Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
1 (11)
Daugavpils University
Academic study programme Master of Computer Science
Evaluation report
January, 15, 2003
This is the final report to be followed by supplementary reports by individual evaluation
committee members. This report is concluded by recommendations regarding accreditation
and actions to be taken.
The Evaluation Commission
The commission consisted of



Professor em. Janis A. Bubenko Jr, Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm
University, Dept. Of Computer and Systems Science, Sweden (chair)
Professor Janis Grundspenkis, Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science and
Information Technology , Riga Technical University, Latvia
Professor Juri Kiho, Chair of Software Systems, Institute of Computer Science, Tartu
University, Estonia
Approach
The evaluation took place during a two day visit to Daugavpils University (DU), January 1011, 2003. The visit started at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, the
department of Mathematics and of Computer Science. Information about the Computer
Science department was presented by head of the department, Dr. Pavel Drozdov. Current
status of the academic programme Master of Computer Science was given by Dr. S.
Hilkevich, and Dr. S. Ignatjeva. The evaluators were guided around the library and the
CISCO laboratory. Later in the day the evaluators conducted interviews with members of the
department and had a meeting with first and second year students of the programme. The
evaluators did also have a discussion with employers of DU-students. Next day the
commission was welcomed by Rector Zaiga Ikere and the university’s administrative staff.
They gave an overview of the organisational structure, development policies, and the general
programmes, and research activities of DU.
The study programme Master of Computer Science
The purpose of this visit was to examine the progress made in developing the academic
programme Master of Computer Science. In year 2000, the same evaluation commission as
above gave this programme the recommendation for a two year accreditation.
Our present conclusions about the current state of the art of this programme are as follows:

Some improvements can be noticed, in particular regarding recruitment of young and
qualified staff to the programme.
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report


2 (11)
The contents of the programme, in terms of topics covered, seem to be improved.
Important topics, missing in the year 2000, such as for example, algorithms and
complexity, and software engineering, are now included.
However, the commission observed a considerable number of concerns and
weaknesses which must be immediately addressed in order to make this programme to
better conform to generally accepted standards for academic programmes for Master
of Science.
The commission feels that the most appropriate recommendation at this point in time would
be a further two year accreditation followed by a list of items to be improved and actions to be
taken. The commission is reasonably confident that these actions could remove most of the
weaknesses listed as critical remarks below. The commission also wants to state that the
younger scientists and teachers demonstrated a potential for future which should be given an
opportunity to develop. However, the commission has been informed that the only available
alternatives for accreditation at this stage are zero or six years. Considering the problematic
situation for students, for younger staff, as well as observing the programme’s importance for
the Daugavpils region, the commission has, after serious discussions, decided to recommend
an accreditation for six years. When accredited for six years, further implementation of the
programme must be put under permanent and scrupulous control by adequate authorities.
Critical remarks and suggestions as well as actions to be taken are as follows
1. Leading staff of this programme does not seem to pay sufficient attention to the
educational process, its development, and fostering of a scientific attitude to work.
The leadership issue of the department must be addressed. It is obvious that this
examination cannot be done from inside. It is necessary to have external experts
involved in addressing the local leadership issue and addressing further change
actions to be taken.
2. The procedure of planning and monitoring the programme is neither systematic nor
adequately followed. Neither courses nor teacher performance are regularly
evaluated. The commission recommends establishment of special staff function and
resources allocated for this task.
3. The implementation of the programme gives rise to serious concerns. The number of
lecture hours allocated to courses is about one quarter of what, according to the
commission's knowledge, is normally provided at other universities in Latvia.
Student study work load, other external work load, as well as other factors influencing
the performance of students should be addressed, and a reasonable balance found.
4. The scientific level of the programme, as well as of the theses, does not correspond to
the goals stated of the programme. The importance of this issue should be recognised
and discussed by the staff and the students, and actions taken, possibly with the
assistance of external experts.
