Intended Learning Outcomes of Seven Finnish B.Sc. in IT Programs

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Intended Learning Outcomes of Seven Finnish B.Sc. in IT Programs © 2021 the Authors Published version Roslöf, Janne Roslöf, J. (2021). Intended Learning Outcomes of Seven Finnish B.Sc. in IT Programs. In J. Bennedsen, K. Edström, M. S. Guðjónsdóttir, I. Sæmundsdóttir, N. Kuptasthien, J. Roslöf, & A. Sripakagorn (Eds.), The 17th international CDIO Conference : Proceedings - full papers (pp. 547559). Chulalongkorn University; Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi. Proceedings of the International CDIO Conference. http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/74493 2021 Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES OF SEVEN FINNISH B.SC. IN IT PROGRAMS Janne Roslöf University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Information Technology Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT Defining the intended learning outcomes is a significant part of curriculum design. Especially, the program-level competence requirements outline the objectives of the education, align the more detailed program structures and content of the curriculum, and create the basis for constructive alignment. Several different bodies aim at defining the goals of engineering programs on different levels of abstraction. Some of these documents can be considered as statements of the 'minimum threshold'. Respectively, others provide detailed guidelines to support the design of post-secondary programs in specific engineering fields. For example, the CDIO Initiative has defined a general reference syllabus aiming at creating a taxonomy of engineering learning rationalized against the norms of contemporary engineering practice. While designing new engineering programs, it is interesting to study how different universities have documented the intended learning outcomes of their programs in related domains. In this paper, the program-level learning objectives of seven Finnish B.Sc. in Information Technology programs are discussed and reflected with the CDIO Syllabus based on the information available on the public curriculum descriptions. KEYWORDS Curriculum Design, Competence Requirements, Information Technology, Standards: 1, 2, 11 INTRODUCTION Focusing on the outcomes of educational experiences in curriculum design emphasizes what a learner is expected to know, understand, and be able to demonstrate after a learning process. This student-centered approach is generally applied worldwide also in the context of engineering education. In Europe, the outcomes-based approach was facilitated by the socalled Bologna Process that aimed at creating common language and transparency for higher education. (Gonzáles & Wagenaar, 2008) The definition of the intended learning outcomes is one of the most significant parts of the curriculum design process. Especially, the program-level objectives of the education align the more detailed program structures and content of the curriculum, and create the basis for assessment. These intended learning outcomes should guide all the decisions connected to the design, implementation, and evaluation of the degree program. Besides, the program-level Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. outcomes are often included in the general description of the program that is frequently used when presenting the program to potential applicants, students, faculty members, and different stakeholders. The intended learning outcomes provide a basis for constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996); i.e. the interplay of the teaching/learning activities and the assessment. Constructive alignment provides a framework for reflecting the fundamental questions of teaching and learning: “1) What do I want my students to learn, 2) What is the best way in my circumstances and within available resources of getting them to learn it, and 3) How can I know when or how well they have learned it?” (Biggs & Tang, 2011) Figure 1. Constructive alignment as illustrated by Crawley et al. (2014). Several different bodies aim at defining the overall goals of engineering programs on different levels. For example, European Network for Engineering Accreditation (ENAEE) has defined a set of outcomes that describe the knowledge, understanding, skills, and abilities that an accredited engineering degree program must enable a graduate to demonstrate (ENAEE, 2015). They are to be considered as the 'minimum threshold' to be fulfilled to assure the quality of engineering programs. These outcomes do not detail specific engineering domains but they approach the desired competencies via eight learning areas: Knowledge and understanding, Engineering Analysis, Engineering Design, Investigations, Engineering Practice, Making Judgements, Communication and Team-working, and Lifelong Learning. For example, Bachelor-level graduates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding: • “… of the mathematics and other basic sciences underlying their engineering specialisation, at a level necessary to achieve the other programme outcomes; • … of engineering disciplines underlying their specialisation, at a level necessary to achieve the other programme outcomes, including