Although, they accepted the paper, but they also addressed some issues. I will work on that and improve my work. It is good to send a paper and get the acceptance without supporting supervisors. I'm sure they don't care. Actually I know that nobody cares...
Review 1
========
Contribution of the submission
------------------------------
This paper addresses the problem of curriculum change in the field of computer
science enginering. The author believes that the computer industry keeps
changing and there is need to ensure that graduate produced can withstand the
constantly changing nature of this discipline. He idenfied the need to study
how the rapid changes to technology affects the curriculium and this problem
can be resolved
Evaluation of the contribution
------------------------------
Quality of Content (10%): 6
Significance (10%): 6
Originality (10%): 6
Thematic Relevance (10%): 8
Presentation (10%): 6
Overall Recommendation (50%): 6
Total points (out of 10) : 6.2
Comments for the authors
------------------------
From the abstract, it is assumed that this study is ongoing and is yet to be
completed.
Introduction
The author was able to address the subject of the research in the
introduction. However, the problem has not been properly defined. The author
has not been able to show a gap in knowledge that he intends to fill. the
author has not shown what has been done, what is left to be done that he
intend s to do
Review of Literature
This aspect is missing
Methodology
The author intends using a mixed method. However, the author did not state how
he intend using the mixed method, the rationale behinde it. The sample of the
study were not stated. The sampling technique was not stated. the author plans
the research in three phases
Phase 1 Characteristics of Curriculum
Here the author intends using Bloom's taxonomy for analyzing computer
Engineering curriculum for ten universities from Australia and New Zealand,
based on Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2013-2014. Also
curriculum documents in Computer Engineering from these institutions will be
loaded and entered into N.vivo and coded to determine characteristics.
However,
The author did not list the names of the universities
How coding will be done, rationale behinde it? What are the theme
The levels mentioned are remebering, understanding, applying, analyzing,
evaluating and creating. The graph only has apply, analyze, evaluate and
create. What happened to remebering and understanding?
I feel the graph is not very clear. Probably a stacked bar chart would have
been better
Phase 2 Factors Impacting Curriculum development
How do you intend selecting the sample?
How will you test the reliability of your research instrument?
What method aare you going to use for data analysis?
What is the rationale why you decided to ue online questionnaire
The figure presented? How did you get it get? What data did you use? If not
then state the source
Phase 3 The Role of Academics
How are you going to select the academics to be interviwed
How are you going to conduct the interview
How do you intend to achieve data saturation
How are you going to nanlyze the data collected
The paper has some language and spelling errors
Thanks
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Review 2
========
Contribution of the submission
------------------------------
This paper indicates how curricula are designed and shaped in the computing
discipline and policy makers in Australia and New Zealand. It is included 3
steps in order to meet the aims of paper and each phase has some results and
benefits that has been expressed in the study.
Evaluation of the contribution
------------------------------
Quality of Content (10%): 6
Significance (10%): 6
Originality (10%): 4
Thematic Relevance (10%): 8
Presentation (10%): 8
Overall Recommendation (50%): 8
Total points (out of 10) : 7.2
Comments for the authors
------------------------
This paper indicates how curricula are designed and shaped in the computing
discipline and policy makers in Australia and New Zealand. It is included 3
steps in order to meet the aims of paper and each phase has some results and
benefits that has been expressed in the study.
The style of writing academic papers has been used properly.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Review 3
========
Contribution of the submission
------------------------------
The paper devoted to study in how curricula in computer engineering discipline
are designed in NZ and Australia. The study was organized in 3 phases on the
database of 10 universities:
1st stage: objectives, content, structure of curriculum (literature analysis);
2nd: what factors influence on the curriculum development (online survey);
3rd stage: role of change agents in curriculum design (interview of academia)
Evaluation of the contribution
------------------------------
Quality of Content (10%): 8
Significance (10%): 8
Originality (10%): 6
Thematic Relevance (10%): 10
Presentation (10%): 8
Overall Recommendation (50%): 8
Total points (out of 10) : 8
Comments for the authors
------------------------
A paragraph with clear description of the results of the study will be highly
appreciated.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Review 4
========
Contribution of the submission
------------------------------
The submission attempts to propose a study (with some preliminary results
documented) around curriculum change in computing disciplines.
Evaluation of the contribution
------------------------------
Quality of Content (10%): 4
Significance (10%): 6
Originality (10%): 6
Thematic Relevance (10%): 6
Presentation (10%): 4
Overall Recommendation (50%): 4
Total points (out of 10) : 4.6
Comments for the authors
------------------------
This is a short work-in-progress paper that outlines a high-level description
of a study into curriculum design.
The first part of the paper discusses an initial study of ten programmes,
where the paper outlines are analysed for common learning domains. While this
is a useful idea, the presentation of the results it's particularly helpful.
It's not at all clear how the percentages were arrived at. For example, if a
course had several learning objectives, but some were more core than others
(and subsequently had a greater weighting of assessment), is this taken into
consideration in this aggregation?
Also, it's not particularly clear how this relates to the core concept of the
paper, which is around curriculum change in the computing discipline. Is this
a benchmarking for future comparisons, or is there an insight into how current
cognitive dimensions are more "reusable" in the context of changing curricula?
The second phase seems to solely target academics, but there is no discussion
on the other set of stakeholders: students.
The conclusion attempts to relate this back to the substantial concerns of
organisations such as professional engineering bodies. However, if these
programmes are professionally accredited, then how does this analysis add to
the existing accreditation process that must go on?
Lastly, the paper has numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes that could be
worked on.
Overall, the paper is a noble attempt at tackling a real problem, however I
feel more could be said to justify the design of the survey, the targets of
the survey, and how the results could be applied.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
No comments:
Post a Comment