Dr Terri Lomax
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
tlomax@aut.ac.nz

One of the things about life is that it takes twists and turns that one may never expect. It is our knowledge and understanding of the world that allows us to survive those unexpected, and make sense of the world as we knew it, and as we know it now. Computer science has changed the way that we view the world. Our knowledge and understanding of our world has markedly changed the way we think.

I never expected to be teaching programming. As an escapee from a science career, my knowledge of the world has expanded greatly – something I also didn’t expect. And I didn’t expect to be working so closely with Gordon Stegink developing a programming course in JavaScript. JavaScript? For teaching fundamental programming skills? Hey, it’s fun, the students really get off on it, and their enthusiasm for immediate feedback really works – and that’s the major theme for this issue of BACIT – educating students. Gordon is an interesting person, a highly capable teacher, and he expresses his “Viewpoint” in this issue.

The first paper in this issue is Brian Cusack’s paper from the Auckland University of Technology on “Epistemology and Computing Studies” that looks at how diverse a knowledge base the computing and information sciences have evolved from. This history gives a complexity and richness to the paradigms available to researchers. Underlying themes of “what do we know”, and “under what conditions do we know” are central to any understanding of a discipline. The complexity and variety of the computing sciences raise interesting questions about “what is appropriate” to research, and “what methodologies do we utilise?

I am not sure that I agree with Brian’s comment “Technology by definition ... produces proof and in relation to science, influences the truth criterion of science by increasing the capacity to be right.” My understanding of critical analysis would suggest that any assumption that science can determine” right” is context dependant. What does “right” mean? However, Brian Cusack’s paper is thought-provoking and a useful look at epistemology and computing.

The next paper by Andrew Eales at Wellington Institute of Technology on “Teaching Computer Science: An NLP Approach” describes neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) as techniques derived from models used to describe the intuitive processes utilised by gifted psychotherapists. These NLP techniques may be applied to the acquisition of skills using both conscious and unconscious attainment of competency in tasks. Andrew’s short paper overviews these techniques of NLP as a set of ideas that may be useful for computing instructors.

Paul Kearney and Stephen Skelton at UNITEC in “Teaching Technology to the Playstation Generation” consider for us the utility of “developing games” as a teaching approach which might engender a sense of creativity and a desire for innovation for “today’s computing students”. Again, another example of how our “assumed knowledge” has changed the basis of the world we understand. The “rules” that Kearney and Skelton suggest for the teaching games include “innovation is the key”, and “games are an art, and so, like life, are unpredictable”, and “include critical decision making as part of your game play and classes”. Critical decision-making: something that wasn’t included in my science courses when I was a young student, and yet such an important part of today’s thinking paradigm. Critical thinking, and Games – how do we appeal to students imaginations, yet provide them with skills that will last them a life-time? Who taught you to play games?

The papers in this issue include a submission by Irene Toki and Mark Caukill at UCOL reporting their research on “Prevalence of Online Assessment? Causative Factors”. Why don’t tertiary institutions use online assessment more? What are the factors that mitigate against that practice? This paper lists a number of different response to this question, and amongst other factors, suggests that online assessments are complex to create, and expensive. And then there is the issue of “what are we testing: computer competence, or subject matter?” A useful paper that makes one think about the assessment process.

Ryan Clarke and Paul Roper at NMIT describe their exploration of “Using a Third Party Language with Microsoft’s .NET”. The authors describe the issues they faced when attempting to use Borland’s Delphi 7 for .NET in place of the Visual Basic including changing the complete architecture of their application before producing the application in VB, and then converting it to Delphi. Conclusion? Yes, it works, but it would be nice to have a decent IDE.

Finally, in this issue is Garry Roberton and Janne Ross’s report on “NACCQ Qualifications – A Performance Review and Future Developments”. Where are we going on NACCQ modules and qualifications?