DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CUSTOMIZABLE CGPA COMPUTATION

SYSTEM WITH MULTIPLE GRADUATION CRITERIA TEMPLATES

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Traditionally, the computation of CGPA involves aggregating individual course grades across

semesters and years, applying weighted averages based on credit units, and conforming to

institutional grading policies. However, universities and colleges, particularly in diverse

educational systems like Nigeria’s, often operate under varying graduation criteria, even within

the same institution. These variations can be due to differences in faculty requirements, program

regulations, or academic board decisions (Okoye & Uzoechina, 2020). For example, an

engineering program may require a higher minimum CGPA for graduation than a humanities

program, or may consider specific core courses mandatory for progression, whereas others may

not. In higher education institutions across the world, the Cumulative Grade Point Average

(CGPA) remains a crucial metric used to assess and summarize a student’s academic

performance over the course of their study. It is not only a reflection of a student's academic

capabilities but also a determinant of their graduation eligibility and post-graduation

opportunities, including employment and further studies. As such, accurate computation of

CGPA is fundamental to the integrity of academic processes. Current systems in use across many

institutions tend to be rigid and monolithic, often hard-coded to accommodate only a singular

method of CGPA calculation. This rigidity poses a challenge for schools with multiple academic
programs, each requiring its own graduation criteria template. Consequently, administrators

often resort to manual recalculations, spreadsheet management, or reliance on error-prone scripts

to validate student performance against different graduation benchmarks (Ahmed & Bello,

2019). These challenges become even more pronounced in contexts where academic policies are

revised frequently. For instance, changes in grading scales (e.g., shifting from a 5-point to a 4-

point grading system) or modifications to course requirements necessitate constant updates to the

CGPA computation logic. In systems lacking flexibility, these updates often require deep

structural code changes, which are both time-consuming and susceptible to bugs or

miscalculations (Adeyemo et al., 2021). Moreover, with the growing adoption of digital

education technologies, students now demand transparency and personalization in how their

academic progress is tracked. A system that not only computes CGPA but also explains how the

computation aligns with their specific program’s graduation requirements would offer immense

value. A customizable CGPA computation system would empower institutions to automate

academic evaluations with greater precision, reduce administrative workload, and improve the

student experience (Ibrahim, Musa & Ogbonna, 2020). This study, therefore, aims to address the

lack of flexibility in existing academic grading systems by proposing a customizable CGPA

computation system. This system will be designed to accommodate multiple graduation criteria

templates, which can be configured by administrators based on faculty, department, or even

individual program policies. The customization will include features such as elective and core

course considerations, threshold CGPA values for graduation, and handling of special academic

cases such as repeat courses or exemptions. The proposed system will not only ensure accuracy

in results computation but will also adapt to dynamic academic regulations, thus reducing

dependency on manual adjustments. Furthermore, it will promote scalability, as more templates

can be added or modified over time without affecting existing functionality. Ultimately, this

project seeks to build a robust academic decision-support tool that aligns with modern demands

for modularity, automation, and accountability in higher education systems.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In most tertiary institutions, the accurate computation and evaluation of students' academic

performance are fundamental responsibilities of academic units and examination bodies. The

Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) plays a critical role in this process, serving as a

standard metric for evaluating academic standing, class of degree, and graduation eligibility.

However, despite the significance of CGPA calculations, many institutions still rely on rigid and

non-configurable systems that fail to reflect the unique graduation policies of different faculties

or academic programs (Ahmed & Bello, 2019). These existing systems are often developed with

a "one-size-fits-all" logic, meaning that they are hardcoded to follow a specific grading scheme

or graduation requirement, typically aligned to a single department or general university

standard. This inflexibility becomes problematic in institutions where different academic

departments adopt diverse graduation criteria, such as varying minimum CGPA requirements,

mandatory course pass conditions, elective versus core course weightings, or special

considerations for industrial training and final year projects. Consequently, institutions face

significant challenges in applying consistent, automated, and reliable CGPA computations across

departments. Institutions update their graduation requirements due to changes in regulatory

frameworks, accreditation demands, or pedagogical reforms. For instance, an academic board

may revise the pass mark for a course, reclassify a core course as an elective, or introduce a new

GPA scale. In systems lacking customization features, such changes necessitate tedious manual
intervention or full-scale software modifications, both of which are time-consuming, error-prone,

and inefficient. Also, students and academic staff often have limited transparency into how

CGPAs are computed, especially in complex programs with unique rules. This lack of clarity not

only undermines trust in the system but also increases the burden on administrators who must

repeatedly explain results or recheck computations manually (Ibrahim, Musa & Ogbonna, 2020).

The core of the problem, therefore, lies in the absence of a flexible, customizable, and scalable

system that can dynamically compute CGPA based on multiple, user-defined graduation

templates. There is an urgent need for a system that allows academic administrators to create,

update, and manage different criteria templates, apply them seamlessly to student records, and

ensure accuracy, consistency, and adaptability in the academic evaluation process.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Aim

The primary aim of this study is to design and implement a customizable CGPA computation

system that supports multiple graduation criteria templates, enabling academic institutions to

automate and accurately manage diverse and dynamic graduation requirements across different

faculties, departments, and programs.

Objectives

To achieve the stated aim, the study will pursue the following specific objectives:

1. To design a flexible system architecture that supports the creation and application of

diverse graduation criteria templates based on faculty or program-specific rules (e.g.,

minimum CGPA thresholds, required courses, and elective/core course weighting).

 2. To implement a web-based CGPA computation system that allows academic

administrators to configure graduation requirements dynamically and apply them to

individual student academic records.

3. To develop a user-friendly interface for both administrators and students that ensures

transparency, allows for real-time CGPA computation, and presents graduation eligibility

status based on the selected template.

4. To test and validate the system's performance using real or simulated academic data to

ensure accuracy, usability, and compliance with institutional academic policies.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The importance of this study lies in its potential to transform how tertiary institutions manage

and evaluate academic performance through dynamic and adaptable CGPA computation. As

academic institutions continue to diversify their program offerings and adjust graduation

requirements based on accreditation, faculty regulations, or pedagogical shifts, the need for a

flexible and reliable academic evaluation system becomes increasingly critical.

1. Institutional Benefits: This study addresses a core gap in most current student

information systems by offering a customizable solution that allows academic

administrators to configure multiple graduation templates. Institutions will benefit by:

i. Reducing administrative workload related to manual CGPA validation and error

correction, especially in faculties with complex or shifting policies.

ii. Improving accuracy and compliance, as the system ensures CGPA computations

are consistent with approved program criteria.

iii. Enhancing auditability and accountability, as every CGPA computation is based

on a documented, traceable template that aligns with academic board regulations.

iv. Supporting academic planning and reforms, as the system allows easy updates to

criteria without reprogramming the backend logic.

 2. Academic Staff and Management Benefits: Faculty members and academic managers

will gain access to a platform that simplifies decision-making around student

performance and graduation eligibility. The system provides real-time computation and

reporting, enabling quicker, data-driven evaluations during board meetings or clearance

exercises.

3. Student Benefits: For students, the proposed system promotes transparency and self-

monitoring. Students can simulate CGPA outcomes, track their progress across

semesters, and verify their compliance with graduation requirements for their specific

program. This transparency fosters academic responsibility and helps students make

informed decisions about course selections and academic goals.

4. Technological Contribution: From a technological standpoint, the study contributes to

the development of modular and extensible education support systems. The system

design encourages reusability and scalability, allowing future developers to plug in new

templates, grading systems (e.g., 4-point, 5-point), or integration with broader

institutional systems such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) or transcript

generation tools.

5. Policy and Regulatory Relevance In contexts like Nigeria and other regions where

universities operate under strict but varied academic regulations, this study is especially

relevant. It offers a foundation for standardized yet flexible software frameworks that can

be adopted across institutions while preserving their academic autonomy.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study is focused on the design and implementation of a customizable CGPA computation

system that supports multiple graduation criteria templates, tailored to suit the academic policies

of various departments, faculties, and institutions.

1. Functional Scope

The system is designed to:

i. Enable administrators to create, manage, and apply different graduation templates,

including rules such as required minimum CGPA, compulsory courses, core/elective

categorizations, and specific course weightings.

ii. Automatically compute semester and cumulative GPAs, using inputs such as course

units, grades, and program requirements.

iii. Allow users (both students and staff) to view detailed academic performance reports,

including class of degree projection and graduation eligibility status.

iv. Support real-time configuration of grading scales (e.g., 4-point or 5-point systems) and

policy-based computation logic.

v. Provide a web-based interface for access across devices and platforms.

