Draft Agenda for Teaching Committee Meeting - 23 July 2004

Minutes of previous meeting

Present: kenr(chair), lambert, bgaeta, boualem, guyt, potter, anymeyer, richardb, sridevan, compton - any others??


  1. Proposals for revised e-Commerce courses.
    COMP9321 E-Commerce Systems Implementation Infrastructure
    COMP9322 e-Commerce Systems Engineering
    COMP9323 e-Enterprise Project
    Proposals as amended after the meeting in response to meeting's suggestions:
    COMP9321 E-Commerce Systems Implementation Infrastructure
    COMP9322 e-Commerce Systems Engineering
    COMP9323 e-Enterprise Project

    Boualem discussed the reasons for the new courses: experience with COMP9316 shows that many students do not have an adequate programming background to cope with course, so COMP9321 (e-Commerce Systems Implementation Infrastructure) has been introduced to develop an adequate basis for the main course COMP322 (e-Commerce Systems Engineering). A new project course, COMP9323 (e-Enterprise Project) has been added.

    Minor changes suggested:

    COMP322: Prerequisites: COMP9321 or COMP9024 or COMP2011 Also add Assumed Knowledge to spell out the intention of the prerequisites.

    There are a number of items in the course proposals that have not been completed, for example: 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15.

    It was explained that these courses were omitted from the PG revisions documentation, and so need to be approved separately, and urgently, before the Academic Board has it's final look at the revisions.

    The proposals were accepted unanimously.

  2. Courses to be taught in 2005. The current state of play can be seen in the teaching allocation pages: 2005 x1 2005 s1 and 2005 s2

    Very little progress was made on this item.

    Attention was drawn to the following changes that part of proposed SE changes:

    • COMP2111 replaces COMP2110 in S1
    • COMP2411 in S1 removed?
    • COMP3710 moved to S1: required by SE students in that semester
    • SENG1031 replaces SENG1010/1020 in S2

    There were questions about the future of the higher courses. It was known that there was an intention to eliminate the individual higher courses and introduce an advanced component in all courses. Richard Buckland raised serious reservations about the practicability of this plan?

    There was considerable demand for the relation between the teaching allocation and the load formula to be made explicit. Concern focussed on those courses with very small enrolments: there should be a known enrolment number below which teaching a course counted as zero load.

  3. Proposal on OO Development courses [John Potter]

    John Potter presented course outlines for two new courses:

    COMP2xxx Object Oriented Design and Implementation

    This would be an OO design course using Java as the implementation language

    COMP3xxx Object Oriented Programming Models

    A successor course that further develops OO concepts using C++ as the implementation language.
    This course could be viewed as a replacement for COMP4001.

    There was also a foreshadowed level 4 course.

    Discussion raised problems with new level 2 courses and their integration into programs and also expected difficulty in "rebadging" level 2 courses for PG use. For this reason it was agreed that both courses would be level 3 courses.

    There were unresolved issues of how the courses could be integrated into programs, especially CE and SE, and whether they could be core courses.

    To get some resolution of such issues it was agreed that John should call a meeting of all interested and affected academics.

    revised proposal document

  4. University Medal Criteria [KenR]

    Kenr presented a discussion paper that drew attention to the current method for identifying medal candidates, namely the use of the CSE (stage weighted) WAM, and the distortions and opacity of that measure. This was illustrated by taking two real students and analysing their career using a number of measures: UOC weighted mean, simple unweighted mean, median mode, maximum and the frequency of the maximum mark. These measures tended to give a clearer picture of the distribution of marks, hence the degree to which excellence was uniformly distributed across a student's career.

    The meeting was concerned about the current practice and unanimously approved the following proposal.


    1. The Medal should be decided on some fixed measure of quality. In deciding on the measure, the careers of past medalists should be considered.
    2. In the measurement determined in 1) we should stop using the CSE WAM as a single measure.

School of Computer Science & Engineering
The University of New South Wales
Sydney 2052, AUSTRALIA
Email: billw at cse.unsw.edu.au
Phone: +61 2 9385 6876

Last updated: