the status and computer science accreditation and curriculum in the u s 2001
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The Status and Computer Science Accreditation and Curriculum in the U.S. 2001

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 51

The Status and Computer Science Accreditation and Curriculum in the U.S. 2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The Status and Computer Science Accreditation and Curriculum in the U.S. 2001. Dr. Willis K. King 2002 IEEE Computer Society President 1994-1996 CSAB President. IEEE Computer Society. the world's oldest and largest association of computing professionals with 100,000 members worldwide.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Status and Computer Science Accreditation and Curriculum in the U.S. 2001' - wallis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the status and computer science accreditation and curriculum in the u s 2001

The Status and Computer Science Accreditation and Curriculum in the U.S. 2001

Dr. Willis K. King

2002 IEEE Computer Society President

1994-1996 CSAB President

IEEE Computer Society

the world's oldest and largest association of computing professionals with 100,000 members worldwide

the leading provider of technical

information and services to the

world’s computing professionals.

exclusive offer to region 9 latin america
Exclusive Offer to Region 9 (Latin America)
  • Special package for new student members
      • Reduced fee - $20 full year instead of $31

$10 half year instead of $16

      • Full Student membership benefit


Free access to the Digital Library – A $49 value exclusively for Region 9 Students!

exclusive offer to region 9 latin america1
Exclusive Offer to Region 9 (Latin America)
  • Students must submit their membership applications and fees through their faculty advisors.
  • Faculty advisors collect student applications together with the fees and send them in batches to the IEEE Computer Society HQ’s .
  • A faculty Advisor who submits 5 or more student applications (in a batch) will also receive a free subscription of MDLS for the year – a $99 value!
  • The faculty advisor must be a member or affiliate member of the IEEE Computer Society.
topics of discussion
Topics of Discussion
  • Integration of CSAC into ABET
  • Accreditation Criteria 2000
  • Curricula 2001
motivation for the integration
Motivation for the Integration
  • To serve the public better
  • To build a stronger organization
  • To resolve potential conflict
to serve the public better
To Serve the Public Better
  • Institutions interacting with one accreditation agency
  • Alleviate problems in dual accreditation
  • Reducing the cost of accreditation
building a stronger organization
Building a Stronger Organization
  • Economy in size
  • Computing under one roof
  • International issues
to resolve potential conflict
To Resolve Potential Conflict
  • Which organization is to accredit software engineering programs?
  • There may be many new programs that can be accredited by either agency.
  • 1971 ABET accredited the first computer engineering programs
  • 1986 CSAB accredited the first computer science programs
  • 1989 COPA decision led to dual accreditation problem
major outcome of integration i
Major outcome of Integration(I)
  • CSAB will become a participating body of the new organization and may have representation on any or all of its accreditation commissions
major outcome of integration ii
Major outcome of Integration(II)
  • Software engineering will be the responsibilityof the Engineering Accreditation Commission. CSAB will be the lead society for software engineering accreditation and the IEEE will be a co-operating society
major outcome of integration iii
Major outcome of Integration (III)
  • A new commission, the computing sciences accreditation commission, will be formed. CSAB will be the lead society for computer science and, as appropriate, for other computing programs (e.g., Information sciences)
major outcome of integration iv
Major outcome of Integration (IV)
  • Programs which involve more than one of the various accreditation commissions (e.g. computer science and engineering) will be evaluated by a single, combined team and will only require a single visit
status of integration
Status of Integration
  • 2000-2001 cycle is a transition year.
  • CSAC will be fully integrated into ABET stating with the next accreditation cycle.
criteria 2000 c2y
Criteria 2000 – C2Y
  • Emphasis on Outcome Assessment
background on c2k history 1
Background on C2KHistory -1
  • 1995-96 major review of Criteria to examine
    • quality
    • currency
    • alignment with national emphasis on assessment
  • Investigated in detail approaches by
    • AACSB (Business)
    • ABET (Engineering)
    • NCATE (Teaching)
  • CSAC determined it was appropriate to proceed
background on c2k a brief history
Background on C2KABriefHistory
  • 1995 - 97
    • Broad input on initial criteria
  • 1997 - 98
    • 2 pilot programs using Version 0.6
  • 1998 - 99
    • Version 0.8 used for 5 pilot programs
  • The future (2000 - 01)
    • Full deployment
background on c2k principles
Background on C2KPrinciples
  • Emphasis on Outcome Assessment
  • Retain the strengths of the existing Criteria.
  • Clean up the Criteria.
  • Recognize that the Criteria are minimum criteria.
  • Avoid prescriptive standards.
c2k evaluative criteria structure
C2K Evaluative Criteria Structure
  • Two documents
    • Criteria for Accrediting CS Programs in the US
      • seven categories
      • each category is divided into
        • Intent
        • Standards
    • Guidance for Interpreting Criteria CS Programs in the US
      • seven sections
        • one per criteria category
      • contents mapped to specific Standards
evaluative criteria structure
Evaluative CriteriaStructure
  • seven are evaluative categories
      • Program design and level
      • Faculty
      • Curriculum
      • Laboratory and Computing Resources
      • Students
      • Institutional Support
      • Application of Criteria
criteria c2k overview what is an intent statement
Criteria C2K Overview What is an Intent statement?
  • defines the underlying principles found in a program that conforms to the Intent
  • a program does not have to meet the letter of standard to meet the Intent of a category
    • alternative means of meeting intent of the category are acceptable
    • the burden of proof of equivalent educational value rests with the institution
criteria c2k overview example of an intent statement
Criteria C2K Overview Example of an Intent Statement