2. Technological Scope

i. The system will be developed using modern web development technologies, potentially

including HTML/CSS/JavaScript for the frontend, and a backend built with PHP, Python

(Django/Flask), or Node.js, depending on institutional preference and compatibility.

ii. The system will use MySQL or PostgreSQL as its database management system to store

student records, grading data, and graduation templates.

 iii. The system will be designed for local deployment on an institutional server or a cloud-

hosted environment to allow remote access.

3. Institutional Scope

i. While the system is general-purpose in design, for the purpose of development and

testing, this study will simulate or utilize data from a single academic department or

faculty within a tertiary institution.

ii. The graduation criteria used during system demonstration will be representative of real-

world academic policies, but may be simplified for prototyping and usability testing.

4. Exclusions

i. The system will not handle transcript generation, although it could be integrated with

such functionality in the future.

ii. It will not cover course registration or timetable management.

iii. The study will not implement mobile-native applications; however, the web interface will

be responsive to mobile access.

iv. Integration with external academic platforms (e.g., JAMB, NUC, or LMS systems) is

beyond the current scope but may be considered in future expansions.

1.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

While the study presents a functional approach to improving CGPA computation and graduation

eligibility analysis through a customizable system, certain limitations were encountered during

its development and implementation. These constraints affected the scope, performance, and

applicability of the system, and are outlined below:

1. Institutional Variability: Different institutions and even faculties within the

same university often have unique graduation criteria, grading systems (e.g., 5-

point or 4-point scales), and evaluation rules. While the system is designed to be

flexible, the full complexity of all possible institutional policies may not be

entirely captured in the current prototype. Therefore, some edge cases or

uncommon academic regulations may not be fully supported without further

customization.

2. Limited Dataset and Simulation: Due to the absence of access to full academic

records from a real institution, simulated data was used during development and

testing. This limits the ability to observe how the system would perform in a live,

real-world institutional environment with thousands of students and historical

academic records spanning several years.

3. Security and Authentication Scope: Although the system incorporates basic

access controls (e.g., admin and student login), it does not currently implement

advanced security protocols, such as role-based access control (RBAC), two-

factor authentication (2FA), or audit logging for sensitive operations. These

would be necessary for full-scale deployment in an actual university environment

where data privacy is critical.

 4. Integration with Existing Systems: The current system operates as a standalone

solution and does not integrate with existing Student Information Systems (SIS),

Learning Management Systems (LMS), or transcript generation tools. In practice,

institutions would require integration for seamless data flow and automation,

which is not within the current implementation scope.

5. Mobile Application Exclusion: Though the web interface is designed to be

responsive on mobile devices, no native mobile application (for Android or iOS)

was developed as part of this study. Students accessing the system from mobile

browsers may experience limited functionality or performance inconsistencies

compared to desktop access.

6. Time and Resource Constraints: The development of a fully robust, scalable,

and secure CGPA computation platform requires extensive collaboration with

academic institutions, software testing teams, and policy makers. Given the

timeframe and resource limitations of an undergraduate project, some features had

to be simplified or postponed for future work.

Despite these limitations, the system successfully demonstrates the feasibility, adaptability, and

relevance of a customizable CGPA computation tool, and lays the foundation for further

enhancement, integration, and institutional adoption.

1.7 Definition of Terms

To ensure clarity and understanding, the following key terms used throughout this study are

defined:

Academic Policy: Official guidelines and regulations adopted by an institution to govern

grading, graduation, academic standing, and course requirements.

CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average): A standardized academic metric used to

summarize a student’s overall academic performance across multiple semesters, usually on a 4-

point or 5-point grading scale. It is calculated by dividing the total grade points earned by the

total credit units attempted.

Computation Logic: The set of rules or algorithms that determine how numerical results (such

as GPA or CGPA) are derived from input data such as grades and course units.

Course Unit: A numeric value assigned to a course that reflects its relative academic weight or

workload. It is typically used in calculating GPAs and CGPA.

Customizable System: A system that can be configured or adapted by users (typically

administrators) to fit specific institutional policies or rules, without the need for modifying the

underlying code.

