Introductory Workshop

THE CDIO APPROACH

TO ENGINEERING EDUCATION
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

Explain the CDIO approach

to engineering education

Determine ways in which the

CDIO approach may be adapted
to your own programs

Share your ideas and experiences

of engineering education reform
PLAN FOR TODAY’S WORKSHOP

MORNING AFTERNOON

WHY CDIO THE CDIO WHAT

AS THE SYLLABUS
CONTEXT

DESIGN- PRO-
INTEGRATED LEARNING IMPLEMENT GRAM
HOW CURRICULUM
EXPERIENCES
EVALU-
WORKSPACES ATION
INTRO TO ASSESSMENT
ENGINEERING
HOW
WELL
FACULTY
COMPETENCE
SCHEDULE

FRIDAY

09:45 - 10:30 1. CDIO Essentials I – Ready to Engineer

10:30 - 11:30 2. CDIO Essentials II – Teaching & Learning
11:30 - 12:00 BREAK
12:00 - 13:00 Regional Meeting

13:00 - 14:00 Networking Lunch

14:00 - 14:50 3. CDIO for Program and Faculty Development

14:50 - 16:00 4. CDIO and Continuous Improvement

16:00 - 17:30 Workgroup Reports and Tasking

17:30 - 18:00 Concluding Remarks

INTRODUCTIONS

• Name
• University
• Department or Program
• Principal role in the program, e.g,
department head, faculty, instructional
support staff
• Reason(s) you are participating in this
workshop
Introductory Workshop Part 1:
READY TO ENGINEER:
Professor Ron J. Hugo
University of Calgary, Canada
hugo@ucalgary.ca
PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES

Explain CDIO as the context

for engineering education

Describe the content and structure

of the CDIO Syllabus v2.0

Learn how to engage

stakeholders in the validation of
program objectives
A Brief History of Engineering
Education
British Engineering in 1855-6
British Engineering in 1855-6

First 30 pages
are the
Calendar!
British Engineering in 1855-6

TABLE exhibiting the strongest

Forms and best Proportions
of riveted Joints, as deduced
from the Experiments and
actual Practice.
European Engineering Education
(late 1800’s)

The British, more empirically oriented, pioneered

mechanical engineering and autonomous
professional societies.
The French, more rationalistic oriented, emphasis
on mathematics and developed university
engineering education.
Technical training shifted from apprenticeship to
university education.

The Russian Review, Jul 1956

Number of Engineering Student (US)
(1900-1930)

Engineers were being educated, but who taught them?

Number of Engineering PhD’s
(1920-1930)

Few PhD’s, Engineering Educators were mainly

Engineering Practitioners.
Engineering Education Pendulum
(1920-1930)

Empirical / Engineering-
Practice Science
Based Education Based Education

Strong British Influence / Engineering Practitioners as

Educators
 Engineering Education Influencers
(1920 – 1945)

Stephen Timoshenko Theodore von Kármán

St. Petersburg (1897-1901)
University of Göttingen (1905-1906)
Westinghouse (1923-1927)
U of Michigan (1927-1936)
Stanford (1936-1950’s)
Budapest University (1898-1902)
University of Göttingen (1902-1908)
Caltech - GALCIT (1930-1944)

Concerned over the strong empirical nature of Engineering Education in N.A.

Engineering Education Pendulum
(1930-1945)

Empirical / Engineering-
Practice Science
Based Education Based Education

European born and educated immigrants like Timoshenko and von

Kármán stress the need for more mathematical-physics
integration and the development of graduate programs.
Number of Engineering PhD’s
(1930-1945)

Graduate programs start to develop under influence of

European immigrants.
ACCELERATED CHANGE – STEP 1
TRINITY SITE – JULY 16, 1945

Robert Oppenheimer – Berkeley Physicist

Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves

“Physicists win World War II”

Image Sources: wikipedia.org

Number of Engineering PhD’s
(1945-1955)

Post WWII: government funding enables

“Engineering Science Faculty” to first appear.
Change Process Accelerated – Step 2
(1957 - 1975)
Sputnik

Wernher von Braun and Saturn V

Apollo Program

“The Great Space Race”

Number of Engineering PhD’s
(1955-1975)

