PROCON

A Tool for Curricula Accreditation

Dainis Dosbergs

Faculty of Computing, University of Latvia, 19 Raina blvd., Riga, Latvia

Keywords: Accreditation, ABET, EQANIE, ACM CC, PROCON.

Abstract: Compliance with the set requirements is controlled by curricula accreditation. Though curricula is managed

and prepared to meet the accreditation requirements, problems with control over accreditation requirements

and demonstrating the performers of accreditation compliance to those are quite common. This article

describes a system developed by the author – PROCON, which provides control over curricula content,

study result and other curricula indicators for accreditation purposes by utilizing a compliance matrix.

1 INTRODUCTION

The role of curricula accreditation varies throughout

the world. There are countries with mandatory

curricula accreditation and countries where

accreditation is optional and higher education

institutions may chose their way. There are areas

where the role of State accreditation becomes less

important while the role of international

accreditation increases, for instance, information and

communication technologies (ICT). International

accreditation is required to be able to compare

curricula in different countries and even different

regions, and considering the student mobility

tendencies as well. Such allegation is supported by

the fact that various accreditation organizations

strive to harmonize the accreditation criteria, and

had signed the Seoul Accord (Reif and Mathieu,

2009).

The higher education institutions must use their

efforts to analyze curricula content and demonstrate

its compliance with requirements of the industry.

For instance, in ICT field, compliance of curricula

with ACM Computing Curricula (ACM CC, 2006)

or SWEBOK (2004) is assessed.

The achieved learning outcomes are analyzed

during curricula accreditation, too. The issues of

learning outcome analysis and meeting the ABET

accreditation requirements have been analyzed by

Booth (2006) and Booth, Preston and Qu (2007).

The issues of learning outcomes control have been

researched by Abunawass, Lloyd and Rudolph

(2004).

This article describes research made by the

author on control of accreditation requirements by

analyzing curricula content from concept

classification standpoint and analyzing

correspondence of learning outcomes achieved to

accreditation requirements by developing

requirement matrix. The article describes a tool

developed by the author, PROCON, which includes

the above three activities for curricula analysis and

practical application of which is planned for 2011

during reaccreditation of ICT curricula according to

state requirements as well as during curricula

accreditation for EQANIE label.

2 ACCREDITATION

REQUIREMENTS

The importance of accreditation is different in

different countries and regions. When curricula

accreditation is mandatory, it is seen as measure of

curricula quality, a quality threshold, a tool for

attracting the best students, an assistant to students

for choosing quality curricula, an assistant to

employers for choosing next employees (Reif and

Mathieu, 2009).

Parallel to state mandatory curricula

accreditation the higher education institutions may

opt to accredit the curricula according to various

accreditation systems popular throughout the world

to assess the quality of such curricula as well as raise

its prestige. To achieve this, it is necessary to meet

316

Dosbergs D..

PROCON - A Tool for Curricula Accreditation.

DOI: 10.5220/0003305403160322

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2011), pages 316-322

ISBN: 978-989-8425-50-8

 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

the different accreditation requirements. For

instance, it is possible to accredit ICT curricula

according to requirements of EQANIE, ABET.

2.1 EQANIE

Accreditation Requirements

European Quality Assurance Network for

Informatics Education (EQANIE) organization was

established in Europe some years ago. One of the

aims of this organization is to develop a unified

standard and accreditation requirements for

informatics program accreditation (EQANIE, 2009).

Accreditation requirements include separate listing

of learning outcomes for First and Second Cycle

degree programs as well as guidelines for program

assessment.

Curricula assessment guidelines include program

educational objectives, academic and support stuff,

facilities, financial resources, agreements with

industry, management system. During preparing

curricula to accreditation for EQANIE label it is

necessary to ensure both analysis of learning

outcomes in the program and get ready for

inspection of assessment criteria.

2.2 ABET

Accreditation Requirements

Curricula accreditation is optional in United States

of America. Applied Science, Computing,

Engineering and Technology curricula use

Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology (ABET) curricula accreditation in their

battle for students, and to demonstrate the quality of

programs. ABET accreditation requirements involve

the following subjects: Objectives and Assessment;

Student Support; Faculty Curriculum; Laboratories

and Computing Facilities; Institutional Support and

Financial Resources; Institutional Facilities (ABET,

2009).

