Equal access to quality higher education: consolidation of the sustainable development goals, case of virtual software engineering of the Manuela Beltrán University

Recent years have seen much debate about the appropriate content of software engineering (SE) programs and how they relate to computer science (CS) programs, culminating in the distinguishing knowledge areas identified in the ACM/IEEE CS and SE curricula. Given these publications, a reasonable question to ask is: how do current SE programs differ from CS programs and to what extent do the differences reflect the characterizing features given in the ACM/IEEE curricula? We aim to answer these questions for SE programs offered in England. The content of a third of the SE programs in England are analyzed and summarized with respect to the knowledge areas of both the ACM/IEEE CS and SE curricula. The results reveal interesting features; such as intelligent systems is a more distinguishing feature between the CS and SE programs than the expected knowledge areas given in the SE curriculum. The main finding is that there are relatively few differences between existing SE and CS programs offered in England. We conclude with a discussion of the reasons for this situation and its likely implications.

In recent years, tremendous technical changes have happened in software development, accompanied by increased complexity of the systems that are being developed. Businesses are now regularly deploying systems that employ and integrate a wide range of computing technologies and paradigms. Thus, it is inevitable for the academics to be prepared to educate their students to meet this unique challenge. However, the development of software engineering (SE) programs is a difficult & daunting task. In Bangladesh, curricula of undergraduate and graduate SE programs are not very old and maturing at a slower pace as compared to other curricula. There are problems for the development of such programs like: a) the SE profession in Bangladesh is immature; b) confusion about the difference between computer science (CS) and SE; c) lack of understanding and appreciation among CS faculty about the need for SE education; d) little available material on SE curriculum guideline; e) absence of local accreditation mechanism for SE programs, etc. In this paper, the authors studied the current status of SE curriculum in Bangladesh and abroad, and proposed guidelines for developing such curriculum adaptable by local academia and industry. The paper includes a curriculum design guideline, descriptions of probable knowledge components that can be used to design SE curricula, and a sample curriculum.

This panel will consider the conditions under which software engineering degree programs are being designed and implemented in the United States. The discussion will focus particularly on how these conditions are changing over time as more degree programs are implemented and general software engineering issues evolve. The panelists represent four undergraduate software engineering degree programs and also have experience with several graduate degree programs. The number of undergraduate software engineering degree programs worldwide is growing but still small. Many of the early programs, especially in the United States, have had to deal with difficult issues including crossing disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Other institutions are struggling to address these issues today and still more will need to deal with them in the future. Unless many of these efforts are successful, software engineering will not be successful as a discipline. While the early undergraduate software engineering initiatives have unfolded at various universities, conditions for these efforts have been changing. Key features of the landscape including accreditation, licensing, and curricular models are all changing. In addition, future initiatives will have the start-up experience and early success of the first programs as points of reference. All of these factors will change the context for future efforts. This panel session will discuss the experience of several universities in starting and managing software engineering programs. In particular, the discussion will focus on how issues and approaches have changed over time. This discussion should be useful to faculty at other institutions considering starting software engineering programs. The panel discussion will include consideration of the following topics: • Participants – Who among faculty or administrative groups have supported or resisted software engineering programs? • Organization -- Where have software engineering programs been located within the university?

The use of multimethod research is becoming increasingly widespread in the social sciences, including political science, and it is part of a broader movement that has moved beyond the single focus on either qualitative or quantitative studies. In Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach, Gary Goertz lays out a comprehensive approach to multimethod research and to the use of case studies. The aim is to integrate qualitative and quantitative research—for instance through case studies—and to show the advantages of combining the two. Goertz does so by bringing together causal mechanisms, cross-case causal inference and within-case causal inference into what he calls the research triad of this integrated approach to social science research. In their reviews of Goertz’ book, David Waldner, Jennifer Cyr and Kendra Koivu take issues with particular aspects of Goertz’ case for multimethod and case study research, while also addressing larger methodological issues surrounding political science research.

This paper investigates the impact of outcome- based education (OBE) on students' learning achievement from a software engineering (SE) program. It is not easy to transform an SE curriculum from traditional knowledge-based education (KBE) method to OBE method since it requires us to identify the outcomes clearly and map the outcomes with the expected capabilities of students. We first give a briefing on our SE program and outline the curriculum, then investigate the impact of OBE in two selected courses in SE program, with the completion of one course being the prequisite for admission into the other one. Experimental results show that OBE can greatly improve the learning effectiveness of students and teaching quality.