Category: Faculty

  • “ALL faculty members are current and active in the discipline and have the necessary technical breadth and depth to support a modern computer science program. There are enough faculty to cover the curriculum reasonably and to allow an appropriate mix of teaching and scholarly activity.”
criteria c2k overview the standards
Criteria C2K Overview The Standards
  • detailed description in a series of statements of how to minimally meet Intent
  • are both qualitative and quantitative
  • define minimum essential elements
  • statements are explicitly enumerated, i.e., one sentence each
  • departures considered - institution must demonstrate equivalent value in meeting the Intent of the category
criteria c2k overview examples of standards
Criteria C2K Overview Examples of Standards

Category: Faculty

  • Three of the nine standards in the category:
    • “III-1. There must be enough full-time faculty with primary commitment to the program to provide continuity and stability.”
    • “III-6. All faculty members must have a level of competence that would normally be obtained through graduate work in computer science.”
    • “III-8. All full-time faculty must have sufficient time for scholarly activities, professional development and advising.”
criteria c2k overview what is guidance
Criteria C2K Overview What is Guidance?
  • explains relationship between Intent and Standards
  • provides guidance in the application of standards
  • generally expresses norms for meeting a Standard
  • an institution which departs from the norm must demonstrate how the approach taken meets the Intent of the Standards
  • sections correspond to the Criteria document
  • each Guidance item indicates the Standard it supports
criteria c2k overview example of guidance
Criteria C2K Overview Example of Guidance

Category: Faculty

  • Two of 13 items guidance items:
    • “2. Typically, a program should have a minimum of five FTE, of which four should be full-time faculty with primary commitment to the program. [III-1, III-4]”
    • “8. The equivalent of graduate work in computer science can be demonstrated by relevant research, thesis supervision, a history of attendance at relevant technical conferences, auditing of graduate classes, or extensive software design and development experience. [III-6]”
differences between previous criteria and criteria c2k
Differences Between Previous Criteria and Criteria C2K
  • Additional emphasis on mission, objectives of the college, program and curriculum and assessment
  • Intent provides explicit means for latitude in interpretation
  • Where appropriate, many former quantitative criteria included as Guidance
  • Few other significant substantive changes
how to apply criteria c2k
How to Apply Criteria C2K
  • To be accredited, a program must meet the Intent of each category
  • The Intent of a category can be met by
    • meeting all the Standards in the category
    • an alternative implementation
  • Guidance helps programs and evaluators understand how Standards can be met
    • it is not prescriptive
    • a program can meet a Standard in way that does not conform to the Guidance
differences in the accreditation process
Differences in the Accreditation Process
  • It is incumbent on programs to explain how their implementations meet the Intents.
  • Visiting Teams have the responsibility to
    • assuring that each Intentis either
      • met by meeting minimum standard
      • met via an alternative implementation
    • understanding a program’s implementation if a standard is not met and evaluating if the Intent is, nonetheless, met
for more information
For More Information
curricula 2001
Curricula 2001
  • The Newest Model Curricula developed by a joint task force of

IEEE Computer Society and


computing curricula 2001 principles
Computing Curricula 2001Principles
  • Computing has become an extremely broad discipline that extends well beyond the traditional boundaries of computer science.
  • Despite its growing breadth, computing remains an integrated field of study that draws its foundations from many well-established disciplines.
  • The rapid evolution of the computing discipline requires an ongoing review of the corresponding curriculum.
computing curricula 2001 principles1
Computing Curricula 2001Principles
  • Curriculum 2001 must go beyond knowledge units to offer significant guidance in terms of individual course design.
  • Curriculum 2001 must identify a relatively small set of core concepts and skills that are required of all computing students.
  • Curriculum 2001 must provide guidelines for courses beyond the required core.
computing curricula 2001 principles cont d
Computing Curricula 2001Principles (Cont’d)
  • Curriculum 2001 must be international in scope.
  • The development of Curriculum 2001 must involve significant industry participation.
  • Curriculum 2001 must include professional practice as an integral component of the undergraduate curriculum.
  • Curriculum 2001 must include strategies and tactics for implementation along with high level recommendations.
development of cc2001
Development of CC2001
  • It involved
    • 14 Knowledge Focus Groups
    • 6 Pedagogy Focus Groups
  • More than 100 people from all over the world
the undergraduate cs core
The Undergraduate CS Core
  • DS. Discrete Structures 43 core hours
  • PF. Programming Fundamentals 38 core hours
  • AL. Algorithms and Complexity 31 core hours
  • PL. Programming Languages 21 core hours
  • AR. Architecture and Organization 36 core hours
  • OS. Operating Systems 18 core hours
  • HC. Human-Computer Interaction 8 core hours
  • GV. Graphics and Visualization 3 core hours
  • IS. Intelligent Systems 10 core hours
  • IM. Information Management 10 core hours
  • NC. Net-Centric Computing 15 core hours
  • SE. Software Engineering 31 core hours
  • SP. Social and Professional Issues 16 core hours
  • Total 280 core hours
changes in the cs core from cc 91
Changes in the CS Core from CC’91
  • The required core is now smaller (280 vs. ~323 hours)
  • Coverage of architecture, algorithms, operating systems, and programming languages has been reduced
  • Coverage of graphics, HCI, and networking has been expanded
  • We have emphasized that the core no longer constitutes a complete curriculum, but must be supplemented by additional topics appropriate to the specific program
core of computing
Core of Computing

