CDIO faculty development course – Built-in implementation

To successfully implement the CDIO approach in engineering programs, a holistic approach is required, connecting the philosophy of the program with teaching and learning activities in the courses. One influential component in this interaction is faculty members and their competence in providing integrated learning experiences, in using active experiential learning methods, and in assessing student learning (CDIO Standard 10). As an effort to support such faculty development, a group of universities has been conducting activities directly aiming to enable and drive CDIO implementation in the participating universities (mainly within the EIT Raw Materials programme). In this paper, we will continue reporting and critically reflecting on these CDIO-based faculty development endeavours. Initially, a faculty development course was launched in 2016 at Chalmers University of Technology and offered to participants from other universities (Bhadani et al., 2017). The paper starts by outlining the adaptation of the course into its second version, followed by investigating the experiences from the first group in 2018. The course was designed to suit both experienced and novice faculty. It offered a staged introduction to CDIO implementation alternated with sessions in which participants worked on their own course development. The rationale for this design was to increase the direct usefulness for the participants, in that they should feel engaged and involved during learning and be able to immediately apply their learning to their own course. To estimate the impact of the course on participants’ actual course design and implementation, participants’ final presentations and feedback were analysed. Interviews were also conducted to gather information about the changes made in the participants’ own teaching, as well as the perceived influence of the CDIO course on those changes. The paper could be used to support organizers of faculty development courses in other universities, by documenting a model that can be implemented as a standard faculty training course

The CDIO Syllabus 3.0 - An Updated Statement of Goals

The CDIO Initiative is going through a process of reconsidering and updating the CDIO approach for engineering education development. Previous work resulted in substantial updates of the twelve CDIO standards and the introduction of “optional” CDIO standards. This paper reports on a similar review and update of the CDIO Syllabus to version 3.0. It has been developed by a working group consisting of four sub-groups and iterated and refined guided by feedback from the whole CDIO community. There are mainly three external drivers that motivate the changes: sustainability, digitalization, and acceleration. There is also an internal driver in the form of lessons learned within the CDIO community, from using the Syllabus in curriculum and course development. Approximately 70 updates are proposed, amongst them three additions on the X.X level, namely 1.4 Knowledge of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3.1 Teamwork and Collaboration, and 5.3 Research

The CDIO Syllabus 3.0 - An Updated Statement of Goals

The CDIO Initiative is going through a process of reconsidering and updating the CDIO approach for engineering education development. Previous work resulted in substantial updates of the twelve CDIO standards and the introduction of “optional” CDIO standards. This paper reports on a similar review and update of the CDIO Syllabus to version 3.0. It has been developed by a working group consisting of four sub-groups and iterated and refined guided by feedback from the whole CDIO community. There are mainly three external drivers that motivate the changes: sustainability, digitalization, and acceleration. There is also an internal driver in the form of lessons learned within the CDIO community, from using the Syllabus in curriculum and course development. Approximately 70 updates are proposed, amongst them three additions on the X.X level, namely 1.4 Knowledge of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3.1 Teamwork and Collaboration, and 5.3 Research

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

Toward 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

Engineering and Communication Integrated Learning - Collaboration Strategies for Skills and Subject Experts

This paper focuses on the integrated learning of communication and communication skills within engineering education, and on the respective roles of the communication expert and the subject expert in courses and throughout the curriculum. Approaches to the function of communication in an overall engineering curriculum and to the learning activities are here referred to as learning-to-communicate and communicating-to-learn. These concepts are further merged into the term communicating-to-engineer. This means that all communication aspects are intrinsic components in engineering education and that factors such as learning activities, ambition, maturity, and resources together contribute to deciding how and to what extent communication can be effectively learnt and taught. This paper then suggests two distinct roles of the communication expert: the direct and the indirect where the direct approach implies an active classroom role, and the indirect approach being more focused on course and faculty development. These roles are then placed on a continuum where the role may change over time, in accordance to the learning objectives and faculty development ambition. By categorizing the role of the communication expert into these functionally and strategically different functions, the corresponding role of the subject expert is also changed

A Proposal for Introducing Optional CDIO Standards

The first version of the CDIO standards was presented in 2005 (Brodeur & Crawley, 2005). The aim of this paper is to explore if meeting current CDIO standards still corresponds to the expectations placed on graduates from leading engineering programs worldwide. In the paper, we first identify engineering competencies that are claimed to be essential both today and in the future, focusing on competencies whose relative importance have grown since the early 2000’s. We also identify pedagogical practices that aim to develop these particular competences. We then propose that these emerging skills and best practices should be incorporated in CDIO as “optional” CDIO standards. Whereas the original or “basic” CDIO standards are scoped with the expectations of a bachelor program in mind, an “optional” CDIO standard ndicates a more advanced or broadened competence. A set of potential optional CDIO standards is enumerated. Seven of the potential optional CDIO standards are then elaborated in the same format as the current standards, i.e., with a description, rationale and suggested evidence