A Generic Curriculum Model for Computing Degree Programs

§ Department of Computer Science and Information Techn...

Send Message

To: Author

A Generic Curriculum Model for Computing Degree Programs

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

CSTYC33R

A Generic Curriculum Model for Computing Degree Programs Banner

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu
Reading Preferences
Font Size
Line Spacing
Background
This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

Abstract

The current literature shows the existing curriculum models are unable to meet the needs of the today’s dynamic & complex education as the society is more open, diverse, multidimensional, fluid and more problematical. A generic curriculum model is proposed for all types of computer degree programs. The proposed model defines five meta-processes, a flexible structure for hidden and formal curriculum, and innovative ideas for branding and capstone project. Taking a futuristic approach and keeping an eye on the emerging needs of today’s knowledge driven society, the proposed model aims to transform students into valuable plug-n-play knowledge workers equipped with up-to-date knowledge, marketable skills, valuable competencies, unique expertise, globally compatible dispositions and culturally and professionally acceptable values. Through introducing competencies, expertise and dispositions among threshold standards we have given a new starting point for curriculum experts to extend the virtual boundaries of teaching-learning environment from classrooms to work-place environments. The proposed model not only meets the existing needs of the core computing disciplines but also accommodate the implications of newly emerging disciplines. Its flexible structure allows both institutions and faculty to decorate it according to their requirements.