The core consists of those topics for which there is a broad consensus that the topic is essential to undergraduate degrees that include computer science, computer engineering, software engineering, and other similarly named programs.

This definition is meant to encompass the essential requirements common to all undergraduate programs. At the same time, the core does not constitute a complete undergraduate curriculum, but must be supplemented by additional courses that may vary by institution, field of study, or individual student.

structure of the curricular options
Structure of the Curricular Options















Specific material needed to match introductory and intermediate course strategies (possibly an additional course and minor adjustments to topic coverage)













Additional courses used to complete the undergraduate program


The overview document is common to all

computing disciplines and describes the

general principles that underlie the specific

disciplinary reports.

These reports—perhaps with additional

Computing Curricula 2001

volumes for other disciplines—will be

prepared in consultation with existing

curriculum committees in these areas. In

Volume I

many cases, these committees have already

The reports on the Computer Science and


published curriculum guidelines that can

Computer Engineering will be published

easily be incorporated into the CC2001

by the CC2001 Task Force itself as part of


its overall charter.

The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula

IEEE Computer Society

Association for Computing Machinery

Computing Curricula 2001

Computing Curricula 2001

Computing Curricula 2001

Computing Curricula 2001

Volume III

Volume IV

Volume V

Volume II

Computer Engineering

Software Engineering

Information Systems

Computer Science

The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula

The Joint Task Force on

The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula

Association for Computing Machinery

Software Engineering Education


IEEE Computer Society

Association for Information Systems

IEEE Computer Society

Association for Computing Machinery

Association for Computing Machinery


for more information1
For More Information
putting it together
Putting it together…
















IS 2000








c2k decision reporting flow
Are there alternate means to satisfy Intent?

Are any Standards not satisfied


Are there any concerns


C2K Decision & Reporting Flow

Within a Category gather data with respect to Standards

  • Report
  • “Intent of category not met”
  • Note which unsatisfied Standards most strongly relate to failure to meet Intent and why
  • State, “No alternate means provided to satisfy Intent”
  • NB: Do not report a “deficiency” with respect to a Standard





  • Report
  • Intent of category is met
  • Note the concerns
  • Note any alternate means of satisfying Intent for any Standards not satisfied



  • Report
  • Intent of category is met
  • Note any alternate means of satisfying Intent for any Standards not satisfied
computing curricula 2001 pedagogy focus groups
Computing Curricula 2001Pedagogy Focus Groups
  • Introductory topics and courses
  • Supporting topics and courses 
  • The computing core 
  • Professional practices 
  • Advanced study and undergraduate research
  • Computing across curricula
knowledge area focus groups kfg charter
Knowledge Area Focus GroupsKFG Charter
  • Chaired by Pradip Srimani
  • Review and define the scope of the focus area
  • Finalize the associated list of knowledge units
  • Comment on the three processes of theory, abstraction, and design described in CC-91
kfg charter cont d
KFG Charter (cont’d)
  • Specify mathematics requirements
  • Highlight changes made to CC-91
  • 14 KFGs had been identified; most recently IS had been reestablished; HC is being reorganized; distributed systems added to NC; Multimedia added to GV
kfg charter cont d1
KFG Charter (cont’d)
  • Separate the knowledge units into two or three levels, comprising the core, the intermediate, and the advanced subject matter
  • Based on the knowledge units, suggest model courses and corresponding lecture or lab hours, with specific course objectives and expected learning outcomes
  • 1990 ABET and CSAB defined rules and procedures of dual accreditation
  • 1994 establishment of study group to facilitate dual accreditation
  • 1995 study group recommended merger
  • 1995 establishment of merger task force
  • 1996 task force established framework for merger
  • 1997 feedback from constituents resulted new approach
  • 1998 guidelines for integration agreed upon by all major organization