13.Edward F. Crawley.pdf

Edward Crawley Johan Malmqvist Sören Östlund Doris Brodeur Rethinking Engineering Education The CDIO Approach With Foreword by Charles M. Vest FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page i Rethinking Engineering Education The CDIO Approach FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page iii...

Edward Crawley Johan Malmqvist Sören Östlund Doris Brodeur Rethinking Engineering Education The CDIO Approach With Foreword by Charles M. Vest FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page i Rethinking Engineering Education The CDIO Approach FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page iii Rethinking Engineering Education The CDIO Approach Edward F. Crawley Massachusetts Institute of Technology Johan Malmqvist Chalmers University of Technology Sören Östlund KTH - Royal Institute of Technology Doris R. Brodeur Massachusetts Institute of Technology FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page iv Edward F. Crawley Johan Malmqvist Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Product and Production 77 Massachusetts Avenue – 33-409 Development Cambridge, MA 02139 Chalmers University of Technology USA SE – 412 96 Göteborg SWEDEN Sören Östlund Doris R. Brodeur Department of Solid Mechanics Massachusetts Institute of Technology KTH – Royal Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue – 37-391 SE – 100 44 Stockholm Cambridge, MA 02139 SWEDEN USA Library of Congress Control Number: 2007921087 ISBN 978-0-387-38287-6 e-ISBN 978-0-387-38290-6 Printed on acid-free paper. © 2007 Springer Science +Business Media, LLC All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page v Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION......................................... 1 RATIONALE............................................ 1 BACKGROUND.......................................... 1 THE CDIO INITIATIVE................................... 2 THE SYLLABUS AND THE STANDARDS.................... 3 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION..................... 4 THE BOOK.............................................. 4 2. OVERVIEW............................................. 6 INTRODUCTION........................................ 6 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES.................................. 7 MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE.............................. 7 What modern engineers do................................. 7 Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate......................... 8 The need for reform of engineering education.................. 9 Requirements for the reform of engineering education........... 13 Conceiving-Designing-Implementing-Operating as the context of engineering education.................. 13 Maintaining the fundamentals while strengthening the skills.... 15 Engagement of key stakeholders.......................... 16 Attracting and retaining qualified students.................. 16 Program-level scope of the reform effort.................... 17 Collaboration for engineering education reform.............. 17 Founded on best-practice educational approaches............ 19 Not demanding of significant new resources................ 19 THE CDIO INITIATIVE.................................. 20 The goals............................................. 20 Goal #1............................................ 20 Goal #2............................................ 21 Goal #3............................................ 21 v FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page vi vi Table of Contents The vision............................................. 22 Learning outcomes.................................... 23 Curriculum reform.................................... 25 Design-implement experiences and CDIO workspaces......... 28 Teaching and learning reform............................ 28 Assessment and evaluation.............................. 29 Pedagogical foundation.................................. 30 Meeting the requirements................................. 32 REALIZING THE VISION................................ 32 The CDIO Syllabus..................................... 34 The CDIO Standards.................................... 34 Organizational and cultural change......................... 36 Enhancement of faculty competence........................ 37 Open-source ideas and resources........................... 38 Value of collaboration for parallel development................ 39 Alignment with national standards and other change initiatives...................................... 39 Attracting and motivating students who are “ready to engineer”.................................... 40 Meeting the requirements................................. 42 SUMMARY............................................. 42 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS................................ 43 REFERENCES.......................................... 43 3. THE CDIO SYLLABUS: LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION......................... 45 With P. J. Armstrong INTRODUCTION....................................... 45 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES.................................. 46 THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF ENGINEERING........ 46 Required engineering knowledge and skills.................... 47 Importance of rationale and levels of detail................... 48 THE CDIO SYLLABUS................................... 49 Development and integration of the CDIO Syllabus............ 50 Content and structure of the CDIO Syllabus.................. 50 Validation of the CDIO Syllabus........................... 54 Contemporary themes in engineering – innovation and sustainability..................................... 60 Generalizing the CDIO Syllabus............................ 62 LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS.................................. 63 Learning outcome studies by the four founding universities....... 64 Survey process for determining expected proficiency levels........ 65 Survey results at MIT.................................... 66 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page vii Table of Contents vii Survey results at three Swedish universities.................... 67 Comparisons across all four universities...................... 68 Learning outcome studies at Queen’s University Belfast..................................... 