ABET requires that program objectives must be

measurable. That is, for any objective written for a

program, there must exist some practical way to

examine whether it is achieved over the graduates of

the program. (ABET, 2004)

ABET requirements may be divided into three

groups:

 General requirements.

 Requirements for learning outcomes.

 Requirements for topics reviewed within the

curricula.

3 REQUIREMENTS

FOR CURRICULA CONTENT

The experts, during curricula accreditation, are

controlling the extent to which the curricula follow

the requirements of the industry. Such requirements

may vary between the industries. In ICT industry,

significant role is played by requirements for IT

curricula content summarized by leading

organizations of the industry – ACM, AIS and

IEEE-CS, the ACM Computing Curricula (ACM

CC, 2006). Particular disciplines may have their own

requirements developed, for instance, the Guide to

the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge

(SWEBOK) developed by IEEE-CS discusses one

particular ICT discipline – software engineering.

In due course of developing and managing the

curricula content, attention should be paid to the

extent to which the curricula meets the requirements

of external curricula content. At the moment of

curricula accreditation the experts may aim at

examination of review of particular topics within the

curricula.

3.1 ACM Computing Curricula

Requirements

As there is a very large number of IT curricula

around, it is important to understand the IT specifics

and its relation to study directions. Thus, the

Computing Curricula proposed by ICT industry

organizations ACM, AIS and IEEE-CS summarizes

the information on advisable curricula content in

directions of Computer Engineering, Computer

Science, Information Systems, Information

Technology and Software Engineering (ACM CC,

2006).

Computing Curricula describes the computing

topics to be reviewed within five kinds of degree

programs by indicating minimum and maximum

review volume for each topic. Non-computing topics

are described in a similar way. A sample of topic

listing is provided further in Table 1.

Degree outcomes are another thing described in

Computing Curricula. The report lists approximately

60 various performance capabilities and sets an

expectation indicator for each of them (values from

no expectation to the highest relative expectation).

Sample of such requirements is provided in Table 2.

When curricula content is controlled, it is

necessary to identify the extent to which the curri

cula content meets the ACM CC computing topics

and performance capabilities.

PROCON - A Tool for Curricula Accreditation

317

Table 1: Comparative weight of computing topics across the five kinds of degree programs (ACM CC, 2006).

Knowledge area

CE CS IS IT SE

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Programming Fundamentals 4 4 4 5 2 4 2 4 5 5

Integrative Programming 0 2 1 3 2 4 3 5 1 3

Algorithms and Complexity 2 4 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4

Computer Architecture and Organization 5 5 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4

… … …

Table 2: Relative performance capabilities of computing graduates by discipline (ACM CC, 2006).

Area Performance capability CE CS IS IT SE

Algorithms

Prove theoretical results 3 5 1 0 3

Develop solutions to programming problems 3 5 1 1 3

Develop proof-of-concept programs 3 5 3 1 3

Determine if faster solutions possible 3 5 1 1 3

Application

programs

Design a word processor program 3 4 1 0 4

… … …

3.2 SWEBOK Requirements

Individual disciplines may have their own standards

or guidelines developed. Thus, for instance, there is

a guidebook developed for Software Engineering

which is one of the IT disciplines, describing the

boundaries of Software Engineering discipline –

Guide to the Software Engineering Body of

Knowledge. (SWEBOK, 2004) The Body of

Knowledge is subdivided into ten software

engineering Knowledge Areas: Requirements,

Design, Construction, Testing, Maintenance,

Configuration Management, Engineering

Management, Engineering Process, Engineering

Tools and Methods, Quality. Each of the areas is

detailed further, even reaching the fourth detailing

level in some areas.

When correspondence of curricula content to

requirements of the industry is demonstrated during

curricula accreditation, it is necessary to demonstrate

the correspondence of curricula content to

requirements of SWEBOK.

4 PROCON

A relevant tool of support is needed to ensure

control over accreditation requirements discussed in

previous paragraphs above as well as to provide

control over curricula content. Performance of

control activities is much easier by using such

support tool, thus ensuring obtaining the results of

curricula analysis quicker. The PROCON tool

developed by the author is described in this chapter.

The tool is intended to be used both in everyday

work and during curricula accreditation. This tool

provides for input of curricula information, input of

various accreditation requirements for analysis of

curricula content, learning outcomes and other

curricula indicators, analyzing functions for control

over meeting the accreditation requirements.

