I can smell a very long quoting-marathon in the posts to follow.
Get ready for a long post
woah!! firstly let me say I just got told bad, didnt i?
Well, I put it all down to "finally getting back on the Internet" and catching up with the events of the past week. It's a big deal leaving the computing world and coming back, only to be bombarded with requests, messages, unanswered PMs and emails, and new MSN contacts (btw, stop asking for my MSN/ICQ people LOL... I'm having a hard time dealing with 200-300 people concurrently - slight exaggeration there
).
lol!! I see where your coming from, and i wasnt trying to ask in a "smart-alecky" way. But isn't that what learning is about? Asking why and how something happens? But yeah, true, teachers just teach you to accept what's in the text book. I just wanted to know in broader terms of IPT, how things operate in the real world. Like what is the relevance of doing subjects like those then?
Yep, that's correct. But there's a difference between questioning something that has been established (say you've got a convention and method, and you're trying to destablise or create something 'new' - instead of sticking to the norm). Questioning something should only be done if you're struggling with a concept or having troubles in understanding. That's what separates someone who's willing to learn something (to keep up with other students, or to reinforce his/her own understanding), as opposed to the student who simply says "but can you explain it
better?" (this is an example and does not refer to you)
Yeah, i do accept textbook definitions, but I find if I think about concepts for too long, I think of ways that they don't work etc. which, yeah, prob. isn't a good thing
At first, you'll want to
understand how something works, once you've played around with it, you'll want to explore new avenues and discover new things, interrelate them with other concepts, develop mind-maps or spider-webs, brainstorming and so on. Once you've
mastered a concept, you'll be wanting to look for flaws in the definition (henceforth breaking down everything that you know to be true), and that's when you start becoming disillusioned with a subject and start finding it "boring" (ie being a know-it-all, and if I can use a quote from one of my great friends "nobody likes a smartass").
If you think about something for a long time, you'll want to probe even further (in a non-homosexual manner
) - so once you've broken all the rules and start disassembling something, you'll find that "nothing makes sense" -- which is not where you want to be headed. Find out about a concept, understand how it works, and stop there. Don't even think about "why" unless you're willing to give yourself a "brain/mind fuck" (a term I took from one of the ext2 english threads)
But don't you find that when you link real world sernarios and applications to ipt you further understand and have a better knowledge of the concept? As you actually see where and how this is used. For example, a Distributed Database..If you didn't think of a senario that goes with the concept of Distributed Databases (e.g. airline reservations) you would know the definition, but wouldn't you find it difficult to apply to a senario in an exam? Exam's arnt just defintions, they are senario's so you can't just apply a definition to a question can you?
This is correct. When you start to link basic principles and ideas/concepts towards real-world scenarios, your own understanding is strengthened because you start to realise "hey, I can see it now! So that's why you need to normalise a database..." But this
application of theory has to stop somewhere.
Let me explain
You'll have a better understanding of a concept when you see it in action, or if you can visualise it (ie learning through visuals, hands-on approach, real-world applications, putting into practice what you've learnt in theory sessions).
When you talk about "actually seeing where and how it is used" - I talked about this in my previous post. There is a clear distinction that has to be made when you're dealing with:
1. IPT, a HSC subject which is confined to the syllabus
and
2. The real world, without restriction. ie there is no "syllabus for life".
Now, that's what I was talking about before. When you've got an HSC writer, who's creating the exam, writing the exam, he or she does not take a typical company or external firm, and try to develop IPT principles and concepts/ideas/definitions from the HSC course, and apply it using a
backward-thinking ideology. What you will find is, they will start off with some basic understanding and idea about how to structure an exam/question, so they take a few definitions, from those definitions, they will start to think: "now, how can we take these principles and put it into practice, in a surrounding or environment that HSC students will understand?" -- it is in being able to link and cross-link ideas and concepts
involved/from IPT itself, that they are able to create scenarios. (ie forward-thinking).
Exams aren't just definitions, you are correct. If you've
just got definitions, then you'll barely pass (IMO). But it is through a scenario and example, that you (the HSC student) is able to build upon such an example/scenario using IPT terminology and foundations. ie starting from the simple definition, progressing through to examples of usage (
to the scenario, not to the real-world. Read this back to yourself).
There is a *huge* difference between
a) What happens in the real world
and
b) What is supposed to happen from an IPT point of view/perspective.
It's when you start to question "why and how" they can't be 1, that is when things start becoming problematic and you'll give yourself the aforementioned "brain fucks" - it's like Physicists saying "...but it works in theory!!" only to find out that their maths is incorrect, or some other theory has been crushed due to experimental (and real-world) results/outcomes.
I don't think that an IPT student will find it difficult to link IPT theory to
written, exam-based, practical scenario-based quetions - note, I have not included
real-world because you have to delve deeper to fully appreciate how theory and practice (thought vs reality) works in the "real world"
But arent exam's criteria based marking? E.g. "Did the student identify the participants?" You can't just make up an example that doesn't exist for that...because the marking for that question is basically set.
What I meant by "the exams themselves allow for some sort of overlap between what you have been taught at school, with some sort of example from real life - such examples might not even exist" is as follows:
Exams
are criteria based, and you are correct when you say "you can't just make up an example that doesn't exist" -- What I meant was that the
examination creation team or group of IPT teachers, who, in creating the exams themselves, will allow for some overlap between
IPT Theory and corresponding examples - that is, the "practical" component of IPT - putting what's down on paper, into practice, applying it to the scenario, going one step further than just saying "it works, the blueprints are fine" and saying "look at what we've created, doesn't it feel good to know it works in a given scenario?"
That's what I meant, I wasn't saying that an HSC student is to "make up examples" on the spot and hope to God that he/she will be awarded the marks
If anything, I hope that you will take away with you two definitions/concepts, and take grasp of them when studying for IPT.
Real-world applications
* does not strictly adhere to IPT
* is flexible, does not have to be pigeon-holed into "core topics" such as project management, communication systems, multimedia, information systems/databases, or transaction processing, DSS, etc.
* cannot be explained fully in terms of IPT
* cannot be marked according to a set structure/criteria
Scenario-based examples
* made up by the IPT writers/teachers (HSC writers)
* can be pigeon-holed into categories or core topics (including options)
* designed to have some commonality between the IPT course and
similar aspects, witnessed in the real-world
* can be easily marked, according to criteria/outcomes/guidelines
This is what I have been saying all along, but I may have jumbled up some terms, so I may have caused some confusion with terms such as "real world" and "scenario-based" or even "example"
A good point to make right now is this:
Do you see how important definitions are, right from the outset?
If you can't understand
what someone is saying, then there's no clarification. No clarification leads to confusion and misinterpretation and miscommunication (one of the communication systems social/ethical issues).
All the best