The “Great Space Race”: Engineering Science Faculty

start to exceed Engineering Practitioner Faculty.
Engineering Education Pendulum
(1975-1990)

Empirical / Engineering-
Practice Science
Based Education Based Education

Manhattan Project, Radar Development, Sputnik, Apollo

Program
 WHAT DO ENGINEERS DO?
TWO OPPOSING VIEWS

“To invent, you need a good

imagination and a pile of junk.”
- Thomas Alva Edison
(1847-1931)

“Scientists investigate that which

already is. Engineers create that which
has never been.”
- Theodore von Kármán
(1881-1963)
 EVOLUTION OF ENGINEERING
EDUCATION

Innovation,
Implementation, Pre-1950s:
Collaboration Practice
Skills, Practice
1960s:
Science &
practice
1980s:
Science

Analytical
Skills,
Disciplinary
Knowledge,
Theory
INDUSTRY REACTION:
WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

Growing concerns – 1980 - 1995:

• 1978 – Finiston Report in the UK

• 1984 - Bernard M. Gordon “What is an

Engineer?” –
• “society … around the world … is not entirely
pleased with the current state of general
[engineering] education.”

• 1995 – Boeing Company “Desired Attributes of

an Engineer”
INDUSTRY EXPECTATIONS – “DESIRED
ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENGINEER”, BOEING 1995
GOVERNMENT EXPECTATIONS

The application of “the theory and principles of

science and mathematics to research and
develop economical solutions to technical
problems … the link between perceived social
needs and commercial applications”
- U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007
THE MAIN GOALS OF ENGINEERING
EDUCATION

To educate students who are able to:

• Master a deeper working knowledge of the technical
fundamentals

• Lead in the creation and operation of new products,

processes, and systems

• Understand the importance and strategic impact of

research and technological development on society

Think like von Karman

Perform like Edison

“Ready to Engineer”
 EVOLUTION OF ENGINEERING
EDUCATION
Innovation,
Implementation, Pre-1950s:
Collaboration Practice
Skills, Practice

1960s: 2000:
Science & CDIO
practice

1980s:
Science
Analytical
Skills,
Disciplinary
Knowledge,
We are not where we want to be – Theory
engineering education needs reform!
CENTRAL QUESTIONS FOR
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION DESIGNERS

• What is the professional role

and practical context of the
profession(al)? (need)

• What knowledge, skills and

attitudes should students
possess as they graduate
from our programs? (program
learning outcomes)
• How can we do better at ensuring
that students learn these skills?
(curriculum, teaching, learning,
workspaces, assessment)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

THE LEARNING CONTEXT FOR
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

• A focus on the needs of customers, clients, and patients

• Delivery of products, processes, and services
• Incorporation of inventions and new technologies
• Stewardship of the environment
• A focus on solutions, not disciplines
• Working with others and providing leadership in technical
endeavors
• Communicating effectively
• Working efficiently, within resources, and/or profitably
 THE PROFESSIONAL ROLE(S) OF
ENGINEERS

“Engineers Conceive, Design, Implement, and Operate

Complex products and systems in a modern team-based
Engineering environment.”

By Константин Сергеевич… By Dmitriy Pichugin

CONTEXT FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION:
THE C-D-I-O PROCESS

Lifecycle of a product, process, or system:

Conceive: customer needs,
technology, enterprise strategy,
regulations; and conceptual,
technical, and business plans
Design: plans, drawings, and
algorithms that describe what will be
implemented
Implement: transformation of the
design into the product, process, or
system, including manufacturing,
coding, testing and validation
Operate: the implemented product or Duke University
process delivering the intended value,
including maintaining, evolving and
retiring the system
BENEFITS OF LEARNING IN CONTEXT

Learning in the context of professional

practice:
• Increases retention of new
knowledge and skills
• Interconnects concepts and
knowledge that build on each
other
• Communicates the rationale
and relevance of what students
are learning
• Enables students to build their
own frameworks for learning

Danmarks Tekniske Universitet

BEST PRACTICE – STANDARD 1

CDIO Standard 1 -- The Context

Adoption of the principle that product, process,
and system lifecycle development and
deployment -- Conceiving, Designing,
Implementing and Operating -- are the context
for engineering education

• It’s what engineers do!