Graduation Criteria: The specific academic requirements set by an institution or department

that a student must meet in order to be eligible for graduation. This may include minimum

CGPA, successful completion of compulsory courses, elective distribution, and course credit

totals.
Grade Point: A numerical value assigned to a grade earned in a course, used in computing GPA.

For example, an ‘A’ grade might be equivalent to 5.0 in a 5-point scale or 4.0 in a 4-point scale.

Student Information System (SIS): A digital platform used by educational institutions to

manage student records, academic performance, registration, and administrative processes.

Template: A predefined, editable structure or set of rules that guides how graduation criteria are

applied to students’ academic data within the system. Different templates can be created for

different departments or programs.

Web-Based Application: A software system that runs on a web server and is accessed through a

web browser over a network such as the internet or an intranet.

 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 OVERVIEW OF CGPA SYSTEMS IN NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

The Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) system is a core component of academic

assessment and student progression in Nigerian universities. It represents the quantitative

measure of a student’s academic performance over time, aggregating the results of all semesters

into a single figure that reflects academic achievement. The CGPA is not only used for

determining academic standing, but also for classifying degrees, awarding honors, and assessing

eligibility for graduation, scholarships, and postgraduate studies.

2.1.1 UNDERSTANDING CGPA IN THE NIGERIAN CONTEXT

In most Nigerian universities, CGPA is calculated using a weighted average of grades obtained

in individual courses, taking into account the credit load of each course. The system has evolved

over time, with some institutions adopting the 4-point grading scale, while others retain the 5-

point grading system, depending on their academic framework.

Under the 5-point scale, the grades are typically mapped as follows:

Table 1: The 5-point scale

Score (%) Grade Grade Point

70 – 100 A 5.0

60 – 69 B 4.0

50 – 59 C 3.0
 45 – 49 D 2.0

0 – 44 F 0.0

On the other hand, in institutions where the 4-point scale is used—largely for harmonization with

international systems—the grade distribution may differ slightly. This discrepancy in grading

systems has introduced variability in how CGPA is computed across the country.

According to Okoro and Oghenevwede (2020), this lack of standardization creates challenges in

comparing academic performance across institutions, complicating student transfers,

postgraduate admissions, and job placements. Moreover, universities sometimes apply unique

graduation criteria based on faculty, department, or program-specific rules, such as the

requirement to pass certain core courses or maintain a minimum CGPA to graduate.

2.1.2 THE ROLE OF CGPA IN DEGREE CLASSIFICATION

In Nigerian universities, the CGPA system is also instrumental in degree classification. The

National Universities Commission (NUC), which serves as the regulatory body for university

education in Nigeria, provides general guidelines for this classification. Under the traditional 5-

point CGPA system, the classifications are usually:

1. First Class Honours: 4.50 – 5.00

2. Second Class Honours (Upper Division): 3.50 – 4.49

3. Second Class Honours (Lower Division): 2.40 – 3.49

4. Third Class Honours: 1.50 – 2.39

5. Pass Degree: 1.00 – 1.49

6. Fail: 0.00 – 0.99

These classifications not only affect the academic recognition a student receives but also

significantly impact their employability and further education opportunities.

2.2 REVIEW OF RELATED WORKS

As academic institutions continue to embrace digital transformation, several efforts have been

made to automate grading systems and CGPA computation. However, the bulk of existing

systems are designed using static models that cater to a single template or structure of result

computation. This becomes problematic in a diverse educational landscape like Nigeria’s, where

multiple institutions and sometimes departments within the same university follow different

grading systems, honor classification rules, and graduation criteria. The literature reviewed

below highlights various attempts to automate student performance tracking and grading, their

strengths, and the evident gaps that justify the need for a customizable and dynamic CGPA

computation system.

1. Design of an Academic Performance Management System

Adegoke and Oni presented a system aimed at automating result computation for tertiary

institutions, particularly using the 5-point grading scale which is common in many Nigerian

universities. The system was implemented using PHP and MySQL and featured functionalities

such as semester result computation and printable transcripts. Although this system addressed the

problem of manual result compilation and error-prone calculations, it was designed with a rigid

structure, making it difficult to modify for universities using alternative scales (e.g., the 4-point

scale) or those with unique graduation criteria (Adegoke & Oni, 2018). The lack of flexibility
posed a significant limitation, especially for institutions with varying departmental policies on

CGPA interpretation.