70 Interpreting expected levels of proficiency as learning outcomes................................... 73 SUMMARY............................................. 74 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS................................ 75 REFERENCES.......................................... 75 4. INTEGRATED CURRICULUM DESIGN..................... 77 With K. Edström, S. Gunnarsson, and G. Gustafsson INTRODUCTION....................................... 77 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES.................................. 79 THE RATIONALE FOR AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM... 79 Practical reasons........................................ 79 Pedagogical reasons..................................... 80 Attributes of the curriculum design......................... 80 Faculty perceptions of generic skills......................... 81 FOUNDATIONS FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN.............. 82 The curriculum design process model........................ 82 Curriculum content and learning outcomes................... 84 Pre-existing conditions................................... 84 Benchmarking the existing curriculum....................... 85 INTEGRATED CURRICULUM DESIGN.................... 87 Curriculum structure.................................... 88 Organizing principle................................... 88 Master plan.......................................... 89 Block course structure................................. 90 Concept for curricular structure.......................... 92 Sequence of content and learning outcomes................... 93 Mapping learning outcomes............................... 95 INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING...................... 97 SUMMARY............................................ 100 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS............................... 101 REFERENCES......................................... 101 5. DESIGN-IMPLEMENT EXPERIENCES AND ENGINEERING WORKSPACES...................... 102 With P. W. Young and S. Hallström INTRODUCTION...................................... 102 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................. 103 DESIGN-IMPLEMENT EXPERIENCES.................... 103 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page viii viii Table of Contents The meaning of design-implement experience................ 103 Role and benefit of design-implement experiences............. 104 Basic design-implement experiences........................ 106 Advanced design-implement experiences.................... 106 Attributes of design-implement experiences.................. 107 Design-implement experiences throughout the curriculum....... 107 First-year projects.................................... 109 Second-year projects.................................. 109 Third-year and fourth-year projects...................... 109 Challenges of design-implement experiences.................. 113 Stakeholder reactions and summary........................ 116 ENGINEERING WORKSPACES.......................... 117 Role and benefit of CDIO workspaces...................... 117 Designing workspaces................................... 118 Examples of CDIO workspaces........................... 120 Teaching and learning modes in CDIO workspaces............ 122 Product, process, and system design and implementation...... 122 Reinforcement of disciplinary knowledge.................. 124 Knowledge discovery................................. 124 Community building.................................. 125 Auxiliary uses....................................... 125 Challenges of engineering workspaces and stakeholder reactions... 125 SUMMARY............................................ 127 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS............................... 128 REFERENCES......................................... 128 6. TEACHING AND LEARNING............................. 130 With K. Edström, D. Soderholm, and M. Knutson Wedel INTRODUCTION...................................... 130 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................. 131 STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND LEARNING...................................... 131 INTEGRATED LEARNING.............................. 134 Benefits of integrated learning............................ 134 Integrated learning across multiple experiences................ 136 METHODS AND RESOURCES THAT PROMOTE INTEGRATED LEARNING.............................. 136 Specification of intended learning outcomes.................. 137 Classification of intended learning outcomes................. 137 Examples of intended learning outcomes.................... 138 Constructive alignment of intended learning outcomes......... 138 Faculty support for integrated learning...................... 139 ACTIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING................ 140 Active learning methods................................. 141 Muddy cards........................................ 141 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page ix Table of Contents ix Concept questions.................................... 142 Electronic response systems............................ 143 Ticking............................................ 143 Experiential learning methods............................ 144 Project-based learning................................. 145 Simulations......................................... 145 Case studies........................................ 146 Using multiple active and experiential methods............... 146 Making engineering education attractive to all students......... 146 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES.......................... 149 SUMMARY............................................ 150 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS............................... 150 REFERENCES......................................... 151 7. STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT..................... 152 With P. J. Gray INTRODUCTION...................................... 152 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................. 153 THE LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROCESS................. 154 ALIGNING ASSESSMENT METHODS WITH LEARNING OUTCOMES................................ 