A Proposal for Introducing Optional CDIO Standards

J. Malmqvist, K. Edström, R. Hugo (2017). A Proposal for Introducing Optional CDIO Standards. 16.

2017 13th International CDIO Conference, University of Calgary, Canada

The CDIO standards are a key part of the CDIO framework by defining the distinguishing features of a CDIO program, by serving as guidelines for educational reform, and by providing a tool for continuous improvement (Crawley et al., 2014).

The CDIO standards were initially presented in 2005 (Brodeur & Crawley, 2005) and described more fully in Crawley et al. (2007). Rubrics for evaluating programs according to the standards were introduced in 2010. The CDIO standards have since been updated to version 2.0 (Crawley et al, 2014) and the rubrics have been further modified (Bennedsen et al., 2016). These modifications have been relatively minor and have not changed the scope or main contents of the standards.

During this time period the external context of engineering education has evolved, with a stronger focus on sustainable development, innovation and entrepreneurship, internationalization, sociotechnical problems, multidisciplinarity, digitization, to only mention a few factors. Moreover, recent pedagogical development work conducted within the CDIO community (and by others) has not been considered in the CDIO standards. Further, the CDIO standards are based on the premise of a single-cycle engineering degree, not a two-cycle bachelor+master degree. There is need to revisit the CDIO standards to evaluate if they still are valid as a benchmark for an internationally leading engineering program.

In this paper, we * Critically examine the existing CDIO standards in order to find out if they capture the current and emergent context of engineering education. If motivated, propose modifications of the current standards. * Propose a process and a structure that supports a controlled expansion of the CDIO standards, in consideration of the pedagogical developments within and beyond the CDIO community. A set of requirements for an additional CDIO standard will be proposed, including that a new standard should reflect the main characteristics of a CDIO program, that it should be generally applicable, i.e. not discipline-specific and that it should be evident in a substantial number of CDIO programs as a distinguishing feature. * Identify and elaborate a set of potential additional CDIO standards. The paper examines candidates for additional CDIO standards, possible including entrepreneurship, leadership, internationalization, mathematics, ethics and sustainability.

The ultimate aim of the paper is to propose a draft version of the CDIO standards v 3 that can serve as the basis for future discussion, refinement and possibly adaption by the CDIO community.

References

Bennedsen, J., Georgsson, F., Kontio, J. (2016) Updated Rubric for Self-Evaluation (v 2.1), Proceedings of the 2016 International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland.

Brodeur, B., Crawley, E. (2005) Program Evaluation Aligned With the CDIO Standards, Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE Conference.

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. (2007) Rethinking Engineering Education, 1st edition, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D., Edström, K. (2014) Rethinking Engineering Education, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22 2017

Authors (New):

Johan Malmqvist

Kristina Edström

Ronald J Hugo

Pages:

Affiliations:

Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden

University of Calgary, Canada

Keywords:

CDIO standards

CDIO Standard 1

CDIO Standard 2

CDIO Standard 3

CDIO standard 4

CDIO Standard 5

CDIO Standard 6

CDIO Standard 7

CDIO Standard 8

CDIO Standard 9

CDIO Standard 10

CDIO Standard 11

CDIO Standard 12

Year:

2017

Reference:

Al-Atabi, M. (2013). Grand Challenges for Engineering and Development of CDIO Skills. Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA.:

Bennedsen, J., Georgsson, F., & Kontio, J. (2016). Updated Rubric for Self-Evaluation (v 2.1). Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland.:

Brockhoff, P. B., (2011). Taking the Classical Large Audience Lecture Online Using Tablet Computer and Web Conferencing Facilities, Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference. Lyngby, Denmark.:

Brodeur, B., & Crawley, E. F. (2005). Program Evaluation Aligned With the CDIO Standards. Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE Conference.:

Campbell, D. & Beck, H. (2010). Toward Internationalized Engineering Curriculum and Student Mobility. Proceedings of the 6th International CDIO Conference, Montréal, Canada.:

Cheah, S-M., Lee, H-B. & Sale, D. (2016). Flipping a Chemical Engineering Module Using EvidenceBased Teaching Approach, Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland.:

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Lucas, W., & Brodeur, D. (2011). The CDIO Syllabus v2.0. An Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Lyngby, Denmark.:

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., & Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, 1st edition. New York: Springer-Verlag.:

Crawley, E., F. Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag.:

Cronhjort, M., Weurlander, M. (2016). Student Perspectives on Flipped Classrooms in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland.:

Eckert, G., Brobäck, J., Nero, K., & Hjelmåker, M. (2015). Ett år med näringslivsförlagd kurs för alla programstudenter [A Year of Workplace-based Course for all Program Students]. Proceedings of the 5:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar, Uppsala, Sweden, 63-66.:

Enelund, M., Larsson, S., & Malmqvist, J. (2011). Integration of Computational Mathematics in the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Lyngby, Denmark.:

Enelund, M., Knutson Wedel, M., Lundqvist, U., & Malmqvist, J. (2013). Integration of Education for Sustainable Development in the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 1-12.:

Fai, S.K. (2011). An Observational Study of Infusing Design Thinking into the CDIO Framework. Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Lyngby, Denmark.:

Gierke, J.S., Mayer, A.S., & Shonnard, D.R. (1998). Multidisciplinary Subsurface Remediation Courses: Fundamentals, Experiments, and Design Projects, Journal of Engineering Education, 555- 565.:

Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005). Institutional Strategies to Link Teaching and Research. York: Higher Education Academy.:

Henriksen, L. B. (2014). Knowledge Work and the Problem of Implementation - The Case of Engineering. In D. Jemielniak (Ed.), The Laws of the Knowledge Workplace: Changing Roles and the Meaning of Work in Knowledge-intensive Environments (pp. 35-54). Burlington: Gower.:

Hughes, T. P. (2004). Human-built World: How to Think about Technology and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.:

Hugo, R.J. (2014). From the Printing Press to You Tube – Welcome to the World of Lecture 2.0. Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Barcelona, Spain.:

Jamison, A., Kolmos, A. & Holgaard, J. E. (2014). Hybrid Learning: An Integrative Approach to Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 253-273.:

10.1002/jee.20041.

Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.:

Jonassen, D. H. (2014). Engineers as Problem Solvers. In Johri, A., & Olds, B.M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.:

Kamp. A. (2014). Engineering Education in a Rapidly Changing World – Rethinking the Mission and Vision on Engineering Education at TU Delft. Technical Report, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.:

King, R. H., Parker, T. E., Grover, T. P., Gosink, J.P., Middleton (1999). N.O.T., A Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratory Course. Journal of Engineering Education, July, 311-316.:

Magnell, M., Söderlind, J., & Geschwind, L. (2016). Teaching-research Nexus in Engineering Education, Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland.:

Malmqvist, J., Hugo, R., & Kjellberg, M. (2015). A Survey of CDIO Implementation Globally - Effects on Educational Quality. Proceedings of 11th International CDIO Conference. Chengdu, China:

Mäkimurto-Koivumaa, S. & Belt, P. (2015). About, for, in or through Entrepreneurship in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(5), 512-529.:

National Academy of Engineering (2008). 14 Grand Challenges for Engineering, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/8996.aspx, accessed on January 26, 2017.:

Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press:

Taajamaa, V., Eskandari, M., Karanian, B., Airola, A., Pahikkala, T., & Salakoski, T. (2016). O-CDIO: Emphasizing Design Thinking in the CDIO Engineering Cycle, International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3B), 1530-1539.:

Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, Technology and Engineering – An Introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.:

on August 11, 2017 - 07:24 MAndersson

A Proposal for Introducing Optional CDIO Standards

Navigation

A Proposal for Introducing Optional CDIO Standards

Share this content.