References

69 Cites in Article
  1. 1. S Conte,John Hamblen,William Kehl,Silvio Navarro,Werner Rheinboldt,David Young,William Atchinson (1965). An undergraduate program in computer science—preliminary recommendations. Communications of the ACM, 8(9), 543-552.
  2. 2. (2001). IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281). IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design ICCAD 2001 IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat No 01CH37281) ICCAD-01, i.
  3. 3. (2002). Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems. Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems
  4. 4. (2004). Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering. Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering
  5. 5. (2004). Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Engineering. Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Engineering
  6. 6. (2005). Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report. Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report
  7. 7. Eric Roberts,Russ Shackelford,Rich Leblanc,Peter Denning (2008). Curriculum 2001. The proceedings of the thirtieth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 343-344.
  8. 8. John Werth,John Gorgone,Gordon Davis,David Feinstein,Bart Longenecker,George Kasper (2010). Proposed joint ACM/DPMA/AIS undergraduate information systems degree curriculum model (abstract). ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 27(1), 392-393.
  9. 9. (2012). Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. Strawman Draft: Computer Science Curricula 2013, The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula
  10. 10. M Bell,G Lefoe (1998). Curriculum design for flexible delivery -massaging the model. Proc. of the 15th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education
  11. 11. J Biggs (1996). Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Edu.n, 32, 347-364.
  12. 12. J Biggs (2002). Aligning the Curriculum to Promote Good Learning, Constructive Alignment in Action, Imaginative Curriculum Symposium. Aligning the Curriculum to Promote Good Learning, Constructive Alignment in Action, Imaginative Curriculum Symposium
  13. 13. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals
  14. 14. J Bruner,J Goodnow,A Austin (1956). A Study of Thinking. A Study of Thinking
  15. 15. J Bruner (1996). The Process of Education. The Process of Education
  16. 16. D Brunzel (2007). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(2), 152-153.
  17. 17. C Choo,N Bontis (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge
  18. 18. E Cohen (2002). Challenges of Information Technology in the 21st Century. Challenges of Information Technology in the 21st Century
  19. 19. Alonzo Church,A Turing (1936). A. M. Turing. On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problcm. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2 s. vol. 42 (1936–1937), pp. 230–265. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2(1), 42-43.
  20. 20. S Cohen (1987). Instructional Alignment: Searching for a Magic Bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8), 16-20.
  21. 21. T Davenport (2005). Thinking for Living. Thinking for Living
  22. 22. M Davis (1958). Computability & unsolvability. Computability & unsolvability
  23. 23. K H Dennis (2002). Quality Education through a Post-modern Curriculum. Hong Kong Teacher's Centre Journal, 1, 56-73.
  24. 24. Peter Denning (2001). The profession of IT: The IT schools movement. Communications of the ACM, 44(8), 19-22.
  25. 25. W Doll (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. A post-modern perspective on curriculum
  26. 26. P Drucker (2006). Classic Drucker: essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review. Choice Reviews Online, 43(11), 43-6632-43-6632.
  27. 27. Elliot Eisner (1991). Invitational Conference on the Hidden Consequences of a National Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 38.
  28. 28. D Fink (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses
  29. 29. Kurt Gödel (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38-38(1), 173-198.
  30. 30. Dina Goldin,Peter Wegner (2008). The Interactive Nature of Computing: Refuting the Strong Church–Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines, 18(1), 17-38.
  31. 31. (2012). Higher Education Curriculum -National Reports on the Undergraduate Curriculum, Traditional and Contemporary Perspectives -Innovations in the Undergraduate Curriculum. Higher Education Curriculum -National Reports on the Undergraduate Curriculum, Traditional and Contemporary Perspectives -Innovations in the Undergraduate Curriculum
  32. 32. J Hopcroft,J Ullman (1969). Formal Languages and Their Relation yo Automata. Formal Languages and Their Relation yo Automata
  33. 33. T Hussey,P Smith (2008). Learning Outcomes: A Conceptual Analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107-115.
  34. 34. Sonja Irlbeck,Elena Kays,Deborah Jones,Rod Sims (2006). The Phoenix Rising: Emergent models of instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171-185.
  35. 35. H Jacobs (1997). Book Reviews : MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN THE CLASSROOM Thomas Armstrong Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994. Pp. xi, 185. RELC Journal, 28(2), 165-171.
  36. 36. P Jackson (1968). Life in Classrooms. Life in Classrooms
  37. 37. Richard Karp (2011). Understanding Science Through the Computational Lens. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 26(4), 569-577.
  38. 38. Peter Knight (2001). Complexity and Curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 369-381.
  39. 39. D Kerr,S Blenkinsop (2005). How to engage young people -the issues and challenges Disengagement, Disaffection or Engagement? National Foundation for Education Research for the British Council. How to engage young people -the issues and challenges Disengagement, Disaffection or Engagement? National Foundation for Education Research for the British Council
  40. 40. B Kogut,U Zander (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397.
  41. 41. J Kotkin (2000). The new geography: how the digital revolution is reshaping the American landscape. Choice Reviews Online, 38(09), 38-5285-38-5285.
  42. 42. G Li (2010). Information Science & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050. Information Science & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050
  43. 43. D Li,H Zhang (2009). Cloud Computing Beyond Turing Machine. Communications of the China Computer Federation, 5(12), 8-16.
  44. 44. B Lunt,J Ekstrom,S Gorka,R Kamali,E Lawson,J Miller,H Reichgelt (2005). Defining the IT curriculum: The results of the past 3 years. Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 2, 259-270.
  45. 45. Eric Margolis (2001). The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education
  46. 46. B Mccombs,J &whisler (1997). The learnercentered classroom and school. The learnercentered classroom and school
  47. 47. J Mitchell,R Bluer (1997). A Planning Model for Innovation: New Learning Technologies. A report for the Office of Training and Further Education
  48. 48. Ikujiro Nonaka,Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. The Knowledge-Creating Company
  49. 49. A Ornstein,F Hunkins (2009). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues. Curriculum foundations, principles and issues
  50. 50. G O'neill (2010). Initiating Curriculum Revision: Exploring the Practices of Educational Developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(1), 61-71.
  51. 51. Jan Parker (2003). Reconceptualising the curriculum: from commodification to transformation. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(4), 529-543.
  52. 52. J Rice,J Rice (1969). Introduction to Computer Science: Problems, Algorithms, Languages, Information and Computers. Introduction to Computer Science: Problems, Algorithms, Languages, Information and Computers
  53. 53. P Samuelson (1999). Five Challenges for Regulating the Global Information Society. Conf. on Comm. Regulation in the Global Information Society
  54. 54. B Seels,Z Glasgow (1990). Exercises in Instructional Design. Exercises in Instructional Design
  55. 55. P Smith,T Ragan (2005). Foundations of Instructional Design. Instructional Design, 17-37.
  56. 56. H Taba (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice
  57. 57. Martin Talbot (2004). Monkey see, monkey do: a critique of the competency model in graduate medical education. Medical Education, 38(6), 587-592.
  58. 58. Paul Temple (2006). Branding higher education: illusion or reality?. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 10(1), 15-19.
  59. 59. J Toma,G Dubrow,M Hartley (2005). The Uses of Institutional Culture Strengthening Identification and Building Brand Equity in Higher Education. The Uses of Institutional Culture Strengthening Identification and Building Brand Equity in Higher Education
  60. 60. Alistair Thomson (2007). Four Paradigm Transformations in Oral History. The Oral History Review, 34(1), 49-70.
  61. 61. D Tinkler,B Lepani,J Mitchell (1996). Education and Technology Convergence. Education and Technology Convergence
  62. 62. R Tyler (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction
  63. 63. (2012). A Complex formula: girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics in Asia. A Complex formula: girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics in Asia
  64. 64. A Utz (2006). Fostering Innovation for Productivity and Competitiveness.
  65. 65. Decker Walker (1971). A Naturalistic Model for Curriculum Development. The School Review, 80(1), 51-65.
  66. 66. D Wheeler (1967). Curriculum Process. Curriculum Process
  67. 67. G Wiggins,J Mctighe (2010). Understanding by Design: A brief introduction. Understanding by Design: A brief introduction
  68. 68. J Wing (2008). Computational Thinking and Thinking About Computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
  69. 69. V Zítek,V Klímová (2011). Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Infrastructure. Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Economics, 821-928.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Dr. Muhammad Anwar-ur-Rehman Pasha, Dr. Shaheen Pasha. 2012. "A Generic Curriculum Model for Computing Degree Programs". Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology - B: Cloud & Distributed GJCST-B Volume 12 (GJCST Volume 12 Issue B11).

Download Citation

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjcst

Print ISSN 0975-4350

e-ISSN 0975-4172

Keywords
Classification
GJCST-B Classification K.3.2
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date
September 26, 2012

Language
English
Order Article Reprint
Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 2.6K
Total Downloads: 220
All Trends

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

A Generic Curriculum Model for Computing Degree Programs

Dr. Pasha
Dr. Pasha Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Sargodha
Dr. Pasha
Dr. Pasha