156 METHODS FOR ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING........ 157 Written and oral examinations............................ 158 Performance ratings.................................... 158 Product reviews........................................ 160 Journals and portfolios.................................. 161 Other self-report measures............................... 161 USING RESULTS TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING...................................... 162 KEY BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES..................... 164 SUMMARY............................................ 164 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS............................... 165 REFERENCES......................................... 165 8. ADAPTING AND IMPLEMENTING A CDIO APPROACH..... 166 With D. Boden INTRODUCTION...................................... 166 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................. 167 DEVELOPMENT OF A CDIO PROGRAM AS AN EXAMPLE OF CULTURAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE........ 167 Key success factors that promote cultural change.............. 168 The first phase of change—getting off to the right start......... 169 Understanding the need for change....................... 169 Leadership from the top............................... 171 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page x x Table of Contents Creating a vision..................................... 171 Support of early adopters.............................. 172 Early successes...................................... 172 The second phase of change—building momentum in the core activities of change.......................... 173 Moving off assumptions............................... 173 Including students as agents of change.................... 175 Involvement and ownership............................ 175 Adequate resources................................... 176 The third phase of change—institutionalizing change.......... 176 Faculty recognition and incentives....................... 176 Faculty learning culture............................... 177 Student expectations and academic requirements............ 177 Change at a university as an instance of organizational change... 178 FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT................ 178 Enhancement of faculty competence in skills................. 182 Enhancement of faculty competence in teaching and assessment.. 184 RESOURCES TO SUPPORT PROGRAM CHANGE........... 187 Engineering design paradigm for the development of a CDIO approach.................................. 187 Open-source ideas and resources.......................... 189 Value of collaboration for parallel development............... 192 SUMMARY............................................ 193 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS............................... 194 REFERENCES......................................... 194 9. PROGRAM EVALUATION............................... 195 With P. J. Gray INTRODUCTION...................................... 195 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................. 196 STANDARDS-BASED PROGRAM EVALUATION............ 197 THE CDIO STANDARDS AND ASSOCIATED KEY QUESTIONS...................................... 198 Rationale and organization of the CDIO Standards............ 199 Key questions aligned with the Standards................... 200 METHODS TO EVALUATE PROGRAMS................... 203 Document reviews..................................... 203 Personal and focus group interviews........................ 203 Questionnaires and surveys............................... 204 Instructor reflective memos............................... 204 Program reviews by external experts........................ 204 Longitudinal studies.................................... 205 EVALUATING A PROGRAM AGAINST THE CDIO STANDARDS.................................... 205 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page xi Table of Contents xi CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS............................................. 209 OVERALL IMPACT OF CDIO PROGRAMS................ 210 Preliminary results of inputs, processes, and short-term outcomes............................. 212 Studies of long-term outcomes and overall impact............ 212 SUMMARY........................................... 214 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.............................. 215 REFERENCES........................................ 215 10. HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION......................................... 216 U. Jørgensen INTRODUCTION...................................... 216 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................ 218 THE GENESIS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION.......... 219 Engineering education in France.......................... 219 Engineering education in northern Europe.................. 220 Engineering education in the United Kingdom............... 221 Engineering education in the United States.................. 221 ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT...... 222 SCIENCE AS THE BASIS FOR ENGINEERING............ 224 Developments in the United States........................ 225 Developments in Europe................................ 225 Post-war developments................................. 226 THE DECREASE IN PRACTICAL SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE.................................... 227 The transformation of technical schools.................... 227 The response from industry.............................. 228 The return to practice.................................. 229 DISCIPLINARY CONGESTION AND BLURRING BOUNDARIES............................. 230 Alternatives for addressing disciplinary congestion............ 230 Blurring boundaries between technology and nature.......... 230 The influence of new technologies........................ 231 CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES....................... 233 A new identity for engineering........................... 233 A new education for engineers........................... 234 Addressing contemporary challenges with a CDIO approach................................... 236 SUMMARY........................................... 236 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.............................. 237 REFERENCES........................................ 