Advantages

i. Automated basic CGPA calculations.

ii. Streamlined result recording.

iii. Improved accuracy in grade computation.

Disadvantages

i. The system lacked scalability and was hardcoded for a 5-point grading system only.

ii. It did not allow departments to adjust parameters or graduation requirements.

Improvements: Introducing a template-based engine that allows for multiple grading scales and

graduation rules would greatly enhance its relevance.

2. Development of a Grading and Transcript System

This work involved the development of a web-based system for computing grades and

generating student transcripts in real time. The authors emphasized improving accessibility,

allowing students to view their results online, and administrators to perform data operations more

efficiently. While the system fulfilled the basic functions of result recording and CGPA

computation, it was designed using a fixed logic and lacked configurability to accommodate

variations in graduation requirements or elective course conditions across departments. It also

did not support multiple academic templates or dynamic rule-setting for different faculties

(Salami, Bello, & Oyetunji, 2019).

Advantages

i. User-friendly interface

ii. Online transcript generation

iii. Role-based access.

Disadvantages

i. The grading criteria were static and applicable to only one institutional model, with

no provision for course condition rules or elective/core breakdowns.

Improvements: Incorporating dynamic course category definitions and conditional logic for

transcript evaluation would improve its flexibility.

3. Opara and Nwogu (2020): Comparative Analysis of CGPA Models in Nigerian

Universities

Opara and Nwogu explored the inconsistencies that arise due to different CGPA models used

across Nigerian universities. They found that while some institutions have transitioned to the 4-

point system, others still use the 5-point system. The researchers argued that this creates a

discrepancy in student classification and recognition, especially when comparing academic

achievements across institutions. Their analysis called for the development of an adaptable

system that can switch between multiple models and normalize CGPA computations across

departments and institutions (Opara & Nwogu, 2020). Their work set a solid theoretical

foundation for why systems must support customizable logic for CGPA computation.
Advantages

i. Deep insight into grading policy discrepancies and recommendations for unified or

adaptable computation systems.

Disadvantages:

i. The research was theoretical; no software implementation was proposed to

demonstrate its recommendations.

Improvements: Developing a real-time adaptable system that can toggle between different

CGPA models would practically implement their findings.

4. Yusuf and Suleiman (2021): A Student Result Automation and Analysis System

In their study, Yusuf and Suleiman designed a student result analysis system that incorporated

graphical displays of academic performance, trend lines, and GPA predictions. Built using

Python and Django, the application introduced a modern and visual way of analyzing academic

data. However, the authors focused primarily on data presentation and analysis rather than

addressing structural differences in graduation rules or CGPA interpretation. Consequently,

while their system was helpful in visualizing student progress, it lacked the back-end complexity

required to support diverse graduation requirements and course structures (Yusuf & Suleiman,

2021).
Advantages

i. Strong analytics dashboard.

ii. Predictive features using regression.

iii. Appealing UI/UX.

Disadvantages

i. The system was bound to a specific grading system and had limited customization for

different graduation pathways or failed course consequences.

Improvements: Allowing for faculty-specific graduation templates and flexible re-calculation

logic would improve its adaptability.

5. Edeh et al. (2018): Customization in Academic Software for Nigerian Polytechnics

Edeh and colleagues concentrated their efforts on polytechnic environments where course

structures and academic policies are relatively more dynamic. Their system supported minimal

customization features, such as elective course configurations and semester length adjustments.

However, the software was not scalable to university-level grading systems that involve complex

graduation rules such as "no failed core course," cumulative credit requirements, or different

interpretations of 'pass' or 'fail' based on departmental rules. Their work nonetheless

demonstrated the importance and feasibility of adding customization features in academic

systems (Edeh, Nnamani, & Ibe, 2018).

Advantages

i. Support for department-specific rules.

ii. Course prerequisites.

iii. Elective choices.

Disadvantages

i. Not designed to accommodate university-wide grading complexities and broader

templates required at university level.

Improvements: Porting the logic to a scalable architecture suitable for universities and including

various CGPA models would make it more comprehensive.

6. Akpan & Udo (2020): A Framework for Modular CGPA Computation

Akpan and Udo proposed a modular system where CGPA computation logic was decoupled

from the rest of the academic management framework. Their proposed architecture used XML

templates to define grading rules, making the system more adaptable to different policies.

