ACCREDITATION:
DOES IT ENHANCE
QUALITY?
Evelyn P. Rozanski Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 Intemec
[email protected]
Abstract Accreditation, considered to be the one formal mechanism for assessing quality in the postsecondary environment, focuses on determining and encouraging acceptable levels of educational quality. In particular, specialized program accreditation is purported to enhance program quality. This exploratory study used a nationwide mail questionnaire to a stratified random sampling of 100 department heads of the units administering baccalaureate Computer Science programs. The purpose was to gain an understanding of how Computer Science programs and departments were related to selected indicators of faculty and pmquality. Several differences and some similarities exist between the accredited and non-accredited groups. The median of the data for each indicator suggested a quality br ittt to be used in defining two indices. It was found T or each of the two indices, the accredited group that outperformed the non-accredited group by thirty percent. The implication is that Computer Science programs that follow accreditation guidelines have the potential for increasing their quality indicators.
claimed that lack of accreditation signified lack of acceptable quality” (Young & Chambers, 1980, p. 90). Amid all of the support for accreditation and in recognition of the concerns and controversies currently surrounding this process, accreditation and its guidelines provide a framework for which we can view quality. Accreditation claims to enhance educational quality; with Computer Science program accreditation, the time is right to seehow, if at all, accreditation has impacted quality. This exploratory study considered the effects of specialized accreditation on quality in Computer Science programs. It focused on the indicators of quality as found in the literature to determine if accreditation has indeed added to the overall quality of Computer Science progranns. In order to make this determination, several general categories were reviewed: faculty, resources, students, and program. However, only some of the faculty and program indicators will be reported in this paper. Spwifically, this study examined and compared two groups, the accredited and non-accredited Computer Science programs, to determine if there are any differences and/or similarities between them, This study is a beginning -- a baseline for other studies in the area of Computer Science quality and accreditation. It is intended to gain some insight into the environments in which Computer Science programs and departments are preparing professionals. It is also intended to contribute to an understanding as to how Computer Science programs can increase their overall quality. As the studies have shown, quality is difficult to measure -- no clear-cut approach dominates. Lawrence and Solmon (1981) summarize elegantly: “In light of the diversity in U.S. higher education, quality (like beauty) may be in the eye of the beholder. ‘Compared to whait?’ constitutes a central issue in its identification as well. Does quality in higher education exist on a continuum? Or are there aspectsof the system which are of absolute quality or excellence or superiority? Where is a continuum of quality appropriate, and where is such a continuum inadequate - if not intolerable?” (p. 12).
Introduction The quest for quality in higher education has been an ongoing concern. Not only is there debate on defining and recognizing quality, there is even more debate on how to measure it. In attempting to identify quality in higher education, research has been focused on reputational ratings or outcomesassessment. Confusion reigns since different definitions of quality produce different results. Consequently, the studies on quality have either not always produced consistent results; have focused on the select, elite level of institutions; or have produced debate on the methodological approaches to quality assessment (Kuh, 1981, p. 7). There is, however, one formal structure for assessing quality in the postsecondary system -- that of accreditation. Accreditation has long claimed a relationship to encouraging quality in “The purpose of setting our educational environment. standards,conducting evaluations, and making judgments is to determine where acceptable levels of quality are to be found. Yet, at best, quality is an elusive concep~ and accreditation, even in this most general form, has never
Computer Science Accreditation The diversity and requirements of the computing field led to the development of a wide range of undergraduate programs. This in turn created a serious problem for the general public and industry -- the title of a program does not adequately convey the quality of the content (Booth, 1984). As a result, the Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CSAC) of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB) was formed by the two main professional computing societies, ACM and
Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copiee are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, tha ACM copyright notica and the titte of the publication and ite data appear. and notice ie given that copying ia by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or apecifio permission. SIGSCE 94-394, Pheani% Artz~USA @
1994 ACM 0-89791 —646-S&r’0003..$3 .5o
145
IEEE-CS, in 1984 to address this concern. This board was established to evaluate baccalaureate Computer Science programs and to develop standards that all graduates from these programs must satisfy (Booth & Miller, 1987). The Computer Science Accreditation Commission, currently the only commission of the Computin$ Sciences Accreditation Board, administers the accreditaaon process and is fully recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) and the U.S. Department of Education (Computing Sciences Accreditrmon Board [CSAB], 1991). The first accreditation cycle occurred during the spring of 1985, with 23 institutions being granted accredited status (Booth, 1986 Booth & Miller, 1987). As of October 1992, a total of 107 programs were accredited. There are approximately 1000 Computer Science programs in the United States. Computer Science accreditation is not without problems or controversy, For one, the process is expensive in terms of time (almost two years of planning and execution) and money (the application fee is several thousands of dollars in addition to committing other institutional resources). For others, the contrivers y brews from many different aspects. Many faculty at the small colleges considered the initial set of guidelines to be based on the large. university model; the criteria have subsequently been modified to allow for more flexibility in its interpretation (Cupper, 1988). Still others were concerned that the accreditation guidelines were too technical and vocational in nature and ignored the liberal arts view (Beck, Cassel, & Austing, 1989; Engel & Dalphin, 198@Mitchell, 1989). One objective of accrediting educational programs is to prepare students for entry into a profession. It can also play an important role in improving the quality of the programs in that field and in furthering the development of the profession, Many challenge whether or not this is indeed happening. Many of the elite, research institutions in the Computer Science field have simply ignored accreditation and have decided not to be reviewed (Myers, 1986). Others argue that the curricular restrictions have or will have a stifling impact on Computer Science education - that it negatively impacts change and innovation. Still others argue that some of the requirements are too strict and unnecessary and may ultimately discourage students from entering the computing field (Zweben, 1988). Some