• Provides the framework for teaching skills
• Allows deeper learning of the fundamentals
• Helps to attract, motivate, and retain students
 THE VISION

An education that stresses disciplinary knowledge set in the

context of Conceiving-Designing-Implementing-
Operating products, processes, and systems

• A curriculum that is centered on students, multidisciplinary,

and based on specified learning outcomes
• Featuring active and experiential learning, including a variety
of project-based learning experiences
• Set in both classrooms and modern learning laboratories and
workspaces
• Constantly improved through robust assessment and
evaluation processes
THE ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENGINEER:
PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES

What is the full set of knowledge, skills and attitudes

that a student should possess as they graduate from
a university?
• At what level of proficiency?
• Beyond traditional engineering disciplinary knowledge.

The CDIO Syllabus UNESCO’s Four Pillars of Education

(First Level of Detail) - Learning to know (1)

- Learning to be (2)
- Learning to live together (3)
-
4. CDIO – Conceiving, Learning to do (4)

Designing, Implementing,
and Operating in
Enterprise / Societal Context

1. Technical 2. Personal and 3. Interpersonal

Knowledge and Professional Skills: Teamwork
Reasoning Skills and Attributes and Communication
 THE CDIO SYLLABUS

• Comprehensive — all relevant primary source material

correlated and included
• Prioritized by stakeholders — extensive survey of
stakeholders to determine priority and level of accomplishment
• Reviewed by peers — experts in each field reviewed materials
and correlated with field-specific primary source material
• Appropriate — filtered to those aspects appropriate to
university teaching and learning
• Expressed as learning objectives or competency statements
in an appropriate taxonomy
• Basis for rigorous curriculum design and assessment
processes
CDIO SYLLABUS – 3RD LEVEL
OF DETAIL (x.xx)
 ACTIVITY: EXPECTED PROFICIENCY

Rate your own proficiency of each CDIO learning

outcome at the x.x level (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, …).
Use:
 the condensed version of the CDIO Syllabus
 the five levels of proficiency:
1. To have experienced or been exposed to
2. To be able to participate in and contribute to
3. To be able to understand and explain
4. To be skilled in the practice or implementation of
5. To be able to lead or innovate in
CDIO SYLLABUS – 4th LEVEL OF DETAIL
(x.xx) + Bloom’s Verbs with Examples

2.0 PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND ATTRIBUTES

2.1 ANALYTICAL REASONING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

2.1.1 Problem Identification and Formulation
Evaluate data and symptoms
Analyze assumptions and sources of bias
Examine issue prioritization in context of overall goals
Formulate a plan of attack (incorporating model, analytical and numerical solutions,
qualitative analysis, experimentation and consideration of uncertainty)
2.1.2 Modeling
Employ assumptions to simplify complex systems and environment
Choose and apply conceptual and qualitative models
Choose and apply quantitative models and simulations
2.1.3 Estimation and Qualitative Analysis
Estimate orders of magnitude, bounds, and trends
Analyze tests for consistency and errors (limits, units, etc.)
Demonstrate the generalization of analytical solutions
VALIDATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholders are individuals or groups who share an interest,

and have an investment, in graduates of a particular
program. They benefit from the program’s success, and hold
programs accountable for results.

Methods to get stakeholder input and support

• Interviews
• Focus-group discussions
• Surveys
• Peer review
• Workshops
VALIDATION OF CDIO LEARNING
OUTCOMES (x.x level of Syllabus)
5. Innovate 5
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
4.5

4. Skilled 4
Practice
3.5
Faculty

3. Understand 3 Industry
Y. Alum
O. Alum
2.5

2. Participate2
1.5

1. Exposure 1
ng
n

g
xt
xt

s
n

es

es

t in
ti o

in

ti n
te

ti o
so

or

te
te
ki

ut

iv
bu

oc
ta

en

ra
ca

on
ea

on
in

ib

ce
am
en

pe
tri
Th

Pr
ni

em
C
ttr
R

on
At

u
r im

O
Te
lA

ss
al
g

n
m
s

pl
C
in

ig
al

t
em

6
ne
a

e
om

Im
pe

1
er

4.
3

es
on

on

ci
3.