Despite the theoretical robustness of the model, practical implementation required XML

scripting skills, which posed a barrier for non-technical academic staff. Hence, while the idea

was innovative, it lacked user-friendliness and did not entirely solve the problem of

administrative adaptability (Akpan & Udo, 2020).

Advantages

i. Highly modular and adaptable; grading criteria could be changed without altering the

core system code.

Disadvantages

I. Required high technical skill for XML editing and system maintenance.

Improvements: A user-friendly graphical interface for template editing and validation would

make it more usable by non-technical staff.

7. Okonkwo et al. (2017): Academic Information System for Multi-Departmental

Universities

This project focused on building a centralized academic information system that allowed various

departments within a university to manage their student data independently while still

maintaining a unified database. Although the system provided multi-departmental support, it

relied on a common CGPA calculation module for all departments, ignoring the possibility of

department-specific criteria for honors classification or graduation eligibility. Their work

indirectly emphasized the need for a system that supports a rule-based or template-driven

computation engine (Okonkwo, Aja, & Nwankwo, 2017).

Advantages

i. Effective for handling multiple departments and centralized data.

Disadvantages

i. Graduation logic and CGPA calculation methods were uniform across departments,

lacking flexibility.

Improvements: Department-specific configurations and rules for result computation and honors

classification should be incorporated.

8. Chukwuma and Hassan (2019): A Smart Student Progress Monitoring Tool

Chukwuma and Hassan introduced a system designed for predictive monitoring of student

academic performance. By employing simple regression techniques, the tool could forecast

student CGPAs and send alerts to academic advisers if students were trending toward academic

probation. Although this smart feature was beneficial for proactive counseling, the system's core

CGPA computation was built on a uniform logic, disregarding department-specific thresholds

and variations in academic rules (Chukwuma & Hassan, 2019). This again highlights the gap in

existing tools when it comes to supporting flexibility in academic policy enforcement.

Advantages

i. Use of machine learning for academic risk detection; real-time alerts to advisers and

students.
Disadvantages

i. No emphasis on graduation criteria or course-type validation (e.g., core, elective,

failed compulsory courses).

Improvements: Integration with graduation rule engines and decision-support systems would

broaden its functionality.

9. Olatunji (2022): Implementing Dynamic Grading Systems in Nigerian Universities

Olatunji’s research focused on the potential use of decision trees and rule-based engines in

creating dynamic grading systems. The study showed that institutional policies regarding

graduation and degree classification could be modeled using logic gates and if-else rules. This

method allowed institutions to define their academic policies in a decision-tree interface, which

could be parsed by the system at runtime. Although still in its prototype phase, the idea offered a

clear direction for creating systems that are not only automated but also policy-aware and

customizable (Olatunji, 2022).

Advantages

i. Allowed modeling of complex academic paths and conditional rules like repeat

courses and failed core courses.

Disadvantages

i. Still in prototype stage; lacked integration with academic portals and result data.
Improvements: Implementation as a plug-and-play module for existing portals and support for

visual rule builders would make it viable.

10. Duru et al. (2021): Role-Based Access Control in Student Result Portals

Security and administrative hierarchy were the focus of this study by Duru and colleagues. They

proposed a system where students, lecturers, heads of departments, and registrars had distinct

roles and privileges. Although this enhanced the security of the platform, the system still

operated using a uniform logic for CGPA calculation. Their contribution is nonetheless relevant

in emphasizing how modern academic systems should combine secure access with flexible data

processing rules (Duru, Emeka, & Maduka, 2021).

Advantages

i. Robust access control model, clear separation of roles between admin, lecturer, and

students.

Disadvantages

i. No support for customizable CGPA logic or policy-based graduation computation.

Improvements: Adding configurable CGPA policies and graduation templates for each faculty

while maintaining security would boost the system’s value.

From the above reviews, it is evident that while many systems exist for academic management,

most fail to account for customizable CGPA computation or faculty-specific graduation rules. A

few incorporate modularity or predictive analytics, but these are either too technical to maintain
or narrowly focused. None fully integrate a template-driven, configurable CGPA engine that

accounts for:

a. Different CGPA scales (4-point, 5-point, etc.)

b. Departmental variations in core and elective requirements

c. Graduation conditions like failed course limits or minimum credits per level

d. Honors classification logic

This reinforces the need for a centralized yet flexible system—a gap this project is designed to

fill by enabling customizable graduation templates and multiple CGPA models, all managed

through a user-friendly interface.

