An analysis of Brazilian Software Engineering undergrad courses in public and private education institutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2026.7768Keywords:
Teaching Software Engineering, Analysis of syllabi, SWEBOKAbstract
The teaching of Software Engineering (SE) in Brazil began in subjects within Computer Science courses. SE education evolved with the creation of specific courses, due to the launch of the first guidelines from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), references from the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC), and the National Curriculum Guidelines (DCNs). Despite this progress, systematic analyses of the academic profiles of these courses remain scarce. This study investigates the curriculum structure of 28 undergraduate courses in SE offered by public higher education institutions (HEIs) and 35 undergraduate courses in SE offered by private institutions in Brazil, based on the SBC’s training axes and the areas of the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), through an analysis of the syllabi of each course. Regarding public institutions, the data reveal a wide geographical distribution, with a predominance in the non-capital cities. Subjects related to the Fundamentals axes appear frequently, whereas critical areas such as Quality, Requirements, and Software Testing receive comparatively limited formal coverage. Regarding private institutions, the data show an uneven geographical distribution, with a strong concentration of courses in certain regions of the country. Differences in distribution between capitals and the non-capitals are also observed. In terms of curriculum, there is a predominance of subjects related to computing fundamentals, software construction, and professional practices. In contrast, areas such as quality, maintenance, and software architecture are less covered. Inferential analyses showed that public and private programs have significantly different geographic distributions, with private programs concentrated mainly in the South and Southeast. However, no statistically significant regional variation was found in SWEBOK areas coverage within either sector. Actions such as revising the course programs, encouraging applied research in Software Engineering, and making the curriculum more flexible with different emphases can mitigate the asymmetries in Software Engineering education across the country. This article extends a previous work recognized with the Best Paper Award at SBES 2025 Education Track, which analyzed only public institutions. By incorporating private institutions into the analysis, this extended version provides a broader and more comprehensive picture of Software Engineering education in Brazil.
Downloads
References
All India Council for Technical Education (2018). Model curriculum for undergraduate degree courses in engineering & technology. Technical report, All India Council for Technical Education. [Online]. Available: [link].
Ardis, M., Budgen, D., Hislop, G. W., Offutt, J., Sebern, M., and Visser, W. (2015). SE 2014: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering . Computer, 48(11):106–109.
Azevedo, T. and da Silva, A. (2023). Ensino de engenharia de dados nas universidades brasileiras: Estado atual e perspectivas de mercado. In Anais do XXXVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Bancos de Dados, pages 432–438, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.
Betz, S. and Penzenstadler, B. (2025). With great power comes great responsibility: The role of software engineers. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 34(5).
Clementino, A., Lima, E., Lima, L., Guedes, A., Netto, D., and Coutinho, J. (2024). Teaching software engineering: An overview of current approaches and practices in the last decade of sbes. In Anais do XXXVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software, pages 422–432, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.
da C. Figueiredo, R. M., Jr, L. C. M. R., Ramos, C. S., and Dias, E. (2010). Graduação em engenharia de software versus graduação em engenharia de computação: uma reflexão. In FEES-Fórum em Educação de Engenharia de Software, Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software (SBES).
Dierl, S., Howar, F., Mues, M., Naujokat, S., and Schallau, T. (2021). Do away with the frankensteinian programs! a proposal for a genuine se education. In 2021 Third International Workshop on Software Engineering Education for the Next Generation (SEENG), pages 26–30.
Ferreira, T., Viana, D., Fernandes, J., and Santos, R. (2018). Identifying emerging topics and difficulties in software engineering education in brazil. In Proceedings of the XXXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES ’18, page 230–239, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
Garousi, V., Giray, G., Tuzun, E., Catal, C., and Felderer, M. (2020). Closing the gap between software engineering education and industrial needs. IEEE Software, 37(2):68–77.
IEEE Computer Society (2024). Swebok guide v4.0.
Mishra, A. and Mishra, D. (2021). Sustainable Software Engineering: Curriculum Development Based on ACM/IEEE Guidelines, pages 269–285. Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Oliveira, M., Lima, I., Silva, B., Ayach, F., Menezes, D., dos Santos, R. P., Fontão, A., and Viana, D. (2025). Um relatório de análise dos cursos de graduação em es no brasil: revelações e insights. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software (SBES), pages 555–565. SBC.
Radaideh, M. A. (2021a). Benchmarking the software engineering undergraduate program curriculum at jordan university of science and technology with the ieee software engineering body of knowledge (software engineering knowledge areas #1–5). In Arabnia, H. R., Deligiannidis, L., Tinetti, F. G., and Tran, Q.-N., editors, Advances in Software Engineering, Education, and e-Learning, pages 747–768, Cham. Springer International Publishing.
Radaideh, M. A. (2021b). Benchmarking the software engineering undergraduate program curriculum at jordan university of science and technology with the ieee software engineering body of knowledge: (software engineering knowledge areas 11-15). In 2021 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pages 1043–1049.
Romano, J., Kromrey, J. D., Coraggio, J., Skowronek, J., and Devine, L. (2006). Exploring methods for evaluating group differences on the nsse and other surveys: Are the t-test and cohen’sd indices the most appropriate choices. In annual meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Research, volume 14. Citeseer.
SBC (2017). Currículo de referência da Área de computação, versão 2017. SBC, Acesso em: 29 abr. 2025.
Shaw, M. (2000). Software engineering education: a roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering, ICSE ’00, page 371–380, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
Wangenheim, C. G. V. and Silva, D. A. (2009). Qual conhecimento de engenharia de software é importante para um profissional de software. In Proceedings of the Fórum de Educação em Engenharia de Software, volume 2, pages 1–8.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A., et al. (2012). Experimentation in software engineering, volume 236. Springer.
Zarour, M., Alenezi, M., and Akour, M. (2025). A framework to evaluate software engineering program using swebok version 4. Journal of Communications Software and Systems, 21(1):66–78.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Izadora Lima, Marcos Oliveira, Bruno Silva, Fernando Ayach, Diogo Menezes, Rodrigo Santos, Awdren Fontão, Davi Viana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