238 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page xii xii Table of Contents 11. OUTLOOK........................................... 241 With S. Gunnarsson INTRODUCTION...................................... 241 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES................................ 242 DRIVERS FOR CHANGE IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION......................................... 242 Scientific breakthroughs and technological developments....... 242 Internationalization, student mobility and flexibility.......... 243 Skills and attitudes of beginning engineering students......... 246 Issues of gender and broadening participation............... 247 Governmental and multilateral initiatives................... 247 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CDIO APPROACH...... 248 Application to additional engineering disciplines............. 248 Generalizing the product, process, and system lifecycle context................................... 249 Pedagogical and curricular differences.................... 249 Adapting and adopting parts of the CDIO approach........ 250 Application to graduate programs......................... 251 The professional role of engineers as context.............. 252 Educational goals set by stakeholders and met by proper sequence of learning activities................ 252 Application beyond engineering education.................. 253 SUMMARY........................................... 254 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.............................. 255 REFERENCES........................................ 255 Appendices A. The CDIO Syllabus.................................... 257 B. The CDIO Standards.................................. 269 INDEX.................................................. 279 FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page xiii Educating Engineers for 2020 and Beyond Charles M. Vest President Emeritus MIT Most of my career was played out in the 20th century – the century of physics, electronics, and high speed communications and transportation. And now, we all – and especially our students –have the privilege of living through the transition to the 21st century – presumably the century of biology and infor- mation. As this transition occurs, it is an appropriate time to rethink engineering education. When I look back over my 35-plus years as an engineering educa- tor, I realize that many things have changed remarkably, but others seem not to have changed at all. Challenges that have been with us for the past 35 years include making the first university year more exciting, communicating what engineers actually do, and bringing the richness of human diversity into the engineering workforce. Students must learn how to merge the physical, life, and information sciences at the nano-, meso-, micro- and macro- scales; embrace professional ethics and social responsibility, be creative and innova- tive, and write and communicate well. Our students should be prepared to live and work as global citizens, understand how engineers contribute to soci- ety. They must develop a basic understanding of business processes; be adept at product development and high-quality manufacturing; and know how to con- ceive, design, implement and operate complex engineering systems of appro- priate complexity. They must increasingly do this within a framework of sustainable development, and be prepared to live and work as global citizens. That is a tall order... perhaps even an impossible order. But is it really? I meet students in the hallways of MIT and other universi- ties who can do all of these things—and more. So, we must keep our sights high. But how are we going to accomplish all this teaching and learning? What has stayed constant, and what needs to be changed? As we think about the challenges ahead, it is important to remember that some things are constant. Students, for example, are driven by passion, curiosity, engagement, and dreams. Although we cannot know exactly what they should be taught, we can focus on the environment and context in which they learn, and the forces, ideas, inspirations, and empowering authentic sit- uations to which they are exposed. xiii FM.qxd 23/4/07 4:24 PM Page xiv xiv Educating Engineers for 2020 and Beyond Another constant is the need for students to acquire a sound basis in science, engineering principles, and analytical capabilities. In my view, a deep understanding of the fundamentals is still the most important thing we pro- vide. Much of our current view of the engineering fundamentals was shaped by what is commonly termed the “engineering science revolution.” This revolution was spawned largely by faculty at MIT who, building on their experiences gained by developing radar systems during World War II, created a radically different way to practice and teach engineering. A towering legacy of this era, with contributions from many major universities, was a new world of engineering education that was built on a solid foundation of science more than on traditional macroscopic phenomenology, charts, handbooks, and codes. The new engineering science required a new panoply of textbooks and laboratories. However,the creators of this new vision of engineering educa- tion did not mean to displace the excitement of engineering, the opportunity for students to design and build, or the need for teamwork and ethics, meant to enrich the student experience. Along the way, something got lost. We need to rethink engineering education, and find a new balance. Perhaps I am so old fashioned I still believe that masterfully conceived, well- delivered lectures are still wonderful teaching and learning experiences. They still have their place. But even I admit there is a good deal of truth in what my extraordinary friend, Murray Gell-Mann, Winner of Nobel Prize in Physics, 1929 likes to say, “We need to move from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side.” Studio teaching, team projects, open-ended problem solving, experiential learning, engagement in research, should be integral elements of engineering education. The philosophy of the CDIO approach to engineering education captures these essential features of a modern engineering education - excitement about what engineers do, deep learning of the fundamentals, skills, and the knowledge of how engineers contribute to society. It is taught in a way that captures our students’ passion. I encourage you to read about this integrated approach, and consider how it might influence the practice of engineering education at your university. Ch01.