2.3 CUSTOMIZATION IN ACADEMIC SYSTEMS

In the context of educational technology, customization in academic systems refers to the ability

of software platforms to adapt to specific institutional needs, departmental rules, or evolving

academic policies without the need for rewriting source code. This customization ensures that

systems remain flexible, scalable, and usable across different academic environments.

1. Configurability in Academic Systems

Configurability is the capability of a system to be adjusted or modified through settings or

parameters, typically by an administrator or end user, rather than by changing code. A

configurable academic system allows institutions to:

i. Define grading scales (e.g., 4-point, 5-point, or percentage-based)

ii. Set academic session calendars

 iii. Establish course prerequisites and core/elective categories

iv. Adjust CGPA calculation rules

v. Modify graduation criteria (e.g., minimum credit hours, failed course tolerance, honors

classification)

For instance, a university operating under a 5-point grading scale with unique department-

specific graduation rules can still use the same platform as another institution on a 4-point scale

—provided the system is configurable.

Examples of Configurable Components:

i. Grading Policy Engine: Defines point values and grade thresholds.

ii. Course Type Definitions: Tags for courses (Core, Elective, Optional, General Studies,

etc.).

iii. Graduation Conditions: Rules for total units passed, maximum number of failed

courses, and minimum CGPA for classification.

Advantages:

i. Reduces software development overhead for institutions

ii. Promotes reusability across faculties or schools

iii. Allows institutions to remain compliant with changing regulations from accreditation

bodies like NUC

2. Template-Driven Logic

Template-driven logic refers to a software design pattern where system behavior is governed by

predefined templates—structured configurations or rule sets that guide computation and

workflows.

In CGPA computation systems, templates could include:

i. Graduation Requirement Templates: Outline the rules for determining whether a

student qualifies for graduation. These templates can vary based on degree program (e.g.,

B.Sc., B.A., B.Eng.).

ii. Computation Templates: Define how GPA and CGPA should be calculated per

semester or session, accounting for variations like repeat courses or carryovers.

iii. Classification Templates: Automate degree classification logic (e.g., First Class, Second

Class Upper) based on CGPA thresholds and other conditions.

How Template-Driven Logic Works:

1. Admin selects or creates a template (e.g., “Engineering Faculty Graduation Rules”).

2. System loads rules such as:

Minimum CGPA = 1.5

Must pass all core courses

Total units ≥ 120

3. System evaluates student records against the loaded template.

Advantages:

a. Enables multi-departmental flexibility with a single system instance

b. Supports dynamic policy updates without affecting historical data

c. Simplifies compliance with accrediting bodies and internal audit checks

d. Reduces manual errors during graduation vetting or classification

Disadvantages:

a. Template creation may require initial technical effort

b. Poorly designed templates can lead to misclassification if not validated

Improvements:

a. Integrating graphical template editors so non-technical staff (e.g., registry officers) can

easily create or edit templates

b. Adding template versioning to maintain historical logic for alumni or old batches

c. Embedding test simulations to validate a template on dummy records before use

Customization through configurability and template-driven logic is essential for modern

academic systems, especially in environments with diverse academic rules like Nigerian

universities. These features promote institutional autonomy, system longevity, and user control

while minimizing the need for continual software redevelopment. A well-implemented

customizable system can serve multiple departments, faculties, or even entire institutions with

varying academic policies using a single robust platform.

2.4 SUMMARY OF GAPS IN EXISTING WORKS

Despite the growing adoption of academic information systems across universities, a critical

review of related works reveals several persistent limitations especially in the area of flexibility

and adaptability. One major gap is the rigidity of most existing CGPA computation systems.

