Search

Faculty teaching computer courses go through repeated updates of their classes in order to keep their programs current. The updates may include more than changing textbooks or adding a new volume. Instead, the changes may require the installation of new software, hardware, troubleshooting and solving complicated technology related problems. The faculty requesting these changes may need the expertise of technical staff in updating these technology courses and in solving emerging problems. In such cases, coordination and collaboration between the faculty and technical staff will be necessary in order to assure course updates. This paper reports on the collaboration between a faculty and technical staff at Eberly College of Business and Information Technology (ECOBIT) -- Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). Both faculty and technical staff have been working cooperatively at different levels to address course and programmatic changes for their computer curriculum. The details of this cooperation between the faculty and the technical staff are explained in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computer science (CS) curricula are composed of various study modules, each of which focuses on particular contents, concepts, principles, and associated problem-solving methods. Developers of CS curricula recommend that students become acquainted with different programming paradigms in order to acquire alternative ways of computational thinking and various approaches for problem solving. In this paper, we illuminate two different though related paradigms: object-oriented programming and logic programming. We present and discuss the findings of a comparative study aimed at revealing similarities and dissimilarities between object oriented programming and logic programming in the context of problem-solving approaches and conclude with guidelines for instructional design of a study track that combines both paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the frameworks used by Computer Science students at the conclusion of two semesters of study in Software Engineering. A questionnaire listing 64 Software Engineering concepts was given to students at three universities upon completion of their second-semester course. To identify which topics were most important, students were asked to rate each concept on a ten-point scale. From their responses, we calculated the average perceived importance for each concept. This paper analyzes the results of the survey. We also compare these concept ratings to similar ratings obtained earlier from a sample of first-semester Software Engineering students. Using both data sets, we describe how Software Engineering perceptions evolve as students progress through a two-semester course sequence. This knowledge can be valuable to Software Engineering instructors as they decide which concepts to emphasize and how to unite these concepts into a consistent, meaningful framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the introductory programming course, ISM3232 of Grandon Gill, Associate Professor of Information Systems & Decision Sciences (IS&DS) at the University of South Florida. Two disciplines tended to focus on teaching computer-related concepts such as computer science (CS) and management information systems (MIS). Forty percent of all computer-related degrees were offered through MIS programs and emphasized using information technology (IT) to solve business problems and the managerial challenges resulting from such uses.

The Information Technology (IT) Department of the Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences (GCCIS) at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) offers core courses in four threads. These threads cover various subject areas of Information Technology. Increasingly, students enter the IT program with prior programming experience from high school or college courses, work, or from other activities. Several studies, including the authors' own have indicated that students, who have prior experience, often perform better in the first programming course. Our earlier study verified that using 2002 data and found that after the first course, the experience did not have a significant impact on student performance in subsequent programming courses. In this study, we reexamined the results of our first study with data from 2003 and looked at beginning courses in other core threads to see if the prior experience had a significant impact on those courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]