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION RATIONALE The purpose of engineering education is to provide the learning required by students to become successful engineers—technical expertise, social aware- ness, and a bias toward innovation. This combined set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes is essential to strengthening productivity, entrepreneurship, and excellence in an environment that is increasingly based on technologically complex and sustainable products, processes, and systems. It is imperative that we improve the quality and nature of undergraduate engineering education. In the last two decades, leaders in academia, industry, and government began to address the necessity for reform by developing views of the desired attributes of engineers. Through this endeavor, we identified an underlying crit- ical need—to educate students who are able to Conceive-Design-Implement- Operate complex, value-added engineering products, processes and systems in a modern, team-based environment. It is from this emphasis on the product, process, or system lifecycle that the initiative derives its name–CDIO. Within these pages, we demonstrate how conceiving, designing, implement- ing, and operating products, processes, and systems is the appropriate context for engineering education. The CDIO approach builds on stakeholder input to identify the learning needs of the students in a program, and construct a sequence of integrated learning experiences to meet those needs. We incorpo- rate a comprehensive and broadly applicable approach to improving curricu- lum, teaching and learning, and workspaces that is supported by robust assessment and change processes. By these means, we seek to significantly improve the quality and nature of undergraduate engineering education. BACKGROUND In the 1980s and 1990s, engineers in industry and government, along with university program leaders, began to discuss improvements in the state of engineering education. In this process, they considered the proficiencies of 1 Ch01.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 2 2 Rethinking Engineering Education engineering graduates of recent years and developed lists of the desired attributes of engineers. Common among these lists was an implicit criticism of current engineering education for prioritizing the teaching of theory, including mathematics, science, and technical disciplines, while not placing enough emphasis on laying the foundation for practice, which emphasizes skills such as design, teamwork, and communications. This criticism reveals the tension between two key objectives within con- temporary engineering education: the need to educate students as specialists in a range of technologies—each with increasing levels of knowledge required for professional mastery—while at the same time teaching students to develop as generalists in a range of personal, interpersonal, and product, process, and system building skills. Engineering programs in many parts of the world that exemplify this ten- sion are the products of the evolution of engineering education in the last half century. Through those years, programs moved from a practice-based curricu- lum to an engineering science-based model. The intended consequence of this change was to offer students a rigorous, scientific foundation that would equip them to address unknown future technical challenges. The unintended conse- quence of this change was a shift in the culture of engineering education that diminished the perceived value of key skills and attitudes that had been the hallmark of engineering education until that time. Thus evolved the tension between theory and practice. The challenge that remains is that of introducing change to relieve this tension, to respond to the needs of our external stakeholders, to reform our programs and educational approaches, and in fact, to transform the culture of education. THE CDIO INITIATIVE The CDIO Initiative meets this challenge by educating students as well- rounded engineers who understand how to Conceive-Design-Implement- Operate complex, value-added engineering products, processes, and systems in a moderny, team-based environment. The Initiative has three overall goals: To educate students who are able to: Master a deeper working knowledge of technical fundamentals. Lead in the creation and operation of new products, processes, and systems. Understand the importance and strategic impact of research and techno- logical development on society. This education stresses the fundamentals, and is set in the context of con- ceiving, designing, implementing, and operating products, processes, and sys- tems. We seek to develop programs that are educationally effective and more exciting to students, attracting them to engineering, retaining them in the program and in the profession. Ch01.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 3 1. Introduction 3 This context of conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating is appropriate both because it is the professional role of engineers and because it provides the natural setting in which to teach key pre-professional engi- neering skills and attitudes. Within that context, we develop an integrated approach to identifying students’ learning needs and construct a sequence of learning experiences to meet them. The essential feature of the CDIO approach is that it creates dual-impact learning experiences that promote deep learning of technical fundamentals and of practical skill sets. We use modern pedagogical approaches, innova- tive teaching methods, and new learning environments to provide real-world learning experiences. These concrete learning experiences create a cognitive framework for learning the abstractions associated with the technical funda- mentals, and provide opportunities for active application that facilitates understanding and retention. Thus they provide the pathway to deeper work- ing knowledge of the fundamentals. These concrete experiences also impart learning in personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills. THE SYLLABUS AND THE STANDARDS A rigorous engineering process has been applied to the design of the CDIO approach to ensure that it achieves its goals. We build an integrated approach to identifying