5. The scientific production of the staff involved in the programme, except of a few
younger teachers, is far below standards. The staff must be much more active in
submitting contributions to internationally recognised scientific journals and
conferences. The university authorities should establish firm requirements regarding
scientific production of all staff.
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
3 (11)
Recommendations
Accreditation of the programme
Master of Computer Science: The commission recommends accreditation for 6 years,
including actions to be taken according to the list above.
Additional recommendations
Additional recommendations will be given in supplementary reports by members of the
commission.
Daugavpils
January 11, 2003
Janis A. Bubenko Jr, Professor em., KTH/SU, Sweden
janis@dsv.su.se
Janis Grundspenkis, Professor, RTU, Latvia
jgrun@cs.rtu.lv
Juri Kiho, Professor, TU, Estonia
kiho@cs.ut.ee
Daugavpils University
Academic programme in Master of Computer Science
Supplementary evaluation report
Janis A. Bubenko jr
January 15, 2003
This report is a supplement to the Evaluation Report, dated January 15, 2003. It gives some
additional recommendations regarding the DU programme in Master of Computer Science.
1. The presentation skills of the staff had not improved since our last visit. This does not
only have a pedagogical aspect. It also hampers the possibilities of staff to create new
links and co-operation internationally, especially now when Latvia is invited to join the
EU. At our previous visit I did not comment this drawback as I hoped it would be a
natural an high-priority thing to improve. This has not happened. My concrete suggestion
is to arrange courses or seminars in presentation and writing techniques for staff as well as
for senior students, in particular Master and PhD candidates. Improved writing is
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4 (11)
important also when participating in and writing project proposals for projects sponsored
by e.g. the European Commission.
Names of courses offered do not always seem to conform to what is being offered. For
instance, the course on Information and Knowledge Management lacks content regarding
Knowledge Management. My suggestion is to make a total review of courses, their names
and contents.
An important aspect of in Computer Science is to interact with "customers", analyse
businesses, their processes, needs for software support, and to design new information
systems which improve their competitive edge as well as co-operation with other
businesses. This aspect could be more vigorously accentuated in the programme.
In the Master programme more scientific training and knowledge about scientific work
and methodology is needed. Methodology subjects are lacking. I recommend DU to reexamine the curriculum of the Master programme considering the need for added
theoretical and methodological substance.
The program seem to lack training in writing of technical and/or scientific reports in
English. Such training should be included in the curriculum.
Many of the above concerns are related to how the department is managed. Time has
perhaps come to re-examine the management structure of the department. As an example
it can be mentioned that department heads at Swedish universities not always are the most
senior members of the department. Organisational and administrative skills are instead
given top priority in recruiting department leaders.
Most of the actions recommended above cannot be carried out by the department alone. The
need for external, and impartial, expertise and advice is obvious.
Janis A. Bubenko Jr
Professor em., KTH/SU, Sweden
janis@dsv.su.se
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
5 (11)
Higher Education Quality Evaluation Centre of Latvia
Evaluation Commission member’s
Individual Report
Daugavpils University
Programme Assessed:
The Academic Study Programme “Master of Computer Science”
Visit Date
January 10-11, 2003
Evaluation Comission member
Jüri Kiho
Professor, Chair of Software Systems
Institute of Computer Science
University of Tartu, Estonia
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
6 (11)
Part I
General Overview
The Higher Education Quality Evaluation Centre of Latvia has invited three university experts
from Latvia, Sweden, and Estonia to review and make an accreditation recommendation for
the Master study programme “COMPUTER SCIENCE” at the Daugavpils University
(hereinafter called “University”). The graduates from the programme are awarded “Master of
Natural Sciences in Computer Science” academic degree. The Department of Computer
Science (hereinafter called “Department”) directs the programme. The Department belongs to
the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (hereinafter called “Faculty”).
The Evaluation Commission visited the University Friday and Saturday, January 10-11 2003.