some awareness at their forefront; • as well as awareness of the wider multidisciplinary context of engineering.” Also, the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) (2019) steer general curricular development globally. ABET requires that each engineering program shall have documented student outcomes that support the program’s educational objectives. The general learning outcomes have been outlined by seven learning areas that may be complemented by additional objectives articulated by the program itself. For instance, the graduate shall demonstrate “an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics” (ABET, 2019). In addition to the general learning outcomes, an engineering program must satisfy the specific Program Criteria that interpret the Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. general criteria as applicable to a given discipline. According to ABET (2019), the curriculum of a Software (and similarly named) Engineering program: “…must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering and computer science topics implied by the title and objectives of the program. The curriculum must include computing fundamentals, software design and construction, requirements analysis, security, verification, and validation; software engineering processes and tools appropriate for the development of complex software systems; and discrete mathematics, probability, and statistics, with applications appropriate to software engineering.” Different disciplinary organizations provide detailed guidelines to support the design of postsecondary engineering programs. In the field of computing, the Computing Curricula of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (2005) is a widely used reference model that provides detailed discipline-focused undergraduate curriculum guidelines for different subdomains of the field. The ACM documents cover undergraduate degree programs in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Information Systems, Information Technology, and Software Engineering. The overview report provides a comprehensive overview of the field and a comparison of the expected competencies the major threads of computing programs. In short, the Software Engineers should “be able to properly perform and manage activities at every stage of the life cycle of large-scale software systems”. The ACM guidelines have been detailed in separate documents for each reference program. For example, the Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering (ACM, 2014) describes what should constitute an undergraduate software engineering education. The learning objectives are approached via seven competence areas. That is, the graduates of an undergraduate program should be able to demonstrate Professional Knowledge,Technical Knowledge,Teamwork,End-User Awareness,Designing Solutions in Context,Performing Trade-Offs, and to show evidence on Continuing Professional Development. The CDIO Initiative (www.cdio.org) has defined a general reference syllabus aiming at creating a taxonomy of engineering learning. The CDIO Standard #2 (Learning Outcomes) underlines the importance of the outcomes-based approach to ensure that students acquire the appropriate foundation for their future (CDIO, 2020). The objective of the CDIO Syllabus (Crawley et al., 2011) is to create a clear and generalizable set of goals for undergraduate engineering education to form the basis for educational and learning outcomes, the design of curricula, as well as the basis for a comprehensive system of student learning assessment. The guiding principle of the CDIO Syllabus is that engineers engineer; they build systems and products for the betterment of humanity. “Graduating engineers should be able to conceivedesign-implement-operate complex value-added engineering systems in a modern teambased environment”. The CDIO Syllabus v2.0 is organized using four first-level competence items: 1) Disciplinary knowledge and reasoning, 2) Personal and professional skills and attributes, 3) Interpersonal skills: teamwork and communication, and 4) Conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating systems in the enterprise, societal and environmental context. These items are detailed further using second and third-level contents. These guidelines aim at facilitating the design of high-quality engineering programs. They address similar themes but contain differences in their approach, level of details, and disciplinary focus. The learning outcomes linked together with purposeful learning activities and assessment are fundamental components of curriculum design. Yet, they are subject to criticism, too. For example, there is a risk that the outcome schemes become overly complex and detailed causing that they can be limiting rather than liberating guidelines (Tam, 2014). Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHOD Universities invest significant efforts when designing their programs and curricula to meet the mission and vision of each program leading to graduates able to demonstrate the intended learning outcomes. While planning and updating curricula, it is useful to study the different reference models and requirements available. In addition, it is an interesting question of how different universities have selected to describe their programs. This provides insight and advice on different approaches to address the task. In this paper, the program-level learning objectives of seven Finnish B.Sc. in Information Technology (or a related domain) programs are studied based on the information available on public curriculum descriptions online. The contents of the intended learning outcome statements are reflected with the CDIO Syllabus. The intention is not to evaluate the programs or the curriculum artifacts but rather to provide an overview of how the learning outcomes have been documented in the program-level descriptions. The following seven different engineering degree programs leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science (Technology) provided by different Finnish universities were selected for this study: • Aalto University (https://www.aalto.fi/en): Information Technology [Finnish: Automaatioja informaatioteknologia, Informaatioteknologia] • LUT University (https://www.lut.fi/web/en/): Information Technology (Specialization in Software Engineering) [Finnish: Tietotekniikka, suuntautumisena ohjelmistotuotanto] • Tampere University (https://www.tuni.fi/en): Computing and Electrical Engineering, Information Technology [Finnish: Tietoja sähkötekniikka, Tietotekniikka] • University of Jyväskylä (https://www.jyu.fi/en/frontpage): Information and Software Engineering [Finnish: Tietoja ohjelmistotekniikka] • University of Oulu (https://www.oulu.fi/university/): Computer Science and Engineering [Finnish: Tietotekniikka] • University of Turku (https://www.utu.fi/en): Information and Communication Technology [Finnish: Tietoja viestintätekniikka] • Åbo Akademi University (https://www.abo.fi/en/): Computer Engineering [Swedish: Datateknik; Finnish: Tietotekniikka] Information on all these programs is available on the universities’ websites. Most of the sites seem to be intended for potential applicants, yet the format and style of the sites vary significantly. Thus, this study focuses on the descriptions connected to the curricula published in study guides or similar online documents. A limitation of this approach is that there may be other documents detailing the intended learning outcomes that cannot be accessed using these references. However, studying the public curricula provides an interesting overview of the descriptions and corresponds to the visibility of university external bodies, e.g. potential applicants or collaborators who are interested in the programs. The studied Bachelor’s programs are not available in English and the respective curriculum descriptions are available only partly in English. That is, the quotations have been translated from Finnish or Swedish to English by the author and some of the nuances may have been lost in the process. Links to the original-language documents are provided but these links tend to change over time. The author has been involved in the preparation of the curriculum of the Degree Programme in Information and Software Engineering of the University of Jyväskylä. Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. That may have caused a bias; yet the aim has been to study all the descriptions using a similar perspective. RESULTS The curricula of the studied programs have been structured in different ways. Some programs are larger entities that are divided to several major subject tracks whereas others are more focused and contain less optional paths. All except one of the curricula have a general description that discusses the program’s contents and the intended learning outcomes. However, the format and style of the description vary significantly. Some descriptions have separate sections focusing on the intended learning outcomes and others discuss them in more general terms. All study guides contain links to more detailed course lists including separate descriptions of each course. The course-level descriptions follow rather similar structure detailing the learning outcomes, contents, and assessment principles of each course. An overview of the program-level descriptions of the studied degree programs is included in Appendix 1. For each program, the general structure, central parts of the content, and style of the description are presented focusing on the discussion of the program-level intended learning outcomes. In addition, the length of the descriptions/sections is indicated as the number of words in the original language to illustrate the extent of each description. Short examples of the sections containing learning outcomes descriptions are presented for each case to provide an overview of the used style of discourse. The intended learning outcomes and other mentioned learning areas and goals were mapped to the competence areas included in the CDIO Syllabus version 2.0 (Crawley et al., 2011). As the level of detail of the program descriptions varies, the comparison was limited to the second level competence items of the CDIO Syllabus. However, the third level competence items were used to guide the mapping, i.e. to determine whether a second level competence item was covered by the description or not. In addition, the topic of Sustainable Development was included in the analysis separately. This perspective was added to