The meeting commenced at 2:05 PM.
Present: Arcot Sowmya (chair), Paul Compton, Alan Blair, Eric Martin, Peter Ho, Tim Lambert, Nandan Parameswaran, Oliver Diessel, Manuel Chakravarty, Sri Parameswaran, Achim Hoffmann, Kathy Mitris, Jingling Xue, Wayne Wobcke, Arthur Ramer (scribe)
Apologies: Ken Robinson, Bruno Gaeta, Bill Wilson
Minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 Sept were approved.
Actions following from Minutes
AS reported on FoE UGEC meeting on 16th Oct:
1. CN to update handbook information on (i) above.
2. Program directors to inform DC on (iv) above.
EM reported on the new TELE course on Networks Architecture. Faculty PGEC has approved it under a GSOE number, on the understanding that it would be shared between CSE and EET. There was general discussion on postgraduate courses. EM clarified that faculty wide courses have GSOE codes for postgraduate and ENG for undergraduate courses.
EM also reported on his review of CSE postgraduate courses vis a vis hybrid numbering. His analysis of current courses shows that CSE has the following distribution of postgraduate offerings:
ACTION: EM to consult with relevant lecturers, and work with them on revising the identified course codes.
MC stated that he wishes to revert the course content to match the current handbook description. He plans to use a theorem prover in the course. NP commented that over the past few years, COMP3141 had become a glorified C++ course.
AS referred TC to KAR's comments on this topic . On teaching of project management (COMP3711), the suggestion is to integrate the topic with a relevant project course. On software engineering (COMP3111), which he reviewed for the school in 2006, KAR suggests that working out the meaning of the phrase `software engineering' is the most pressing problem.
From discussion of the three courses, it was agreed that there were gaps in the relevant topics covered: PH listed system analysis and design, SP project management and teamwork. ACS and IEAust accreditation requirements were also mentioned, on project management for CE versus software project management for CS.
It was agreed that a small working group would meet, to consider the teaching of project management in all programs, and software engineering in non-SE programs, in the light of planned changes to COMP3141 contents, and desirable changes in others, in order to benefit a larger number of students in all programs. SP, TL, PH and MC agreed to work in this group, and AS invited KAR to join the group.
ACTION: Wcworking group with members mentioned to meet and report to TC at its Nov meeting.
WW reported on his experience of teaching a revised COMP2911 in S2, 2009. He made three major changes to the course:
WW presented results of a survey conducted in week 12 tutorial session, with 32 responses out of 43. It indicates that the workload was about right, the textbook and textbook slides were helpful in understanding the subject, and GUI programming and multi-threaded systems were accepted as part of the course. A question on including more material on algorithms evinced mixed response, probably reflecting differing student backgrounds.
TC members commended WW on presenting the report, and suggested that preseting such a report to TC should be a recommended course of action after any major course change is implemented by a lecturer.
During discussion, it was stated that SISTM would like Java and GUI design for its students, and WW was asked if the current course would suit them immediately after COMP1911. WW responded with a clear no, as the course is not meant to teach Java per se, and does require more preparation and maturity than that provided by COMP1911 alone.
It was suggested that RB, who will teach the course in S1, 2010, be requested to consider the S2, 2009 offering, the survey results and WW's experience.
ACTION: RB to check S2, 2009 experience on COMP2911 prior to S1, 2010 teaching.
AS stated that recently approved changes to the CS program mean that SENG4921 is the course in this area taken by most of our students, with CE the only exception. A recent AB hot topic on ethics teaching at the university triggered the collection of data on current ethics teaching over all programs. The hot topic discussion at AB ended with an offer of help from academics in other schools experienced in teaching this topic. It is timely therefore to review our teaching of ethics in all our programs. AS referred to comments from KAR and BG in this regard.
Discussion started with the necessary UoC: 3 or 6, and the general view was that 3 UoC is sufficient, but 6 is almost mandatory nowadays. AH and AM suggested that we review the total number of teaching hours. The content taught to students in all programs needs to be reviewed. It was agreed that a small working group would discuss this topic, with a view to providing a uniform experience to all students, while accommodating the program requirements. AB, OD, WW and AH volunteered.
ACTION: The working group with proposed members to report to TC at the Nov meeting.
Meeting closed at 4:10 PM.
School of Computer Science & Engineering
The University of New South Wales
Sydney 2052, AUSTRALIA