4.1 Requirements

for Curricula Content

Analysis of curricula content is important for

curricula analysis as well as for comparing various

curricula. Research performed by DeLorenzo,

Kohun and Wood (2006) revealed that not all of

IS2002 study courses were included in US TOP 19

IT curricula, as well as different study courses not

mentioned in IS2002 were present. During curricula

accreditation, the experts need to obtain

confirmation that curricula cover particular

concepts.

In PROCON tool, the analysis of curricula content

requirements is granted by utilizing the concept

classification described in research of Dosbergs and

Borzovs (2010). Concept classification helps to 1)

describe the concepts of the respective science field,

2) identify the topics covered by curricula study

courses, 3) list the external curricula content

requirements, for instance, ACM Computing

Curricula computing topics, SWEBOK topics or

requirements for curricula content analysis brought

forward by accreditation commission experts.

Figures 1 and 2 present a screenshots of the

PROCON tool, showing an example of control of

CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

318

Figure 1: SWEBOK knowledge areas covered by study courses.

Figure 2: SWEBOK knowledge areas covered by topics of study courses.

requirements for curricula content: figure 1

illustrates report at the study course level, figure 2 –

at the level of the study course topics. In the left two

columns SWEBOK knowledge areas are included.

In the 3

and 4

column are included appropriate

study course code, name and amount of credit points

of evaluated study program. The last two columns in

figure 2 show study course topics description and

amount of contact and individual work hours planed

for each topic.

4.2 Requirements

for Curricula Learning Outcomes

Accreditation requirements demand achieving

particular learning outcomes in study courses. It is

necessary to demonstrate those during accreditation.

Indication of what results demanded by accreditation

requirements are achieved within each study course

is needed for such demonstration. This kind of

approach, with compliance matrix, is used also by

Yao, Liu, Grubb and Williams (2007) to describe

correspondence between study course learning

outcomes, program objectives, CC2001 standards

and CAC ABET criteria.

Requirements for achieving learning outcomes

are imposed by EQANIE also, requiring indication

of how program outcomes are met within curricula

and how the Relative performance capabilities of

computing graduates by discipline described in

ACM Computing Curricula are imposed.

For the sake of ensuring compliance with

accreditation requirements, PROCON provides for

listing the curricula study courses with a possibility

to indicate learning outcomes to achieve for each

study course. It is possible to define various

accreditation requirements with respect to learning

outcomes within the tool and connect the outcomes

to be achieved by study courses to accreditation

requirements towards learning outcomes. Also, it is

possible to generate reports on how accreditation

requirements are met by the audited curricula to

perform the accreditation requirement control, or on

the contrary, assist the curricula responsible ones in

PROCON - A Tool for Curricula Accreditation

319

preparations for the audits by reviewing study

courses that do not achieve the accreditation

requirements.

Figure 3: Control of learning outcomes in the PROCON

tool.

Figure 3 presents a screenshot of the PROCON

tool, showing an example of curricula learning

outcome control. In the left column are included

ACM Computing Curricula requirements for

curricula learning outcomes. In the 2

and 3

column are included appropriate study course code,

name and amount of credit points of evaluated study

program. The last column shows study course

learning outcomes of evaluated study program.

4.3 General Requirements

PROCON is intended not only for analysis of

curricula content and learning outcomes, but also for

accumulation and processing of general

curricula information that is required for curricula

control and accreditation purposes. The tool allows

accumulating different types of information in a

universal data structure and ensures processing of

these data and their connection to external

requirements. The tool provides the option of

generating various voluntary reports from curricula

data accumulated by the system as well, for instance,

professor number ratio, number of students to one

professor ratio, number of students to one lecturer

ratio.

Universal data structure used for the tool

provides the option of defining new values to be

accumulated within the tool and indicate the data

type for such values. The tool allows accumulating

data with number, text, date and similar values as

well as employing classification or data selection

SQL request values definable within the tool. The

data selection SQL values provide for broader

opportunities to apply the tool because the user

familiar with data structure of the tool may generate

various reports on accumulated data without

changing the tool functionality.

4.4 Technical Implementation

This chapter describes the part of PROCON

technical implementation related to curricula

content, learning outcome and curricula information

control discussed in this article. Data structure is

illustrated in Figure 4. Implemented curriculum

architecture corresponds to a simplified model

where the course has several topics attached

(Study_Course_Topic), but each topic has a

knowledge unit attached, to be discussed within the

topic (Study_Course_Topic_Concept).