These systems are often hard-coded, meaning their logic for calculating CGPA, determining

academic standing, or applying graduation criteria is fixed at the time of development and cannot

easily accommodate institutional variations. Most of these platforms are designed with a one-

size-fits-all approach, where assumptions about grading scales, graduation requirements, and

course types are embedded directly into the system’s source code. As a result, any attempt to

adopt the system in another institution or even a different faculty within the same institution

often requires extensive reprogramming. This makes the systems costly to maintain, difficult to

scale, and prone to inconsistencies. For example, while one university may operate a 5-point

grading system, another may use a 4-point system or have unique rules regarding repeat courses,

non-credit electives, or CGPA-based classifications (e.g., pass/fail thresholds or honors

categories). Rigid systems fail to accommodate such variations unless modified at the code level

often by external developers thus reducing administrative autonomy. Most existing works do not

provide for template-based configuration, where academic rules can be defined and adjusted by

non-technical staff. This limits the usability of such systems to IT professionals, excluding core

administrative personnel such as faculty officers, registrars, and heads of departments who are

the primary stakeholders in academic evaluations.

Key Identified Gaps:

1. Lack of Configurability: Many systems do not allow administrators to configure rules

like grade point mappings, graduation thresholds, or course classifications.

2. No Support for Multiple Templates: There is usually no way to maintain or switch

between different rule sets for different departments or programs.

3. Hard-Coded Logic: The academic rules are embedded directly in the system’s code,

making updates and customization difficult.

4. Low Adaptability to Policy Changes: As academic policies evolve, these systems struggle

to keep pace without major redesigns.

5. Limited User Autonomy: Non-technical academic staff cannot update or adjust rules

without involving developers.

 REFERENCES

Adegoke, A., & Oni, F. (2018). Design of an academic performance management system for
tertiary institutions. Nigerian Journal of Information Technology, 15(2), 88–95.

Adeyemo, O. J., Okonkwo, C. E., & Alabi, O. A. (2021). Enhancing the Reliability of Academic
Records Using Adaptive Software Models in Nigerian Universities. Journal of Educational
Informatics, 6(2), 45–55.

Ahmed, M., & Bello, S. (2019). Comparative Study of Manual and Automated Student
Academic Record Systems. International Journal of Computer Applications, 182(3), 14–20.

Akpan, A., & Udo, B. (2020). A modular framework for CGPA computation. African Journal of
Software Engineering, 3(1), 36–48.

Akinyemi, A., & Oluwadare, B. (2019). Improving academic record management in Nigerian
universities: A framework for CGPA automation. African Journal of Educational Technology,
7(2), 45–53.

Chukwuma, I., & Hassan, R. (2019). Predictive academic performance monitoring system.
Nigerian Journal of Computer Intelligence, 4(3), 65–74.

Duru, K., Emeka, S., & Maduka, I. (2021). Securing student portals using role-based access
control. Nigerian Journal of Cybersecurity and Education Systems, 6(4), 90–98.

Edeh, M., Nnamani, C., & Ibe, R. (2018). Designing customizable academic systems for
polytechnics. Journal of ICT in Education, 9(2), 75–84.

Ibrahim, A. A., Musa, J. S., & Ogbonna, A. C. (2020). Intelligent Grade Point Average
Prediction System Using Adaptive Learning Models. Nigerian Journal of Artificial Intelligence
and Education, 8(1), 55–67.

Okonkwo, C., Aja, C., & Nwankwo, I. (2017). Academic information systems for multi-
departmental institutions. International Journal of Information Systems, 12(2), 50–61.

Okoro, I. M., & Oghenevwede, A. (2020). Grading system inconsistencies and the need for a
unified CGPA model in Nigerian higher institutions. International Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 12(1), 60–71.

Okoye, K. R. E., & Uzoechina, G. O. (2020). Variability of CGPA Calculation Across

Disciplines: A Case for Unified Yet Flexible Systems. African Journal of Higher Education
Studies, 15(1), 33–47.

Olatunji, A. (2022). Dynamic grading systems in Nigerian universities. Journal of Academic

Systems and Technologies, 14(1), 28–37.
Opara, E., & Nwogu, A. (2020). Comparative analysis of CGPA models in Nigerian universities.
Journal of Educational Policy and Management, 6(1), 22–31.

Salami, R., Bello, M., & Oyetunji, T. (2019). Development of a transcript and grading system
for universities. Journal of Computer Applications, 11(3), 44–51.

Uche, C., & Adebayo, T. (2021). Challenges in student result management systems: A Nigerian
university case study. Nigerian Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 4(3), 25–38.

Yusuf, S., & Suleiman, K. (2021). Student result automation and analytics using Django.
International Journal of Modern Education Technologies, 8(4), 101–109.