reflect the presence of the topic in the texts as its importance as a part of the learning objectives of the higher education programs is widely discussed currently. The results of the mapping are presented in Table 1. The aim was to determine if most parts of a respective competence item have been covered in the description (marked with ‘X’ in Table 1), only some parts of the competence item have been discussed (marked with ‘(X)’), or if the item seems not to be present in the description (marked with ‘-‘). As the format and length of the descriptions were rather different from each other, this task appeared to be difficult using this limited approach. In other words, the results shall be considered only as guiding reflections of the descriptions – not as a comprehensive comparison or an attempt to evaluate their quality. All the descriptions cover both generic engineering competencies and subject-specific intended learning outcomes. Yet, it is difficult to make a difference between the core/fundamental and advanced engineering knowledge areas mentioned separately in the CDIO Syllabus. In addition, the scientific thinking connected mainly to the competence items 2.2-2.3 is not very clearly present in most of the descriptions. One probable reason for this is that these competencies are typically considered as core contents of the Master’s programs and they may be intentionally left for a minor role in these Bachelor’s programs. Furthermore, communication, collaboration, and teamwork skills were mentioned in all the descriptions. Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. Regardless of the differences between the descriptions, some findings can be made based on the mapping. For example, the description of Aalto University discusses engineering reasoning, problem-solving skills, and the competencies of analytical thinking very widely. LUT University seems to put weight on the business context of engineering, and University of Jyväskylä highlights the societal competencies and human-oriented connections of the field of Information Technology. Tampere University emphasizes the importance of Science and Mathematics, and the University of Oulu describes the multitude of product and system areas the graduates will be able to work with, as well as touches the operating/production domain of the engineering profession, too. The description of the University of Turku contains a clear focus on the diversity of nature and sustainable development, and even links these topics to the subject-specific competencies and opportunities. Table 1. Mapping of the learning outcome definitions of the studied program descriptions and the CDIO Syllabus 2.0 second-level competence items. CONCLUSIONS Despite the limitations of this study, it was interesting to study the curricula and, especially, the different ways to describe the program-level intended learning outcomes. Even though all these programs represent the same engineering domain originating from the same country and institutions regulated on a similar basis, there are significant differences in the structure, extent, and style of the ways to describe the intended learning outcomes. The pedagogical policies, instructions, and traditions of the different universities and faculties affect the way these intended learning outcomes are defined, expressed, and documented. Yet, an AALTO LUT TUNI JYU UO UTUÅAU* 1 Disciplinary knowledge and reasoning 1.1. Knowledge of underlying mathematics and sciences X (X) X (X) - X - 1.2 Core engineering fundamental knowledge X X X X X X (X) 1.3 Advanced engineering fundamental knowledge, methods and (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) - 2 Personal and professional skills and attributes 2.1 Analytic reasoning and problem solving X X X X X X X 2.2 Experimentation, investigation and knowledge discovery X - (X) (X) (X) (X) - 2.3 System thinking X (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2.4 Attitudes, thought and learning XXXXXX - 2.5 Ethics, equity and other responsibilities (X) (X) (X) X (X) X - 3 Interpersonal skills: teamwork and communication 3.1 Teamwork X X X X X X - 3.2 Communications XXXXX(X) X 3.3 Communications in foreign languages X X X X X (X) - 4 Conceiving, designin, implementing and operating systems in the enterprise, societal and environmental context… 4.1 External, societal and environmental context (X) (X) - X - X(X) 4.2 Enterprise and business context (X) X(X) (X) - (X) (X) 4.3 Conceiving, system engineering and management X(X) (X) X(X) (X) (X) 4.4 Designing X X (X) (X) (X) (X) - 4.5 Implementing (X) X - (X) (X) - - 4.6 Operating - - - - (X) - - >>> Sustainability-connected competences/outcomes included (X) - - X - X - * No description or learning outcome definitios included in the Study Guide (curriculum), analysis based on program homepage only. X = The competence item has been mostly covered in the description, (X) = Parts of competence item have been mentioned, - = The competence item has not been included Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. interesting question is how well the descriptions de facto reflect the visions, profiles, and learning cultures of each program. Do they truly affect the contents and processes embedded into the program in such a way that