Abstract:

Curricular revision in engineering programs is a complex institutional undertaking that must balance disciplinary evolution, accreditation expectations, university policies, and faculty consensus. This case study examines the multi‑year process followed to revise the Computer Engineering curriculum at the University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez and documents the methodologies, design frameworks, and governance dynamics that shaped both challenges and eventual completion. The initiative began with a comprehensive analysis of the existing 167‑credit curriculum. Courses were categorized into university‑mandated groups that included general education, mathematics and science, engineering foundations, core computer engineering, advanced technical electives, and general electives, to clarify structural constraints and identify opportunities for redesign within institutional regulations.

Building on this mapping, the steering committee conducted a literature review to identify relevant curricular design theories and contemporary disciplinary guidelines. Three frameworks informed a discussion and proposal development process that incorporated backward design to align learning outcomes with course structures and assessment; the Streveler Conceptual Change and Progression (CAP) Model to support coherent cognitive development across the curriculum; and the Goals–Activities–Products–Assessment (GAPA) model developed at Olin College of Engineering to structure course‑level and program‑level redesign. Particular attention was given to AAC&U's published High-Impact Practices and their recommendations were integrated into the curriculum revision process to reinforce the intentional development of student learning outcomes throughout the program. In parallel, the committee reviewed updated curricular recommendations from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to ensure that proposed changes aligned with current expectations for computer engineering programs.

Multiple iterations of curriculum proposals were produced through faculty engagement and analysis of institutional constraints. However, the process encountered a significant governance hurdle when participating departments were unable to establish a shared definition of the core competencies expected of engineering graduates at the college level. This lack of agreement temporarily suspended the revision effort, delaying forward progress despite substantial convergence on curricular structure. Continued dialogue and facilitated negotiations ultimately led to consensus on competency definitions, enabling the committee to resume its work and bring the revision process to completion.

This case demonstrates how institutional governance structures and differing disciplinary identities can complicate even well‑structured curriculum redesign efforts. At the same time, it illustrates that such barriers can be overcome through persistent stakeholder engagement, transparency in decision‑making, and early alignment on competency frameworks. The lessons learned from this process offer practical insights for engineering programs engaged in similar curricular revisions and contribute to broader conversations about achieving coherence, stakeholder alignment, and institutional feasibility in engineering education reform.

Keywords:

Backward Design, Computer Engineering Curriculum, Higher Education, Curriculum Design Frameworks.