This paper explores how to share and improve the integration of Learning by Doing into the academic curriculum in the context of two software engineering programmes from universities in China and the UK. In recent years the use of software has permeated almost every aspect of the economy of developed countries, even in sectors that traditionally did not engage the use of computers or software. As a discipline software engineering holds great potential for the establishment of a successful and rewarding career for the individual as well as for enhancing the competitiveness and progress of the country as a whole. In order to remain competitive we must educate sufficient numbers of students with the competencies required to be able to fill the positions needed in the economy. In addition, the software engineering workforce is increasingly becoming a global one. It is therefore of mutual benefit to understand and incorporate the best ideas of educating software engineers from all over the world. In China the reform of undergraduate engineering education has received much attention in recent years. In order for students to not only recognize the sometimes complex concepts of software engineering but also to enable them to fully comprehend and thus be able to actively apply these students need to be given sufficient opportunity to practically explore and experiment with the concepts while they are studying. The importance of Learning by Doing has been recognized in China as well as in the West. For example, the Conceiving—Designing— Implementing—Operating (CDIO) framework, which emphasises the teaching of engineering fundamentals in the context of real‐world systems and products, is an integral part of the “Excellent Engineer Education Training Program lead by the Chinese Ministry of Education. This paper outlines and compares the efforts undertaken by two software engineering programmes, the Software Engineering programme at Shenyang Institute of Engineering in Shenyang, China and the BSc (Hons) Software Development for Business at Glasgow Caledonian University in Glasgow, UK. A comparison of both programmes of study shows that both programmes recognise the significance of Learning by Doing and have undertaken steps to integrate it into the curriculum. This paper makes recommendations for the integration of Learning by Doing into the curriculum. It also highlights the opportunities for collaboration in the process of Learning by Doing, the need for a new type of practice-based learning outcome and a framework to further formalise their integration into the curriculum. The findings are potentially applicable to other disciplines.

In 1999 The Software Engineering Program at University of Houston-Clear Lake elected to be one to participate in the development and delivery of official Web-based course offerings. The software engineering program had operated as a distance education program for the past six years via two-way live interactive video broadcast into multiple receiving sites. The new venture into Web-based delivery would prove to be quite different from the live broadcast distance courses since the lecture components and live classroom interactions were not provided. With the live broadcast method heavy use was made of the Web to provide easy access to all assignments, supplementary material, lecture notes, class messages, bulletin boards and an ftp site for assignment submission. This reduced phone and email time with the distance students dramatically and if certainly helped with the transition to the development of strictly Web-based courses. However, the content-related materials that had been provided to support the broadcast courses were found to be inadequate once the live lecture component was removed and the course become strictly Web-based. Fall 2000 will see the completion of the design, development and testing of three strictly Web-based software engineering courses that will form the basis for a certificate in Fundamentals of Software Engineering which will be issued by the School of Natural and Applied Science. The paper presents an overview of the activities that took place during the effort and the basic process used.

In response to industry demand, the Master's degree program in software engineering at Southern Methodist University (SMU) was established in 1993. Drawing on the strengths of the university, the regional business community, and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), SMU's curriculum addresses the software engineering process from both a technical and management perspective. The SMU curriculum affirms the tenet that software engineering must be a well-managed discipline supported by an underpinning of science and technology.

The creation and evolution of a graduate-level certificate program in software engineering is presented in this paper. The software engineering certificate offered by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) is a four-course sequence of graduate courses in the area of software engineering and is intended to provide students with a focused understanding of the principles of software engineering and their application to software environments. The paper discusses the motivation for the original construction of the Software Engineering certificate program by the Rensselaer at Hartford (RH) branch of RPI and discusses the expected audience for the program. The program itself is detailed including an overview of the student audience, an explanation of the prerequisites of the program, and descriptions of the graduate courses in the certificate. The paper describes recent changes to the content of the Software Engineering certificate and discusses the factors that have influenced the certificate as it has evolved.

The development of software engineering programs is a formidable undertaking. Undergraduate software engineering curricula are currently at an early adopter stage and few schools are willing to risk developing a whole new program (or completely overhauling an existing program). There are serious problems for the development of such programs: the software engineering profession is immature; there is confusion about the difference between computer science and software engineering; there is a lack of understanding and appreciation among computer science faculty about the need for software engineering education; there is little available material on guidance; and there are currently no accredited programs in software engineering. For a number of years the WGSEET (Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training) has been working to advance the state of software engineering and training. A recent effort has been the development of a set of guidelines that would assist faculty in developing software engineering programs. In this paper we describe a curriculum that is an outgrowth of the guidelines work of the WGSEET. The model supports the development of a variety of degree programs which emphasize and focus on software engineering (e.g., software engineering, computer science, information systems, and computer engineering). The model provide an overall architecture, a set of design guidelines, descriptions of software engineering content that can be used to design courses and curricula, and several sample curricula.

