| Sumario: | Working Groups are an established part of the annual ITiCSE conference, and as Working Group organiser, I am delighted to introduce the reports from the 2001 gathering in Canterbury, UK.Working Groups assembled in the customary manner, having been at work electronically for some time before their arrival in the UK. Participation is a significant effort and sacrifice, since it is hard to take time out to attend the many interesting conference presentations. This year, matters were exacerbated by very hot (and un-British) weather.Some changes to the conduct of the Groups meant that they had more dedicated time before the Conference convened, and that they had access to a formal presentation session, rather than creating posters as had been done in earlier years. Both these developments seemed to be well received, with the presentations in particular permitting good interaction with delegates, to the Groups' benefits.Another change was to permit the Groups a full month after the conference to polish their reports. These have since been commented upon by referees, and you have the results before you.Three Groups met in 2001, and I was pleased that they addressed three areas that are central and critical to the delivery of Computing in higher education;â¢Clear, Young et al. consider capstone projects. Projects are now almost universal in the CS curriculum, and they have surveyed the entire field, and compiled an impressive bibliography. Arguably, this form of project is a trademark of Computing, cherished by staff, students and employers alike. The activity is resource hungry, and it behoves us to do the best we can to present the best possible experience to our students.â¢Henderson et al. consider the issue of mathematics in the curriculum. Uttering the word "maths" in most staff common rooms is like hitting a raw nerve, and the Group have done a good job of surveying the role and place of maths in the curriculum, and how attitudes are changing.â¢McCracken et al. consider the actual programming fluency o f our students after we have taught them. Anecdotally and informally, many of us admit to a fear that many of our students "cannot really program". The Group has established for a representative sample of universities that this is actually true. This is an important piece of work, which has generated some equally important recommendations.Vicki Almstrum at Austin, Texas, has ably documented the activities of Working Groups over the years. See http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/csed/iticse/for full specifications of the Groups' original stated purpose, and full details (including pictures) of the participants. Equivalent information is available going back to the first ITiCSE conference in 1996.
|
|---|