the learning needs of the students in a program, and to con- struct a sequence of learning experiences to meet those needs. These two ele- ments are captured in a best-practice framework, consisting of the CDIO Syllabus and the CDIO Standards. Specific learning outcomes are codified in the CDIO Syllabus. The Syllabus is a rational, relevant, and consistent set of skills for an engineer. The Syllabus was derived from needs assessment and source documents, and tested by peer review. The proficiency expectations for graduating students are set with stakeholder input. These learning outcomes then form the basis for program design and assessment. A CDIO program creates a curriculum organized around mutually sup- porting technical disciplines with personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills highly interwoven. These pro- grams are rich with student design-implement experiences conducted in modern workspaces. They feature active and experiential learning and are continuously improved through a robust, quality assessment process. These characteristics are formalized in twelve CDIO Standards, which define the distinguishing features of a CDIO program; serve as guidelines for educational program reform and evaluation; create benchmarks and goals with worldwide application; and provide a framework for continuous improvement. Ch01.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 4 4 Rethinking Engineering Education IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION Development and implementation of the CDIO approach was initiated at four universities: Chalmers University of Technology (Chalmers) in Göteborg, the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Linköping University (LiU) in Linköping, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The number of programs collaborating in the Initiative has expanded to more than 20 universities worldwide. Little in our approach has been invented of whole cloth. We have built upon research and best practices found within our collaborating universities and many other universities around the world who are seeking to improve engineering education. Many have made important contributions. The CDIO Initiative seeks to build on and systematize this international body of work, to develop a set of broadly applicable shared approaches and open-source resources that guide and accelerate engineering education reform. We recog- nize that for most programs, extensive financial and personal resources are not available. We use the shared open-source resources and parallel-coordi- nated efforts to facilitate rapid transition to a steady state that largely retasks existing personnel, time, and space resources. Nothing in our approach is prescriptive. The CDIO approach must be adapted to each program—its goals, university, national, and disciplinary contexts. It is aligned with many other movements for educational change, but unlike national accreditation and assessment standards that state objec- tives, we provide a pallet of potential solutions to the comprehensive reform of engineering education. Many programs around the world are working on aspects of this issue and making important contributions. Many have already developed along the lines of the twelve CDIO Standards independently. We recognize this. We invite you to share your results, and contribute to our collective effort. THE BOOK We have written this book to serve as an introduction to the approaches and resources created by the CDIO Initiative. It is a practical guide with enough information to acquaint you with the high-level rationale, philosophy, and key approaches, and how they have evolved in a historical and societal con- text. The book points to more detailed resources that are contained in other publications, in workshops, and on the web. Chapter 2 continues with an in-depth overview of the CDIO Initiative. This chapter will leave the reader with an understanding of the need for change, the goals, vision, and pedagogical foundation of the CDIO approach, and the essential elements of implementation. Chapter 3 explains the process for identifying the desired skills of an engineer and the learning outcomes for students in a program. Chapters 4 through 6 then describe in Ch01.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 5 1. Introduction 5 some detail the curricular, workspace, and teaching and learning aspects of the approach. Chapters 7 through 9 discuss program evaluation, student assessment, and implementation and change processes. The book concludes with a historical perspective of engineering education, in order to provide the reader with the background to understand the context of change, and an informed outlook to the future. Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 6 CHAPTER TWO OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION The objective of engineering education is to educate students who are “ready to engineer,” that is, broadly prepared with the pre-professional skills of engineer- ing, and deeply knowledgeable of the technical fundamentals. It is the task of engineering educators to continuously improve the quality and nature of under- graduate engineering education in order to meet this objective. Over the past 25 years, many in industry, government, and university programs have addressed the need for reform of engineering education, often by stating the desired outcomes in terms of attributes of engineering graduates. By examining these views, we identified an underlying need: to educate students to understand how to Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate complex value-added engineering products, processes and systems in a modern, team-based environment. The CDIO approach reforms engineering education to meet this underlying need. The value of this approach to students is built on three premises, which reflect its goals, vision, and pedagogical foundation: That the underlying need is best met by setting goals that stress the fun- damentals, while at the same time making the process of conceiving- designing-implementing-operating products, processes, and systems the context of engineering education. That the learning outcomes for students should be set through stake- holder involvement, and met by constructing a sequence of integrated learning experiences, some of which are experiential, that is, they expose students to the situations that engineers encounter in their profession. That proper construction of these integrated learning activities will cause the activities to be dual-impact, facilitating student learning of critical personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system build- ing skills, and simultaneously enhancing the learning of the fundamentals. The CDIO approach incorporates comprehensive and broadly applicable processes for improving curriculum, teaching and learning, and workspaces, and is supported by robust assessment, and change processes. 