have now been at the school for a term now are are in a capable class.

Jump into INNZ

Dive into our catalogues to win weekly prizes of iTunes vouchers! Index New Zealand is celebrating its 25 years with a treasure hunt for New Zealand secondary students.

Every week for four weeks – starting 13 May – we'll give you three clues that point you to three different records in the INNZ database. Find all three records and send in your entry to be in the weekly draw. On Friday of each week, we'll randomly select the winner of a $30 iTunes voucher!

Come back here each week from 13 May, or follow us on twitter, to get the clues. Then head over to innz.natlib.govt.nz and try and track down the records. The "Detailed view" of the record will reveal you've found the right article.

It's on! Week one

Find the records that tell you:

• What types of birds nestle underneath a pie cart in Westland?
• What Samoan literature a group of cowboys featured in?
• What kind of people do "ground deformation monitoring"?

When you've got all three records, email indexnz@dia.govt.nz with the subject heading "Competition entry" by May 17. Make sure you include all the important stuff:

• Your name
• Contact email and phone
• Your school or college
• What publication each article is in
• The issue numbers or dates of publication
• The page number of the articles

This competition is open to all New Zealand secondary students, except for National Library employees or the immediate family of National Library employees. Entry is free, but only one entry per week per student will be accepted. Website: http://natlib.govt.nz/collections/a-z/index-new-zealand-innz

Renaming Labs/Computer Suites

With things changing at school as well as with the digital technologies area, I am wondering if I could try and change the classroom I am in. Things have changed over the years from typing rooms to computer suites, but now am I really in a computer suite or computer lab? I would like to call it a studio, or workshop, or some other name. What are they called out in business?

response back from nikki kaye

I was surprised to receive a response,

Thank you for your email of 21 April 2013 regarding the inquiry into 21st Century Learning environments and digital literacy.

You raise important points about the place of computer and information science in education.

A number of submissions to the Education and Science Select Committee inquiry made similar points, and these are reflected in the recommendations made by the Select Committee in its report to Government.

I am establishing a 21st Century Learning reference group to provide input into a 21st Century Learning strategy, which will address the recommendations of the Select Committee report.

I anticipate that the reference group, in the course of its deliberations, will consult with a range of interested parties, including, potentially, the New Zealand Association for Computing, Digital and Information Technology Teachers.

You asked specifically about computer programming. Programming is identified as an essential component of the Programming and Computer Science specialist area of Digital Technologies. NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3 Achievement Standards are registered on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework which assess student understandings of, and skills in programming. Senior students have the opportunity to take the Technology Scholarship Examination, demonstrating their skills and understandings in programming.

You also asked about support for teachers of computer science. The Ministry, in conjunction with NZQA, is conducting a series of Digital Information teacher professional development workshops designed to equip teachers to prepare students for external assessment against Achievement Standard 91070 (Demonstrate understanding of basic concepts of information management). The Ministry is providing assistance to schools to release teachers to attend these workshops.

Four workshops are being conducted in Auckland, one in Wellington and one in Christchurch. Planning is also underway for a workshop in lnvercargill. The key points presented at the workshops will be captured on video and published on the Ministry's

Technology Online website: http://technology.tki.org.nz.

Both of the Ministry funded Professional Learning Development providers offer teachers support in Digital Technologies - Team Solutions (University of Auckland), which has a specialist facilitator in Digital Technologies, and Te Tapuae o Rehua Consortium, which contracts an experienced Digital Technology teacher to facilitate digital technology workshops for teachers.

Thank you for taking the time to email me, and for your commitment to teaching the digital technology skills that are a critical part of the 21st Century skills young people need for their future success. I share your commitment and look forward to leading the development of a 21st Century Learning strategy that I believe will address the points you raised in your email.

Online NZQA Exams at anytime

NZQA Chief Executive Dr Karen Poutasi spoke at the SPANZ (Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand) Symposium 26 March 2013. Below is the transcript, though some thing to note: This is within the next eight years, Maths Common Assessment Tasks will likely be first. This is not just external assessment, it also will be for internal assessment. Also within 2-3 moderation will become more online. As I think about this I see one other thing, if all of this is going to happen, there will be no need for a time set aside at the end of the year for external assessments to take place. So does this mean that we will have senior students for an extra 6 weeks?

Future State Presentation to SPANZ - 26 March 2013

18 months ago NZQA embarked on the process of developing a vision for the organisation that would take us through the next 10 years. Our reasoning for this was based on the changing environment that is New Zealand in the 21st century. We wanted to think about what NZ Inc would want from us in 10 years time.

We have had to consider global trends and their impact on NZQA and the sector, changing sector expectations, and the way in which technology is both driving and supporting change. The net result of the work undertaken within the organisation has been the development of a project called Future State – a project with a 10 year horizon.

You will be very aware that NZQA works in both the senior secondary school space and the tertiary space and our Future State project has identified a number workstreams that cross over both sectors.

Assessment Workstream: The focus of this workstream is on extensive work with the long-term aim of providing on-line and on-demand assessment mechanisms for NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship. This workstream will involve both internal and external assessment and, given the direction of Youth Guarantee, may eventually cross over into the tertiary sector.