As software engineering advances, new software engineering programs continue to emerge in universities around the world and existing ones are continually being updated. These programs face myriad challenges such as incorporating new software engineering technologies, recruiting and retaining qualified faculty, attracting students, leveraging new technologies for remote teaching, integrating related disciplines such as systems engineering, and, of course, deciding what basic content to include in their courses. The recently published Graduate Software Engineeing 2009 (http://www.gswe2009.org) presents a model and guidelines to help faculty address those challenges. Both ACM and IEEE approved and endorsed GSwE2009 in 2009.The panel will debate approaches to developing master's programs in software engineering in general and GSwE2009 in particular. It will consider experiences, challenges, and criticisms of GSwE2009.

During the past few years, we have seen some dramatic events that support licensing and certification of software professionals. The decision to license software engineers in the state of Texas was a landmark event. Other significant events include the establishment of undergraduate degree programs in software engineering, the merger of the CSAB and ABET accrediting bodies, and the plan to accredit undergraduate degree programs in software engineering. The work of the SWECC and other groups such as the WGSEET all point in the direction of a discipline of software engineering that can support licensing and certification. I have long felt that licensing or certification of software engineers was inevitable, at least for developers of products that need to exhibit safety and security properties. Our inclination to sue may also lead to licensing of software engineers who develop essential business applications. The issues to be addressed today have to do with the concept of licensing requirements engineers, which is not exactly the same as licensing software engineers. My views on these issues follow.

The Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), published in 2004, and now under revision, has influenced many software engineering graduate programs worldwide. In 2009, guidelines were published for graduate programs in software engineering (GSWE2009). GSWE2009, now sponsored by both the IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Computing Machinery, strongly rely on the SWEBOK but also recommends specific systems engineering knowledge for students to master. Today, an international team is creating a rigorous Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) with the help of the IEEE Computer Society and the International Council on Systems Engineering and other professional societies. As it matures, the SEBoK should influence future versions of GSWE2009 and graduate program curricula worldwide. This panel will examine the influence of bodies of knowledge on both the creation of new graduate software engineering programs and the evolution of existing ones.

Far from solely direct, structural violence moves stealthily within the very frameworks of society, injuring in ways not seen. Its harms manifest not in physical blows but through the architecture of injustice, through inequities etched into policies, laws, norms. Having this in mind, the main goal of this paper is to present how structural violence takes place in the sustainable development goal of Quality Education (SDG4) in Colombia and Pakistan. To make it possible, structural violence will be defined, as well as the sustainable development goals, and in particular its goal 4 about quality of education. Likewise, it will be analyzed how SDG-4 correlates with other sustainable development goals. This study adopts a cyclical and exploratory approach to theory development as its scaffolding, specifically Grounded Theory methodology. data collection and analysis techniques follow the mixed method with a transformative theoretical design prioritizing qualitative interviews findings. Results highlight the current status of SDG 4 in Colombia and Pakistan, illuminating how ingrained systemic biases and discrimination undermine equitable quality education. Experts outline interlinked recommendations such as sustained investment in education systems, building societal recognition of education as a human right, engaging communities to shift discriminatory beliefs and norms, and centering marginalized groups' agency in political and social reform efforts. A multifaceted approach combining top-down resource provision and bottom-up consciousness-raising is advocated among other recommendations. Overcoming structural violence requires transforming systemic structures while simultaneously shifting societal mindsets perpetuating discrimination in education.

Far from solely direct, structural violence moves stealthily within the very frameworks of society, injuring in ways not seen. Its harms manifest not in physical blows but through the architecture of injustice, through inequities etched into policies, laws, norms. Having this in mind, the main goal of this paper is to present how structural violence takes place in the sustainable development goal of Quality Education (SDG4) in Colombia and Pakistan. To make it possible, structural violence will be defined, as well as the sustainable development goals, and in particular its goal 4 about quality of education. Likewise, it will be analyzed how SDG-4 correlates with other sustainable development goals. This study adopts a cyclical and exploratory approach to theory development as its scaffolding, specifically Grounded Theory methodology. data collection and analysis techniques follow the mixed method with a transformative theoretical design prioritizing qualitative interviews findings. Results highlight the current status of SDG 4 in Colombia and Pakistan, illuminating how ingrained systemic biases and discrimination undermine equitable quality education. Experts outline interlinked recommendations such as sustained investment in education systems, building societal recognition of education as a human right, engaging communities to shift discriminatory beliefs and norms, and centering marginalized groups' agency in political and social reform efforts. A multifaceted approach combining top-down resource provision and bottom-up consciousness-raising is advocated among other recommendations. Overcoming structural violence requires transforming systemic structures while simultaneously shifting societal mindsets perpetuating discrimination in education.