6 Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 7 2. Overview 7 This overview chapter outlines the key premises and features of the CDIO Initiative. It begins with a discussion of the motivation for improvement in engineering education, including a discussion of the needs of our students, the historical environment of our education, and the requirements for an effective program of reform. The second section describes the Initiative in some detail: its goals, vision, and pedagogical foundation. The structure of this second sec- tion serves as the framework for many of the remaining chapters of the book, which go into more detail on the topics of setting goals for learning, improv- ing curriculum and workspaces, teaching and learning, and conducting student assessment and program evaluation. The final part of the chapter describes approaches to development, including the available resources and collaboration approach, and underscores the need to recognize educational reform as a process for organizational and cultural change at the university. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES This chapter is designed so that you can recognize the contemporary motivation for engineering education reform explain the underlying goals, vision, and pedagogical foundation describe the key characteristics of a CDIO program explain the approach to the development of the CDIO Initiative MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE Engineers build things that serve society. To quote Theodore von Kármán , “Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was.” The 1828 charter of the Institution of Civil Engineers states that engineering is “the art of directing great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man.” Creation of new products and direction of natural resources remain the tasks of engineers today. What modern engineers do Modern engineers are engaged in all phases of the lifecycle of products, processes and systems that range from the simple to the incredibly complex, but all have one feature in common. They meet a need of a member of society. Good engineers observe and listen carefully to determine the needs of the member of society for whom the benefit is intended. They are involved in conceiving the device or system. Modern engineers design products, processes, and systems that incorpo- rate technology. Sometimes this is state-of-the-art technology, pushing new frontiers, and creating new capabilities. That is the stuff of startups and Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 8 8 Rethinking Engineering Education breakthrough innovations. However, much of engineering design is performed by applying and adapting existing technology to meet society’s changing needs. In most of the world, society is uplifted by broad-based applications of existing technology. Good engineers apply appropriate technology to design. Engineers lead, and in some cases, execute the implementation of the design to actual realization of the product, process, or system. All engineers should design so that their systems are implemented easily and in a sustainable way. Some engineers, such as those who develop software, are actually involved in both the design and implementation of the code. In other industries, engineers specialize in implementation, such as manufacturing engineers. Modern engineers work in teams when they conceive, design and imple- ment the product, process, or system. Teams are often geographically distrib- uted and international. Engineers exchange thoughts, ideas, data and drawings, elements and devices with others around the work site and around the world. They capture the tacit knowledge of a system’s design and imple- mentation so that it can be revised and upgraded in the future. Good engi- neers work in teams and communicate effectively, while always exercising personal creativity and responsibility. In order to deliver a benefit to a member of society, engineering devices and systems must be operated. Simpler devices, such as, stoves, cars, or lap- top computers, are operated by private users. More complex systems, such as, industrial furnaces, aircraft, or communication networks, are operated by professionals. Good engineers consider and plan for the operation of the product, process, or system as an integral part of design. They are sometimes involved in the operation of the system as well. Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate Modern engineers lead or are involved in all phases of a product, process, or system lifecycle. That is, they Conceive, Design, Implement, and Operate. The Conceive stage includes defining customer needs; considering technology, enterprise strategy, and regulations; and developing conceptual, technical, and business plans. The second stage, Design, focuses on creating the design, that is, the plans, drawings, and algorithms that describe what product, process, or system will be implemented. The Implement stage refers to the transformation of the design into the product, including hardware manufacturing, software coding, testing, and validation. The final stage, Operate, uses the implemented product, process, or system to deliver the intended value, including maintaining, evolving, recycling, and retiring the system. These four terms, and the activities and outcomes of the four phases, have been chosen because they are applicable to a wide range of engineering dis- ciplines. Details of the tasks that fall into these four main phases—conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating—are found in Figure 2.1. Note that sequence is not strictly implied by the figure. For example, in spiral develop- ment models of product development, there is a great deal of iteration among Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 9 2. Overview 9 Conceive Design Implement Operate Conceptual Preliminary Detailed Element Systems’ Lifecycle Mission Evolution Design Design