institutions have sought accreditation because of what it says about a program -- that it is a quality program which has met certain standards -- or that it would give that institution a competitive edge in attracting students (Myers, 1986). However, other institutions have made conscientious decisions not to change their curriculum so as to attract more students to their program. Computer Science enrollments have fallen dramatically since 1985 and it is well documented that today’s students are not as prepared or interested in mathematics and the sciences. The lack of legal recognition for the field of Computer Science in the “professional” category has created a dilemma for some companies, such as Boeing, who must comply with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Bjomson, 1986). Their interim solution was to rely upon accreditation as a mechanism for ensuring the integrity of the level of qualification of program graduates and to hire only those from accredited programs. However, this may be the exception rather than the rule since industry has generally been oblivious to the value of accreditation, even though industry representatives are involved in the review process. There is an increasing demand for computing
146
professionals, and, with the exception of Boeing, the major companies have not made the commitment to hire students from accredited programs. To many of them, any computing major is a Computer Science major! Programs in Computer Science areas diverse in their pedagogy as they are broad in scope. Many departments blend the conceptual frameworks of both the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board criteria and the ACM curriculum recommendations. However, compared to other disciplines with specialized accreditation, Computer Science is in its infancy, and the guidelines must be flexible enough to accommodate evolution and to react to new t~hnologies, methodologies and paradigms. Thus, because of the commitment of resources, controversy, or the readiness of the discipline, many institutions and departments may be asking whether or not it is worthwhile to seek Computer Science program accreditation. And, more importantly, they need to know whether or not it wdl contribute to enhancing the quality of the program, promote quality of the discipline, and be in the best interest of the students’ educational experience. It is, therefore, the purpose of this study to contribute to the understanding of the quality difference, if any, between the accredited and non-accredited Computer Science programs. Design and Methodology The research design approach to this exploratory study was a nationwide mail survey to the department heads of the units administering baccalaureate Computer Science programs. A stratified, random sampling of 100 colleges and universities was chosen from a population of 994 including the 106 Computing Sciences Accreditation Board schools. Sampling units were: accreditation status, institution size, state, competitiveness, affiliation (i.e., public or private), and type of institution (i.e., AAUP classification). A pilot study was conducted to validate the survey. The resulting aggregate response rate was 64% which is considered by Babbie (1989) to be good to very good for analysis. The instrument gathered data on faculty, students, and the Computer Science programs and resources for the 1991-92 academic year. Additional data about the program, faculty, and institution was collected from college catalogs. Analysis The analysis was carried out on several levels (a) descriptive statistics were calculated for each indicator, (b) the t-test was used to determine if there is a statistical difference between the means of the two groups at the .05 level, and (c) the Chi-square Test of significance of difference between medians was used to determine if there is a significant relationship between accreditation status and the indicators. Each indicator gathered from the survey and college catalogs was reviewed. Several questions from the survey were discarded due to an insufficient response for analysis. The remaining indicators, grouped by faculty, resources, students,and program, were analyzed. Major Findings of the Study Faculty
The research indicates that there are several statistical y significant differences between the accredited and non-accredited Computer Science groups on selected measures of faculty quality. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and Chi-square values for the faculty indicators.
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In general, the departments administering the accredited baccalaureate Computer Science programs have more fulM.ime faculty than departments in the non-accredited group. However, there is not a significant difference betsveenthe means of the two groups. The Chi-square Test does reveal a statistically significant relationship between accreditation status and the number of fulltime faculty in the department. An analysis of the data shows that 66.7% of the departments in the accredited group, versus 45.8% of those in the non-accredited group, have eleven or more full-time faculty. There is no significant difference between the means of the two groups with respect to the number of full-time faculty with doctorates. Also, the Chi-square Test indicates that no statistically significant relationship exists between the percentage of the full-time faculty holding doctorates and accreditation status. There is no significant diffenmce between the means of the two groups with respect to the number of full-time faculty who published at least one professional work in academic year 1991-92. Also, the Chi-square Test indicates that no statistically significant relationship exists between the percentage of the full-time faculty publishing and accreditation status. The teaching load of the faculty in the accredited group is much lower than that of the non-accredited group (credit hours were adjusted to a semester-hour equivalent). There is a significant difference between the means of these two groups (@fi50)=-2.53, pc.05). The Chi-square Test indicates a significant relationship between this indicator and accreditation status at the .10 level. For this indicator, 68.4% of the departments in the accredited group had full-time faculty teaching eleven or fewer adjusted credited hours in the academic year versus43.6% of the non-accredited group. The survey considered the faculty committed to the undergraduate program (referred to as ugrad faculty in Table 1). For those responding to the survey, the number of faculty, including academic administrators, who teach at least 6070 of their teaching load in the undergraduate Computer Science progmm is higher for the accredited group than the non-accredited group. However, the r-test indicates no significant difference between the means. The Chi-square Test indicates a significant relationship exists between accreditation status and this indicator. Overall, 73.7% of the departments in the accredited group have five or more department faculty committed to teaching the undergraduates compared to 45.2% of the nonaccreditedpup. There is a significant difference between the means of the accredited and non-acctwlited groups for the number of doctorates of the committed undergraduate faculty (@=22)=2.68, pe.05). The Chi-square Test indicates a significant relationship between this indicator and There are 72.2% of the accreditation status. departments in the accredited group versus 41.5% in the non-accredited group with 4.5 or more undergraduatefaculty with doctorates. The teaching load for the committed undergraduate faculty in the accredited undergraduate group is lower than for the non-accredited group. There is a significant difference between the means (t(d13t3)=The Chi-square Test indicates a 3.06, p