The expert team met with all leading staff of the Department. It also conducted individual
interviews with some younger staff members, met a group of employers of the Master
programme graduates and 18 students (out of 21). It visited the CISCO computer laboratory
and had a look at the library. There was also possibility to see some Master theses. On the
second day the Evaluation Commission also met with University and Faculty administration.
At the conclusion of the visit, the Evaluation Commission conducted an informal meeting
with Faculty administration and the Department members and briefly highlighted some of the
strengths and weaknesses of the programme under review and introduced the draft evaluation
report.
The Evaluation Commission was well received and, in my opinion, the outcome was a
positive and constructive experience for the University. What follows are my findings (Part
II), general conclusions (Part III) and the accreditation recommendations (Part IV).
Part II
Findings
The following are the findings of mine as a member of the Evaluation Commission. The selfevaluation report submitted by Department, the observations made at the time of the visit, and
the supplementary material received during the visit form the basis of these findings. The
supplementary material requested by me: copies of staff’s scientific papers for last two years.
This request was answered deficiently: the copies of papers from only four members of
the academic staff were introduced to the Commission.
2.1. Structure and Management of Education Policy
The University’s general structure and management of education are well organized and
adequate. But the quality of implementation of the programme under evaluation is a concern.
The most pressing problem: weak results in scientific and methodological research work.
Without excellence in research and teaching, the quality of the programme’s implementation
diminishes and, consequently, the graduates’ education suffers.
The collaboration between units of the Department and the Faculty appears to be functioning
well. Unfortunately, there is no common, systematic procedure to analyze the academic
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
7 (11)
quality of the study programme. However, the Department carry out some quality control on
ad hoc basis and some programme’s modifications transpire when needed.
There does not seem to exist an explicit supervisory system to monitor of staff, except for the
responsibility of the professors.
2.2. Students
The admission procedure is complete, adequate, well-organized. Students’ educational level at
admission corresponds to requirements. Admission quota for the programme seems to be
appropriate, compared to labor market conditions, and to the needs of Daugavpils district.
There are approaches to help students with deficiencies such as individual differentiation of
study tasks.
2.3. Educational Study Programme (Curriculum)
The study programme contents is of average quality, but it do reflect the tenets of Master
programmes within a traditional academic institution. Not all of the Departments members
demonstrate very high quality of professionalism and not all the subjects (e.g. Information and
Knowledge Management) they teach in are comparable to other universities within Europe.
Also, here appears not to be a proper proportion of lecture and individual learning within the
programme.
However, the basis of the programme is on an entirety of education and could (if properly
implemented) enable students to obtain adequate academic education..
The graduating procedures are clear, they guarantee objective evaluation.
2.4. The Educational (Teaching) Process
Teaching is of average quality, the methods used are standard. Computers are used
intensively, but the library facilities (scientific journals) are not used. A procedure exists to
allow students to fix their failures. An academic calendar forms the basis of the educational
experience. Student assessment is fair and flexible examination procedures exist. However, it
is not clear how the Department use results of student assessment to analyze and monitor the
teaching process.
Leading staff of this programme does not seem to pay sufficient attention to the educational
process, its development, and fostering of a scientific attitude to work.
2.5. Organization of Studies and Resources
The studies appear not adequately organized. Only three contact-days per month are
scheduled. The organization of studies looks like the extra-mural (distance-learning) one and
evidently drastically lowers the quality of the studies.
Student counseling takes place and information about courses is available without difficulty.
The Departments monitor and improve the organization of study when necessary. However, I
am not aware of any systematic use of student load, student grade and failures to improve the
organization of courses.
There does not exist explicit long-term Department’s development plan.
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
8 (11)
2.6. Feedback and Quality Assurance
The Department has regularly monitored the outcome and performance activities of their
graduates from the programme; consequently, they could use such information to improve the
quality of the programmes. The Departments receive information about the working career of
its graduates, information regarding employers’ satisfaction with the level, knowledge, and
skills taught within the Department.
This is a concern that the Department does not yet properly introduce and realize quality
assurance systems.
Part III
General conclusions
Goals and aims of the study programme:
Inherently complete and mainly adequate, but not always properly formulated.