Quality Assurance Workstream: NZQA’s quality assurance (QA) has undergone extensive change, implementing an evaluative approach across the major areas of responsibility i.e. quality assurance of providers and qualifications. The Future State programme will concentrate on embedding and consolidating this change in quality assurance practice with a specific focus on continuous improvement.

Client Experience Workstream: This will include work to ensure on-going changes to support process improvement throughout the entire life of the programme through to realisation of the Future State vision. Tools and strategies will be developed to increase effectiveness when interacting with clients. It’s all about client responsiveness.

Information Management Workstream: This workstream will provide key deliverables across all of the programmes workstreams and contribute to both NZQA and sector-wide initiatives.

Information Technology Workstream: This workstream will provide the ICT delivery to support the other workstreams. It will be responsible for delivering the ICT components of Youth Guarantee, the overhaul of secondary assessment and on-going qualifications review while commencing the delivery of key foundational ICT components for the Future State. It will also help ensure efficient and robust ICT delivery in an increasingly complex and fluid environment.

But I think the workstream you are the most interested in is the assessment one and especially the use of technology within assessment in the senior secondary sector.

You will all be aware of the way the world is changing and the ways in which technology is changing education. Trends such as BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and blended classrooms are beginning to become the norm in New Zealand schools. The behaviours and learning styles of the “digital natives” that inhabit our schools are placing schools in a position of having to reconsider their policies around the use of such things as social media and smartphones.

This leads me to mention a term I tripped across recently when we were looking at the drivers that will affect us in the next 10 years. Not surprisingly increasing individualisation was one of those – ref the quality assurance challenge I have just described.

Well – “heutagogy” popped out of the recent literature. You may well know it once I spell it out – heutagogy is a self-determined way of approaching learning and development – or “self-determined learning” (based on the Greek for “self”). Now I know that such a holistic approach to developing learner capabilities with learning as an active and proactive process is not news to you.

Neither is it news to recognise that self-determined learning will inevitably involve ICT and require critical thinking skills in cyberspace. You will know that the education and Science Select Committee, led by Nikki Kaye, then Chair, published their report of their Inquiry into 21st century learning environments and digital literacy late last year. That picks up on the role of digital learning and indeed, this is something that NZQA must respond to from an assessment perspective.

Because the question often asked by schools when we discuss technology and education is “what about assessment?” schools regularly tell us that as long as we persist with the current paper based assessment paradigm, there is little incentive to invest heavily in changes involving technology. I am hopeful that today I will be able to provide you with some assurance that NZQA intends to change the current paradigm and to discuss with you some of the thinking we have done around digital assessment. I am also aware that within this room and within your schools there is knowledge and expertise that we hope to be able to draw on as we work through this journey.

Let me describe a possible scenario.

A teacher has been working through a unit of work with their class, or it may be a unit of personalised learning with 2-3 students. The point is reached where a student, lets call her Sara, and her teacher agree that she is ready to be assessed against a relevant externally assessed standard. They agree on a date and time for the assessment and, at that time, Sara goes to a dedicated room in the school that is being managed by a staff member and set aside for this purpose. The room could be kitted out with a set of computers or the students bring their own.

Within the room there are several students sitting external assessments in a range of subjects and standards – some may be sitting the same standard as Sara and it is entirely plausible they are answering a different set of questions. Once she has logged on, Sara’s assessment against the standard appears and she works through her assessment activities. When she feels she has completed all that she is going to do, Sara submits her responses. The responses are then assessed and the results sent back to Sara within a short space of time, which may be between 48 hours and a week.

This scenario of on-demand, online assessment has several advantages for the student.

Their assessment is undertaken shortly after the learning and therefore provides them with the best opportunity to maximise what they have learned in class. They are assessed when they are ready not the other way round. They only need to focus on one particular standard not up to three.

The result is provided shortly after the assessment thereby enabling the assessment to be used for learning. Students are able to learn in class at their own pace rather than at the pace of the whole class, which means better knowledge and skill mastery. And finally, it does away with the massive logistical exercise at the end of the year that is the end of year examinations.

I accept that this would be a significant cultural shift for New Zealand.

No doubt many of you can see some issues with the scenario and I will admit that it is not perfect but it is based on some sound educational and assessment principles – notably the opportunity to personalise learning and for students to take responsibility for their own learning, to have assessment closer to the learning and to have the assessment inform further learning. It also demonstrates the notions of online and on demand assessment and this is the direction that NZQA is heading.

A lot more investigative work needs to be undertaken before our actual plans and timelines are finalised but we are reasonably confident that we can reach a position within 8 years where most students will be sitting examinations using a digital device. Moving to on demand assessment is then only one step away and making that next step will depend upon the sector and how all the steps up to that point have been received.

Our Future State programme has three phases.

Phase 1 will be the first three years of the programme. This Foundation phase will involve concept development/widespread discussion and refinement, detailed planning, and design and implementation of ICT changes.