Figure 4: Data structure of PROCON tool.

CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

320

Several learning outcomes have been adjusted to

the course (Study_Course_Outcome). Recording of

voluntary information (Information) on a curricula

or particular study course is possible also.

Universal data structure of information

accumulation is developed in a way that various

curricula or study course data types are defined

(Information_Data_Type), it is possible to define

voluntary classifiers applicable within the tool

(Information_Data_Classifier) and fill in these

classifiers with classifier values

(Information_Data_Classifier_Value).

The tool provides for listing of various

accreditation requirements and connection to

curricula indicators. Accreditation requirements are

defined (Requirement) and accreditation content

requirements (Requirement_Content), accreditation

requirements towards achievement of learning

outcomes (Requirement_Outcome) and accreditation

requirements for revealing information on curricula

or study course (Requirement_Data) are listed.

Compliance with accreditation requirements

within particular curricula is ensured by filling in

adequacies between curricula study course learning

outcomes and accreditation requirements for

learning outcomes to be achieved

(Study_Course_Outcome_Requirement) and filling

in correspondence of curricula information to

accreditation requirements (Information_Require-

ment).

5 FUTURE WORK

Continuation of research foresees practical

application of the developed PROCON tool in state

accreditation and EQANIE accreditation for IT

curricula.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining curricula information for accreditation

requirement purposes is a time consuming process.

It is not always possible to simply obtain

acknowledgements required for accreditation from

curricula data. Gathering of such data sometimes

requires analysis of curricula information. The

situation in curricula content analysis is made

complicated by the fact that it is possible to accredit

the curricula according to requirements of various

external accreditation systems.

The article describes a tool developed by the

author, PROCON, that is intended for accumulating

and analysis of curricula information during

preparation of curricula to various accreditations as

well as for supporting the curricula responsible ones

during accreditation. The tool supports control over

curricula content requirements, learning outcome

control and listing and control of curricula

information indicators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research is supported by a grant from the

European Social Fund (ESF) operational program

“Support of doctoral studies at the University of

Latvia”.

REFERENCES

ABET (2004). Selfstudy questionaire for review of the

computer science program. Retrieved from

http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml.

ABET (2009). Criteria for Accreditating Computing

Programs. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/forms.

shtml#For_Computing_Programs_Only.

Abunawass A., Lloyd W. and Rudolph E (2004).

Compass: A CS Program Assessment Project. ACM

SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 269-269. Retrieved from The

ACM Digital Library.

ACM CC (2006). The overview report covering

undergraduate programs in Computer Engineering,

Computer Science, Information Systems, Information

Technology and Software Engineering. Retrieved

from http://www.acm.org/education/curric_vols/CC2

005-March06Final.pdf.

Booth L. (2006). A Database to Promote Continuous

Program Improvement. Proceedings of the 7th

conference on Information technology education, 83-

88. Retrieved from The ACM Digital Library

Booth L., Preston J. and Qu J. (2007). Continuous

Program Improvement: A Project to Automate

Record-keeping for Accreditation. Proceedings of the

8th ACM SIGITE conference on Information

technology education, 155-160. Retrieved from The

ACM Digital Library.

DeLorenzo G., Kohun F. and Wood D. (2006). ABET-

CAC is Accreditation: Curricular Standards and

Program Rankings, Issues in Information Systems,

7(1), 182-187.

Dosbergs D. and Borzovs J. (2010). Concept classification

for Study programs quality evaluation. Proceedings of

the 2nd international conference on computer

supported education, 441-445.

PROCON - A Tool for Curricula Accreditation

321

EQANIE (2009). Framework Standards and Accreditation

Criteria for Informatics Programmes. Retrieved from

http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php.

Reif H. and Mathieu R. (2009). Global Trends in

Computing Accreditation. Computer, 42(11), 102-104.

SWEBOK (2004). Guide to the Software Engineering

Body of Knowledge. Retrieved from

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/swebok.

Yao J., Liu Y., Grubb A. and Williams G. (2007). Course

Assessment Framework that Maps Professional

Standard and ABET Accreditation Criteria into Course

Requirements. Journal of Computing Sciences in

Colleges, 23(2), 128-136.

CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

322