it makes a difference in the competencies of the graduates? All the studied descriptions aim at defining the subject-specific competencies as well as the other intended learning outcomes that connect to both the engineering profession and the generic competencies of a university-educated individual. These outcomes contain connections to the definitions and reference guidelines published by different international bodies, too. In this study, the CDIO Syllabus (Crawley et al., 2011) was utilized as a tool to reflect the descriptions. The study guides are typically complemented with various sources of information such as program homepages, admission guides, social media feeds, etc. This study did not cover all the available documentation available for the respective degree programs but focused on the online study guides only. Yet, it seems obvious that it is not very easy to get a detailed overview of the programs if, for example, a person unfamiliar with the disciplinary notation is seeking information to determine which of the programs to select for future studies. REFERENCES Aalto University (2020a). Curriculum 2020-2022; Bachelor’s Degree Program in Electrical Engineering [Finnish: Sähkötekniikan kandidaattiohjelma]. Available online at https://into.aalto.fi/display/fikandelec/Opetussuunnitelma+2020-2022 Aalto University (2020b). Curriculum 2020-2022; Bachelor’s Degree Program in Electrical Engineering, Information Technology Major [Finnish: Informaatioteknologian pääaine]. Available online at https://into.aalto.fi/display/fikandelec/Informaatioteknologia+2020-2022 ABET (2019). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Baltimore, MD, USA. ACM (2005). Computing Curricula 2005 - The Overview Report. USA. ACM (2014). Software Engineering 2014 - Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering. USA. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, pp. 347364. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into Higher Education, 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H.; & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives - The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay Company, New York, USA. CDIO (2020). CDIO standards 3.0. Available online at http://cdio.org/content/cdio-standards-30 (acquired Dec 29, 2020). Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Lucas, W.A., & Brodeur, D.R. (2011). The CDIO Syllabus v2.0 - An Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., & Edström, k. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. 2nd Edition, Springer, Switzerland. ENAEE (2015). EUR-ACE® Framework Standards and Guidelines. Edition 31st March 2015 Gonzáles, J., & Wagenaar, R. (Eds) (2008). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Universities’ contribution to the Bologna Process – An introduction. 2nd Edition, Universidad de Deusto. Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. LUT University (2020). Study Guide 2020-2021; Information Technology (Specialization in Software Engineering) [Finnish: Tietotekniikka]. Available online at https://forms.lut.fi/opintoopas/tutkinto.aspx?id=otm-45748d3c-22e1-4889-b005-25d83eb1f331&period=lut-curriculum-period2020-2021 Tam, M. (2014). Outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 22/2, pp. 158-168. Tampere University (2020). Student’s Guide 2020-2021; Computing and Electrical Engineering [Finnish: Tietoja sähkötekniikan kandidaattiohjelma]. Available online: https://www.tuni.fi/opiskelijanopas/opintotiedot/tutkinto-ohjelmat/otm-fa02a1e7-4fe1-43e3-818b810d8e723531?year=2020 University of Jyväskylä (2021). Study Guide 2020-2023; Information and Software Engineering. Available online at https://opinto-opas.jyu.fi/2021/fi/tutkintoohjelma/tekka2021/ University of Oulu (2020). Study Guide 2020-2021; Computer Science and Engineering. Available online: https://opas.peppi.oulu.fi/fi/perustutkintokoulutus/tieto-ja-sahkotekniikantiedekunta/11738/10965 University of Turku (2020). Study Guide 2020-2022; Information and Communication Technology. Available onine: https://opas.peppi.utu.fi/fi/ohjelma/15942?period=2020-2022 Åbo Akademi University (2020). Study Guide 2020-2022; Computer Engineering [Swedish: Datateknik]. Available online: https://studiehandboken.abo.fi/sv/program/17004?period=2020-2022 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Janne Roslöf is a Professor of Practice in Engineering Education at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He works as the Project Manager of the new Information and Software Engineering programs. He holds a D.Sc. and M.Sc. in Process Systems Engineering from the Åbo Akademi University and an M.A. in Education Science from the University of Turku, Finland. Also, he is an Adjunct Professor of Software Engineering Education of the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Dr. Roslöf has a long experience as an Engineering Education practitioner, administrator, and developer. He has participated in several national and international educational development assignments. Corresponding author Janne Roslöf University of Jyväskylä Faculty of Information Technology Mattilanniemi 2, FI-40100 Jyväskylä Finland [email protected] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivatives 4.0 International License.