Integration of an ontological model of CDIO competencies into the design of educational programs: transforming educational projects into knowledge content

Frontiers in Computer Science, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/fcomp.2026.1914151
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The Conceive–Design–Implement–Operate (CDIO) Syllabus expresses graduate competencies in natural language developed through project-based learning, yet the link between declared competencies and delivered content is maintained manually. This study proposes the CDIO Competency–Knowledge Ontology (CDIO–CKO): a decidable OWL 2 Description Logic (DL) formalization of the Syllabus connected to programs, projects, courses, learning outcomes, and knowledge-content units, paired with a parameterized transformation that converts educational projects into competency-linked units via decomposition, extraction, semantic annotation, and aggregation. Applied to one 240-ECTS mechatronics and robotics program (42 courses, 18 projects, 156 competencies), the methodology produced 1,287 individuals and 9,540 triples classifying in 2.8 s. On a 240-unit held-out test set against a three-expert gold standard, automated mapping reached precision 0.91, recall 0.86, and F1 0.88 (95% CI 0.84–0.91; system–standard κ = 0.79, expert pre-adjudication κ = 0.74). Traceable coverage rose from 0.59 to 0.84, and 23 prerequisite inconsistencies missed by routine manual review were surfaced (23 of 26 issues in a dedicated expert audit: precision 1.00, recall 0.88). Against five comparator families, the method achieved the highest F1 among the five evaluated baselines while uniquely supporting consistency checking, proficiency propagation, and an auditable evidence trail. Results are a single-program proof-of-concept; broader validation remains future work.