4.
si
st
ne

Ex

So
C

5
D
rs

si

Bu
Sy

4.
gi

es

2
Pe

4
2

1
3.

4.
En

2
2.

4.
3

of

4.
2.

Pr
2.
1
2.

5
2.

REMARKABLE AGREEMENT!
VALIDATION OF CDIO LEARNING
OUTCOMES - ALUMNI
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Proficiency / Importance
Queen’s University Belfast 1 2 3 4 5

2.1 Eng. Reasoning and Problem Solving

2.2 Experimenting and Knowledge Discovery

2.3 System Thinking

2.4 Personal Skills

2.5 Professional Skills & Attitudes

3.1 Teamwork and Leadership

3.2 Communications

4.1 External & Societal Context

4.2 Enterprise & Business Context

4.3 Conceiving

4.4 Designing MIT

QUB
4.5 Implementing

4.6 Operating
 BEST PRACTICE – STANDARD 2

CDIO Standard 2 -- Learning Outcomes

Specific, detailed learning outcomes for
personal and interpersonal skills, and
product, process, and system building skills,
as well as disciplinary knowledge, consistent
with program goals and validated by program
stakeholders

• Organizes the framework for curriculum design

• Serves as the basis of student learning assessment
THE 12 STANDARDS OF CDIO

1 2
WHY CDIO THE CDIO WHAT
AS THE SYLLABUS
CONTEXT

12
3 7, 8 5
LEARNING DESIGN- PRO-
INTEGRATED
ACTIVE / IMPLEMENT GRAM
HOW CURRICULUM
INTEGRATED EXPERIENCES
6
EVALU-
11 WORKSPACES ATION
4
INTRO TO ASSESSMENT
ENGINEERING
HOW
9, 10 WELL
FACULTY
COMPETENCE
BEST PRACTICE:
THE 12 CDIO STANDARDS
1. The Context
Adoption of the principle that product. Process, and
system lifecycle development and deployment are the
context for engineering education
2. Learning Outcomes
Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal,
interpersonal, and product,.process and system building
skills, consistent with program goals and validated by
program stakeholders
3. Integrated Curriculum
A curriculum designed with mutually supporting
disciplinary subjects, with an explicit plan to integrate
personal, interpersonal, and product, process, and
system building skills
4. Introduction to Engineering
An introductory course that provides the framework for
engineering practice in product. Process, and system
building, and introduces essential personal and
interpersonal skills
5. Design-Implement Experiences
A curriculum that includes two or more design-
implement experiences, including one at a basic level
and one at an advanced level
6. Engineering Workspaces
Workspaces and laboratories that support and
encourage hands-on learning of product, process, and
system building, disciplinary knowledge, and social
learning
7. Integrated Learning Experiences
Integrated learning experiences that lead to the
acquisition of disciplinary knowledge, as well as
personal, interpersonal, and produc, process,t and
system building skills
8. Active Learning
Teaching and learning based on active experiential
learning methods
9. Enhancement of Faculty Skills Competence
Actions that enhance faculty competence in personal,
interpersonal, and product and system building skills
10. Enhancement of Faculty Teaching Competence
Actions that enhance faculty competence in providing
integrated learning experiences, in using active
experiential learning methods, and in assessing student
learning
11. Learning Assessment
Assessment of student learning in personal,
interpersonal, and product, process, and system
building skills, as well as in disciplinary knowledge
12. Program Evaluation
A system that evaluates programs against these 12
standards, and provides feedback to students, faculty,
and other stakeholders for the purposes of continuous
improvement
THE ORIGINAL FOUR
DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE:
OVER 130 COLLABORATORS IN 6 REGIONS
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT CDIO …

Visit www.cdio.org!
 OPEN-SOURCE RESOURCES

Available at http://www.cdio.org
• The CDIO Syllabus
• The CDIO Standards
• Start-Up Guidance
• Implementation Kit (I-Kit)
• Instructional Resource Materials (IRMs)

Other
• Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach
by Crawley, Malmqvist, Östlund, Brodeur & Edstrom, 2014
• Annual international CDIO conference (Kanazawa 2018,
Aarhus 2019)
• Local, regional, and international workshops
• Skoltech, Moscow, Russia, 17 – 19 January 2018
Thank You!