Mapping the CDIO Syllabus to the UNESO Key Competences for Sustainability

In this paper a framework of key competencies for sustainability defined by UNESCO is used\ua0to evaluate the relevance of the CDIO Syllabus for promoting engineering education for\ua0sustainable development. The evaluation is performed in two steps. First, topics, terms and\ua0concepts in the CDIO Syllabus that corresponds to the different UNESCO key competencies\ua0are identified. The second step is a qualitative discussion where areas of strong mapping are\ua0highlighted and aspects that could be better visualized or strengthened in, or added to, the\ua0Syllabus are identified. Differences in definitions of various concepts between the CDIO\ua0Syllabus and the UNESCO key competencies and the overall relation between the two\ua0frameworks are discussed. It is concluded that the CDIO Syllabus is rather well aligned with\ua0the UNESCO framework, however several opportunities (not to say needs) for strengthening\ua0the Syllabus in relation to the key competencies are identified. The UNESCO key\ua0competencies are found to be useful instruments for scrutinizing and updating the CDIO\ua0Syllabus. Other opportunities for knowledge and methods transfer between the Education for\ua0Sustainable Development (ESD) domain and the Engineering Education domain are\ua0identified. The paper is proposed to be used as basis for updating the CDIO Syllabus into a\ua0version 3.0 for maintaining its relevance in a changing world

Peer Evaluation of Master Program - Closing the Quality Circle of CDIO Programs?

This paper describes a quality assurance project, which is conducted within the framework of the Nordic Five Tech Alliance (N5T), a strategic alliance of the five leading technical universities in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The project is concerned with the development of a common quality enhancement tool. The tool is designed for conducting peer evaluations of educational programs enabling further development of the study programs involved, and thereby it is contributing to closing the quality circle embedded in the CDIO approach. In addition, the project aims to contribute to the consolidation of the N5T alliance by facilitating contacts between faculty members and providing them with an in-depth knowledge of the study programs within their field at another N5T institution. The paper describes the quality enhancement tool in detail, and how it was applied to evaluate master programs. It also discusses its contribution to the development of the programs. Furthermore it shows how international peer evaluation can contribute to closing the quality circle embedded in the CDIO approach, and assesses the value of the approach to contribute to the creation of long-term relationships in educational networks

Peer Evaluation of Master Program - Closing the Quality Circle of CDIO Programs?

This paper describes a quality assurance project, which is conducted within the framework of the Nordic Five Tech Alliance (N5T), a strategic alliance of the five leading technical universities in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The project is concerned with the development of a common quality enhancement tool. The tool is designed for conducting peer evaluations of educational programs enabling further development of the study programs involved, and thereby it is contributing to closing the quality circle embedded in the CDIO approach. In addition, the project aims to contribute to the consolidation of the N5T alliance by facilitating contacts between faculty members and providing them with an in-depth knowledge of the study programs within their field at another N5T institution. The paper describes the quality enhancement tool in detail, and how it was applied to evaluate master programs. It also discusses its contribution to the development of the programs. Furthermore it shows how international peer evaluation can contribute to closing the quality circle embedded in the CDIO approach, and assesses the value of the approach to contribute to the creation of long-term relationships in educational networks

Towards CDIO standards 3.0

The topic of this paper is the CDIO Standards, specifically the formulation of CDIO Standards version 3.0. The paper first reviews the potential change drivers that motivate a revision of the Standards. Such change drivers are identified both externally (i.e., from outside of the CDIO community) and internally. It is found that external change drivers have affected the perceptions of what problems engineers should address, what knowledge future engineers should possess and what are the most effective teaching practices in engineering education. Internally, the paper identifies criticism of the Standards, as well as ideas for development, that have been codified as proposed additional CDIO Standards. With references to these change drivers, five areas are identified for the revision: sustainability, digitalization of teaching and learning; service; and faculty competence. A revised version of the Standards is presented. In addition, it is proposed that a new category of Standards is established, “optional standards”. Optional Standards are a complement to the twelve “basic” Standards, and serve to guide educational development and profiling beyond the current Standards. A selected set of proposed optional Standards are recommended for further evaluation and possibly acceptance by the CDIO communit

Towards CDIO standards 3.0

The topic of this paper is the CDIO Standards, specifically the formulation of CDIO Standards version 3.0. The paper first reviews the potential change drivers that motivate a revision of the Standards. Such change drivers are identified both externally (i.e., from outside of the CDIO community) and internally. It is found that external change drivers have affected the perceptions of what problems engineers should address, what knowledge future engineers should possess and what are the most effective teaching practices in engineering education. Internally, the paper identifies criticism of the Standards, as well as ideas for development, that have been codified as proposed additional CDIO Standards. With references to these change drivers, five areas are identified for the revision: sustainability, digitalization of teaching and learning; service; and faculty competence. A revised version of the Standards is presented. In addition, it is proposed that a new category of Standards is established, “optional standards”. Optional Standards are a complement to the twelve “basic” Standards, and serve to guide educational development and profiling beyond the current Standards. A selected set of proposed optional Standards are recommended for further evaluation and possibly acceptance by the CDIO communityEducation Managemen

TOWARDS CDIO STANDARDS 3.0

The topic of this paper is the CDIO Standards, specifically the formulation of CDIO Standards version 3.0. The paper first reviews the potential change drivers that motivate a revision of the Standards. Such change drivers are identified both externally (i.e., from outside of the CDIO community) and internally. It is found that external change drivers have affected the perceptions of what problems engineers should address, what knowledge future engineers should possess and what are the most effective teaching practices in engineering education. Internally, the paper identifies criticism of the Standards, as well as ideas for development, that have been codified as proposed additional CDIO Standards. With references to these change drivers, five areas are identified for the revision: sustainability, digitalization of teaching and learning; service; and faculty competence. A revised version of the Standards is presented. In addition, it is proposed that a new category of Standards is established, “optional standards”. Optional Standards are a complement to the twelve “basic” Standards, and serve to guide educational development and profiling beyond the current Standards. A selected set of proposed optional Standards are recommended for further evaluation and possibly acceptance by the CDIO community