Modeling And Architecting Educational Frameworks

Modeling And Architecting Educational Frameworks

S. Rouvrais, V. Chiprianov (2011).  Modeling And Architecting Educational Frameworks. 15.

Nowadays, there are several program criteria that are proposed for accreditation. However, up to represent various accreditation bodies’ requirements, diversity of disciplines, and specific national contexts, no global and unified framework for higher education has emerged. As such, the ability of educational organizations to work together is often hard to ensure.

Following constructive alignment principles, an educational program relies on three mainpillars: (i) an intended curriculum, (ii) a taught curriculum, and (iii) a validated learned curriculum. At the core of program descriptions, those three views share concepts, such as learning outcomes. To enable interoperability among existing programs and frameworks, and sustain flexibility and evolution of standards, it is relevant to clarify common core concepts belonging to various frameworks. A system modeling approach is obvious for meeting such interoperability challenges, since it makes it possible to meaningfully, unambiguously, and accurately specify concepts, relations, and viewpoints among stakeholders.

The CDIO Initiative celebrates its 10th anniversary by proposing today a mature integrated framework for engineering programs. Structured in twelve standards, it permits to create, to reform, or to continuously improve engineering educational programs. It encourages introducing appropriate pedagogical methods and also addresses student workspaces and staff workforce. Based on the CDIO standards as a proof of concept, this paper proposes to model three views based on structural diagrams. Significant relations between educational concepts are then defined. Furthermore, getting its inspiration from an architectural approach, this paper significantly contributes to lay the foundations of an architectural meta-model for describing complex educational systems, which will contribute to tackling interoperability and flexibility issues.


Authors (New): 
Siegfried Rouvrais
Vanea Chiprianov
Université européenne de Bretagne, France
Educational frameworks
Constructive alignment
sustaining curriculum reform
facilitating change in engineering education
application of CDIO to a wide range of disciplines
E.F. Crawley, J. Malmqvist, W.A. Lucas, and D.R. Brodeur. “Modification in the CDIO Syllabus: Updates and Expansions to Include Leadership and Entrepreneurship”. In Proceedings of the 5th Intl. CDIO Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore, June 7-10, 2009.: 
A. Castelli, C. Marinoni, C. Bisagni, D. Brodeur, E. Crawley, A. Causi, C. Fortin, J. Malmqvist, and C. Maury. “An Integrated CDIO-EQF Engineering Framework for Europe”. In Proceedings. of the 6th Intl. CDIO Conference, École Polytechnique, Montréal, June 15-18, 2010: 
J. Biggs. “Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives”. Imaginative Curriculum Project, LTSN Generic Centre, 2003. : 
P-A. Muller, F. Fondement, B. Baudry, and B. Combemale. “Modeling Modeling Modeling”. In Software and Systems Modeling Journal, 4(9), pp. 943-958. 2010. : 
I. Martinez-Ortiz, P. Moreno-Ger, J. L. Sierra, and B. Femandez-Manjon. Educational Modeling Languages - A Conceptual Introduction and a High-level Classification. Computers and Education: E-Learning, From Theory to Practice. B. Fernandez-Manjon et al. (eds). Pp. 27-40. Springer, New York, 2007. : 
A. Rawlings, P. Van Rosmalen, R. Koper, M. Rodriguez-Artacho, and P. Lefrere. Survey of Educational Modelling Languages (EMLs), version 1. Technical report, CES/ISSS, 2002. : 
M. Caeiro-Rodriguez, M.J. Marcelino, “Supporting the Modeling of Flexible Educational Units. PoEML: A Separation of Concerns Approach”. Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 13, No 7, pp. 980-990. 2007: 
S. Si Alhir. “Understanding the Unified Modeling Language (UML)”. Spring 1999 issue of Methods & Tools (online). Accessed: April 2011 : 
M. zur Muehlen & al. “Primitives: Design Guidelines and Architecture for BPMN Models”. In Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Conference on Information Systems. AIS Electronic Library, 2010. : 
S. Rouvrais, J. Mallet, and B. Vinouze. “A Starter Activity Design Process to Deepen Students Understanding of Outcome-related Project Learning Objectives”. In Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Arlington, Washington D.C.. Pages T1E1-T1E7. October 2010.: 
R.M. Harden. “AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum Mapping: A Tool for Transparent and Authentic Teaching and Learning”, Medical Teacher Journal of the Association for Medical Education in Europe, Vol. 23(2), pp. 123-137. March 2001. : 
J.E. Froyd and M.W. Ohland. “Integrated Engineering Curricula”. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, no 1, pp. 147-164. January 2005. : 
“The European Qualification Framework” Accessed: April 2011 : 
D. Boud et al. “Assessment 2020: Seven Propositions for Assessment Reform in Higher Education”. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. 2010. : 
IEEE. “Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems”. IEEE Standard No 1471. 2000: 
S. Rouvrais, B. Treguier, and D. Degrugillier. “Reconnaissance des apprentissages non formels : la longue route réflexive d'un candidat à la VAE”. In French. In Proceedings of “Le courant de la professionnalisation : enjeux, attentes, changements”, 6th French Speaking-Intl. Colloquium Questions de pédagogies dans l'enseignement supérieur. In Press. June 2011. : 
A.S. Patil, P.J. Gray (editors). “Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective”. Springer. 316 pages. 2010. : 
S. Marginson and M. Considine “The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia”. Cambridge University Press, 286 pages. 2000. : 
D. Bramanis. “Does Corporate-Style Enterprise Architecture Work in Higher Education”. Technical Report of the University of Western Australia, 2008. : 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. “2011-2012 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence”. 88 pages. Accessed: April 2011: 
C. Steed, D. Maslow, and A. Mazaletskaya. “The EFQM Excellence Model for Deploying Quality Management: a British-Russian journey”. Higher education in Europe. pp. 307-319. 2005.: 
R. Camarero, C. Fortin, G. Cloutier, J. Raynauld, O. Gerbé, T.L.A. Dinh, and N.T. Nokam. “Integrated System for Programme Delivery and Certification: An Electronic Implementation of the CDIO Syllabus”. In Proc. of the 6th Intl. CDIO Conference, École Polytechnique, Montréal, June 15-18, 2010. : 
C.R. Khoury. A Unified Approach to Enterprise Architecture Modelling. PhD thesis, University of Technology, Sydney. 2007.: 
T. Green, and M. Petre. “Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework”. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7(2):131–174. 1996. : 
Go to top