Long-term interests of the programmes – not reflected.
Structure and division of the study programmes:
Sufficient.
The educational process and assessment:
Average quality.
Teaching methods used – standard.
Modern teaching methods – exist.
Computers use – extensive.
Student assessment – fair.
Examination procedure – flexible.
Resources, management of education and resources:
Library resources – sufficient.
Studies organization – deficiency.
Student counseling – sufficient.
Systematic use of student loads, grades and failures – missing.
Explicit development plan – missing.
Collaboration between units – good.
Explicit staff monitoring – missing.
Monitoring students’ performance – exists.
Research, involvement of students in the research:
Research – very low level.
Involvement of students – deficiency.
Quality assurance, feedback:
Quality assurance system – concern.
Feedback from employers – good.
Feedback from students – concern.
Feedback from staff – deficiency.
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
9 (11)
Strong points:
Programme and courses technical design at the general level.
Use of computers and Internet.
The average age of staff is remarkable low (about 40 years).
Weak points:
Research work.
Organization of study provision.
Use of library resources.
Feedback from students and staff.
Development plans.
The weaknesses listed above, especially weak results in scientific and methodological
research work together with improper organization of study provision has given me the
general impression of the programme under evaluation, not corresponding to my
understanding of internationally acceptable Master degree programme in Computer Science.
Opportunities:
Address the leadership issue of Department.
Drastically activate scientific research work.
Raise the scientific level of really provided study courses as well as Master theses.
An alternative (out of the scope of University and Department):
Ministry of Education should resolutely consider switching to 3+2 system of studies, as
defined by the Bologna declaration, especially for rural universities. The requirements for
Master degree, requested by the new system can be far more adequately and realistically met
by the universities outside Riga.
This is my very personal impression, obtained from my several-years experience as the
member of evaluation commissions for the Computer Science programmes at Latvian
universities.
Part IV
Accreditation recommendations
Accreditation Recommendation for the Academic Study Programme
Master of Computer Science :
Accreditation for 6 years
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
10 (11)
Individuālais ziņojums
par akreditācijai iesniegto Daugavpils universitātes akadēmisko studiju
programmu Datorzinātne maģistra grāda iegūšanai
Šis individuālais ziņojums papildina komisijas kopējo ziņojumu. Jāatzīmē, ka novērtēšanas
komisijas sastāvā novērtēju minēto studiju programmu atkārtoti (pirmoreiz 2000. gadā).
Novērtēšanas komisijas sastāvā apmeklēju Daugavpils universitātes Dabaszinātņu un
matemātikas fakultātes Matemātikas un datorzinātnes katedru laikā no š.g. 10. līdz 11.
janvārim. Vizīte bija labi sagatavota un organizēta. Komisija tika iepazīstināta ar katedru, tās
akadēmisko un palīgpersonālu, kā arī ar telpām. Bija organizētas tikšanās arī ar programmā
studējošajiem pirmā un otrā kursa studentiem, un potenciālo darba devēju pārstāvjiem.
Apmeklējām arī Daugavpils universitātes bibliotēku un nesen izveidoto CISCO laboratoriju.
Tā kā maģistru studiju programma "Datorzinātne" akreditācijai iesniegta atkārtoti
(pirmoreiz 2000. gadā tā tika akreditēta uz 2 gadiem), tad galvenokārt pievērsu uzmanību tam,
kādas izmaiņas ir notikušas studiju programmas plānošanā un realizācijā, kā arī, cik lielā mērā
programmas vadībai ir izdevies novērst novērtēšanas komisijas pamanītos trūkumus un
īstenot ieteikumus.
