A Process-Based Approach to ABET Accreditation: A Case Study of a Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics Program

ABET accreditation has become a well-known standard for academic programs not only in the U.S. but also across the globe. Instantiating the processes to systematically improve the quality of programs is a daunting task for higher education institutions. In this contribution, we provide a detailed process-based framework that can assist aspiring institutions to embed quality in their processes leading to ABET accreditation. Our contribution is a novel framework for a process-based approach to quality assurance, as most of the published literature is primarily concerned with the experience of ABET accreditation of a solitary program. However, in this paper, we have presented a generic framework that ABET aspiring programs can instantiate in their preparation for ABET accreditation. We have validated these processes in our successful ABET accreditation application of the Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics program. Our existing ABET-accredited programs were following old ABET criteria and the Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics program must apply based on the new criteria proposed by ABET. Another novelty of our contribution is that it is based on our work for the first application cycle for ABET cybersecurity-related programs, so the findings of our contribution may assist other aspiring cybersecurity related academic programs to well prepare in their ABET accreditation pursuit

MAPPING IS CURRICULUM RESEARCH AREAS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW FROM 2010 TO 2019

Research on IS curriculum addresses many important aspects related to IS curriculum planning: sharing of good curriculum planning practices, reviewing and recommending contents for IS curriculum, and identifying graduates’ competency needs. A bit surprisingly, however, there is no systematic literature review on IS curriculum research, increasing the possibility that knowledge does not accumulate, or reach intended beneficiaries. In this paper, we present results of a systematic literature review of IS curriculum research from 2010 to 2019. In total, 204 articles are downloaded from Scopus, AIS eLibrary, and ACM digital library. In addition to providing an overview of research demographics, we classify the articles first into three broad categories (planning process, curriculum contents, competency requirements), and secondly to more specific classes within each category. For IS curriculum researchers, the results assist in identifying prior research in different areas, thus promoting accumulation of research knowledge. For IS faculty, the paper provides an overview of IS curriculum related studies and a possibility to identify papers based on their immediate curriculum design needs and interests

The CDIO Syllabus 3.0 - An Updated Statement of Goals

The CDIO Initiative is going through a process of reconsidering and updating the CDIO approach for engineering education development. Previous work resulted in substantial updates of the twelve CDIO standards and the introduction of “optional” CDIO standards. This paper reports on a similar review and update of the CDIO Syllabus to version 3.0. It has been developed by a working group consisting of four sub-groups and iterated and refined guided by feedback from the whole CDIO community. There are mainly three external drivers that motivate the changes: sustainability, digitalization, and acceleration. There is also an internal driver in the form of lessons learned within the CDIO community, from using the Syllabus in curriculum and course development. Approximately 70 updates are proposed, amongst them three additions on the X.X level, namely 1.4 Knowledge of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3.1 Teamwork and Collaboration, and 5.3 Research

The CDIO Syllabus 3.0 - An Updated Statement of Goals

The CDIO Initiative is going through a process of reconsidering and updating the CDIO approach for engineering education development. Previous work resulted in substantial updates of the twelve CDIO standards and the introduction of “optional” CDIO standards. This paper reports on a similar review and update of the CDIO Syllabus to version 3.0. It has been developed by a working group consisting of four sub-groups and iterated and refined guided by feedback from the whole CDIO community. There are mainly three external drivers that motivate the changes: sustainability, digitalization, and acceleration. There is also an internal driver in the form of lessons learned within the CDIO community, from using the Syllabus in curriculum and course development. Approximately 70 updates are proposed, amongst them three additions on the X.X level, namely 1.4 Knowledge of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3.1 Teamwork and Collaboration, and 5.3 Research

The Utilization of Metacognitive and Sensemaking Strategies to Deepen Ethical Thinking in Engineering

This project tackled the issue of engineer-ization, the technical and structured style of analysis favored by engineering students, by using metacognitive (thinking about how one thinks) learning tools to promote reflection and a deeper awareness into ethical issues by slowing down and expanding the thought process of students uninitiated with the difficult subject of discussing and reflecting on ethical issues. The qualitative and quantitative results of the three-phase metacognition module developed in this project showed that many students were able to more clearly identify their biases and the stakeholders involved in ethical case studies by using the metacognitive tools in conjunction with an in-class presentation

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

2019-10-23 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Meeting Minutes

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee meeting minutes for October 23, 2019

CIC Meeting Consent Agenda

This is the consent agenda for the Georgia Southern University and Armstrong State University Consolidation Implementation Meeting