Phase 2 will be years 4 and 5, which will focus on ensuring that we optimise our processes to realise the potential benefits. In this phase, we will be aiming to decommission some of our legacy systems and to simplify existing systems.

Phase 3, the Transformation phase, will go from years 6 through to 10. This is when we expect it all to come together, and NZQA will deliver assessment to anyone, anywhere, anytime, online and on demand.

This timeline may not be quick enough for some of you but NZQA is very conscious that it needs to take a very cautious approach to the use of technology within external assessment. I can well understand the nervousness the education sector has with technology at present and given the status of external assessment in particular, you will appreciate that caution must be exercised if we are to make changes to the examination system. Having said that, one aspect we are looking at seriously is the notion of dual assessment for an interim period. This is where we could have the same examination available as computer based or paper based options and students would be able to opt for one or the other.

The Mathematics CAT (Common Assessment Task) will be in its third iteration in 2013 and is now established within the senior secondary school landscape. Our thinking is the Maths CAT provides a very good platform to trial and pilot some of the digital assessment elements.

Moves within NZQA towards digital moderation are already underway through the use of a file sharing process between the school and moderator. Currently, most of this material is still in the traditional hard copy and then digitalised. Some schools (and subjects) are already preparing the assessment for use in a digital environment and I would hope that within 2-3 years we will see a significant increase in the uptake of schools doing their assessments this way.

NZQA has not yet set a deadline regarding a full uptake of digital assessment for internals and, at present, we are allowing individual schools to set their own pace of change. However, as part of the Future State work, NZQA will steadily make available more opportunities for schools to have their digital work moderated within a digital system.

When I commenced this discussion about assessment, I mentioned the driving forces in the 21st century and so I return to the fact that the critical element in the move to internal digital assessment is that teachers and schools accommodate the pedagogical changes that the use of computer technology in the classroom requires. No doubt within your schools discussion is already taking place about the sorts of changes that are needed, and are indeed happening in many schools for the future direction of teaching and learning.

Through the roll out of the Ultrafast Broadband network, schools and students now increasingly have the ability to efficiently connect with the global network and access knowledge in ways they have never been able to before. Through the Network for Learning initiative schools have access to resources to assist in teaching and learning within this medium. In addition to in-class activities and resources students are accessing a range of online tutorials such as the Khan Academy as part of their learning. At NZQA we are aiming to support these initiatives with quality online assessment.

We are also aware the journey NZQA is embarking on is one that cannot (nor should not) be travelled alone. NZQA will need your advice and support at various stages throughout the process and will need to draw on the knowledge, experience and expertise within your schools for piloting and trialling of various elements of digital assessment.

As we at NZQA clarify our thinking and finalise our ideas and plans, we will communicate them to schools and will appreciate comment or feedback. We are also aware that there will inevitably be some very difficult issues to resolve and we hope you will work with us to resolve them.

I do like the Wenger quote: “Insights often arise at the boundary between communities” and we at NZQA do value your insights – which a shared sense of what we are here for – if I can revert to the bird in the forest for a moment – then we can collectively achieve a lot.

To conclude, NZQA has done some significant thinking around what assessment will look like in the future, and digital assessment in particular, and is committed to capturing the value of digital assessment within the secondary school sector.

The shape will become clearer over time, and while I am excited about the journey ahead, I am very aware of the challenges it will pose.

Thank you

Open data and level 3 Digital technologies

I am busy trying to work out how I can use open data within my courses. I see this being used in the digital information strand of my course.

Though I have to work out how to relational queries, or can you using open data?

There is currently an initative to open up data in New Zealand and I would like to be able to use it with my students.
http://natlib.govt.nz/blog/posts/opening-our-data

is anyone running a course on how to do this?

UPDATE: http://mesa.ac.nz/?page_id=1688 videos from the open data course that was held in wellington have been made available online.

makertorium through twitter

One thing that I keep wishing is that I was in Wellington somedays, if there is a school with a job vacancy...

There always seems to be some great stuff happening in Wellington, from the Te Papa gaming exhibit through to makertorium today. I have been following it through twitter #makertorium and I must say there are so many good toys I would be interested in buying. The flying fox http://www.flyingfoxcam.com/ camera has me wanting to film rugby games from the sidelines with better view for sports analysis, though it looks like it would survive a ball attack.

What a great way to introduce technology/digital technologies achievement standards to students. http://makertorium.co.nz/

One that has my attention at present is how to introduce robotics in the classroom, I know a number of schools have Lego NXT kits or VEX robotics, but they are expensive. Then there are the pixaxe robotics that were shown at the Auckland Symposium.

One that I am looking at due to todays tweets are the http://www.bristlebotics.com/ that are made by a company in Dunedin. They have developed a interesting unit plan that will work with technology levels 3-5 http://www.bristlebotics.com/files/1363122426_BUZZY%20Lesson%20plan%20concept.pdf

How are schools using robotics with junior secondary programmes?

Both the flyingfoxcamera and bristlebotics are nz made.

I am hoping that they have another makertorium soon. 

inspiration

http://webdesign-inspiration.com/

some great inspiration of website development that I would like my students to see