Kopumā jāatzīmē, ka dažos aspektos ir panākti uzlabojumi gan programmas satura
plānošanā, gan realizācijā. Te jāmin programmas satura maiņa, kas pamatā balstās uz plaši
pazīstamo pasaulē atzīto profesionālo organizāciju izstrādāto dokumentu "Computing
Curricula 2001". Saskaņā ar iepriekšējās novērtēšanas komisijas ieteikumiem ieviesti tādi
priekšmeti kā "Algoritmi un sarežģītība" un "Programmnodrošinājuma izstrāde". Atvērta un
darbojas CISCO laboratorija. Mācību procesā ir iesaistīts samērā liels skaits jaunu,
perspektīvu pasniedzēju, kuru tālākā izaugsme būtu jāveicina.
Pilnībā pievienojoties novērtēšanas komisijas kopējā ziņojumā minētajām kritiskajām
piezīmēm un ieteikumiem, vēlos akcentēt šādus aspektus:
1. Iesaku programmas vadībai apskatīt akadēmiskās studijas "Datorzinātnes" programmā
kā vienotu veselu, skaidri nodalot priekšmetus un to saturu, kas tiek pasniegti bakalaura
studijās un maģistra studijās. Pašlaik vairāku priekšmetu anotācijas (Datoru arhitektūra un
operētājsistēmas, Programmnodrošinājuma izstrāde, Intelektuālās sistēmas, Diskrētās
struktūras) liecina, ka maģistru studijās studenti tiek iepazīstināti ar minēto disciplīnu
pamatiem. Visās pārējās Latvijas augstskolās šie pamati tiek mācīti bakalaura studijās. Bez
tam būtu vēlams vairāk pieturēties pie citās augstskolās atzītiem viegli uztveramiem
priekšmetu nosaukumiem, nevis censties ieviest nevajadzīgi oriģinālus un sarežģītus
nosaukumus, piemēram, "Uz tīklu centrēta skaitļošana", "Lietišķo programmu attīstība
klients/serveris tehnoloģijās", "Programmēšanas paradigma, valodas un programmu izstrādes
sistēmas". Beidzot, ir nepieciešams panākt, lai priekšmeta nosaukums atbilstu tā saturam.
Patreiz "Informācijas un zināšanu vadības" priekšmetā nav paredzēta neviena tēma, kas būtu
veltīta zināšanu pārvaldībai (knowledge management).
2. Nekavējoties ir jāpalielina kontaktstundu skaits, jo programmas pašreizējā realizācijā ir
paredzēta tikai aptuveni 1/4 daļa no nepieciešamo kontaktstundu skaita. Ir pamatotas šaubas,
vai studentu patstāvīgais darbs spēj kompensēt šo trūkumu.
Daugavpils University, Evaluation Report
11 (11)
3. Joprojām akadēmiskais personāls nepietiekami aktīvi iesaistās zinātniskā darbā. Tikai
pavisam nedaudz gados jauno pasniedzēju aktīvi publicējas, bet arī tad publikācijas pārsvarā
ir vietēja rakstura izdevumos. Tas pats attiecināms uz dalību konferencēs - dokumentos
atspoguļotas gandrīz tikai Latvijā notikušās starptautiskās konferences, bet no ārvalstīm
minētas tikai 2 konferences Lietuvā un Slovēnijā. Daļa no publikācijām un konferencēs
iesniegtajiem materiāliem nav saistīti ar datorzinātnes jomu. Joprojām nav zinātnisko grantu,
ko finansē Latvijas Zinātnes Padome, un nav pat šādu grantu pieteikumu. Pasniedzēju
neaktivitāte zinātnisko pētījumu veikšanā neapšaubāmi atsaucas uz maģistru darbu zinātnisko
līmeni, kam būtu jābūt augstākam nekā pašlaik.
Apzinoties sekas, ko izraisītu maģistra studiju programmas slēgšana Daugavpils
universitātē, rekomendēju programmu akreditēt uz 6 gadiem, vienlaicīgi nodrošinot
nepārtrauktu un stingru kontroli pār tās tālāku realizāciju un komisijas ziņojumos minēto
trūkumu novēršanu gan no Daugavpils universitātes vadības, gan augstākstāvošu organizāciju
puses.
Profesors Jānis Grundspeņķis
2003. gada 15. janvārī