Design Creation Integration Support & Test Business Requirements Requirements Element Hardware System Sales & System Strategy Function Allocation Design Manufacturing Integration Distribution Improvement Technology Concepts Model Requirements Software System Test Operations Product Strategy Technology Development Verification Coding Refinement Logistics Family Customer Architecture System Failure & Sourcing Certification Customer Expansion Needs Platform Plan Analysis Contingency Element Implementation Support Retirement Goals Market System Analysis Testing Ramp-up Maintenance Competitors Positioning Decomposition Validated Element Delivery & Repair Program Plan Regulation Interface Design Refinement Recycling Business Plan Supplier Plan Specifications Upgrading Commitment FIGURE 2.1. CONCEIVING - DESIGNING - IMPLEMENTING - OPERATING AS A LIFECYCLE MODEL OF A PRODUCT, PROCESS, PROJECT, OR SYSTEM these tasks. Yet, whatever the sequence, these tasks are completed in most successful product developments, and therefore, form the core processes exe- cuted by engineers in building products, processes, and systems that meet the needs of society. The most obvious mapping of these four phases is onto the development of discrete electro/mechanical/information products and systems in serial produc- tion, such as cars, aircraft, ships, software, computers, and communications devices. Manufacturing engineers actually plan, design, realize, and operate the manufacturing processes for these discrete products and systems. Other engi- neers envision, design, develop, and deploy networks and systems of these devices, including transportation networks and communication systems. In software, engineers envision, design, write, and operate code. In chemical engi- neering and similar process industries, engineers conceive, design, build, and operate a plant or facility. In civil engineering, similar steps are taken for the planning, design, construction, and operation of a single project. Appropriately interpreted, this common paradigm of conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating covers the essential professional activities of the vast majority of engineers. In order to simplify and standardize the terminology in this book, the terms product, process, and system are consistently used for the object the engineer designs and implements, which, depending on the sector, is called a product, process, system, device, network, code, plant, facility, or proj- ect. Likewise conceive, design, implement, and operate are consistently used for the four major tasks in realizing these products, processes, and systems. As a shorthand, this lifecycle process is sometimes simply called system building. The need for reform of engineering education The task of higher education is to educate students to become effective mod- ern engineers—able to participate and eventually to lead in aspects of con- ceiving, designing, implementing, and operating systems, products, processes, Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 10 10 Rethinking Engineering Education and projects. To do this, students must be technically expert, socially respon- sible, and inclined to innovate. Such an education is essential for achieving productivity, entrepreneurship, and excellence in an environment that is increasingly based on technologically complex systems that must be sustain- able. It is widely acknowledged that we must do a better job at preparing engineering students for this future, and that we must do this by systemati- cally reforming engineering education. The better preparation of engineering students through systematic reform of engineering education is the ultimate intent of the CDIO Initiative. Any approach to improving engineering education must address two cen- tral questions: What is the full set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that engineering students should possess as they leave the university, and at what level of proficiency ? How can we do better at ensuring that students learn these skills? These are essentially the what and how questions that engineering educators commonly face. Focusing on the first question, there is a seemingly irreconcil- able tension between two positions in engineering education. On one hand, there is the need to convey the ever-increasing body of technical knowledge that graduating students must master. On the other hand, there is growing acknowledgment that engineers must possess a wide array of personal and interpersonal skills; as well as the product, process, and system building knowl- edge and skills required to function on real engineering teams to produce real products and systems. This tension is manifest in the apparent difference of opinion between engi- neering educators and the broader engineering community that ultimately employs engineering graduates. University-based engineers traditionally strike a balance that emphasizes the importance of a body of technical knowledge. However, beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and increasingly in the 1990s, industrial representatives began expressing concern about this balance, articulating the need for a broader view that gives greater emphasis to the per- sonal and interpersonal skills; and product, process, and system building skills. The Finiston Report of 1978 in the United Kingdom is an early example of this reaction. A few years later in 1984, Bernard M. Gordon, the inventor of the analog-to-digital converter, winner of the U.S. National Medal of Technology, and benefactor of the Gordon Prize for Engineering Education of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, stated bluntly that “society... around the world... is not entirely pleased with the current state of general [engineering] education”. Box 2.1 is an excerpt of his address to the annual conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). By the 1990’s, this trend of criticizing university engineering education spread widely. For example, The Boeing Company in the United States organized an effort to influence university engineering education by setting forth its list of desired attributes of an engineer , as listed in Box 2.2. More broadly, the reac- Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 11 2. Overview 11 BOX 2.1. WHAT IS AN ENGINEER? It is apparent that society around the world, particularly, the western world, is not entirely pleased with the current state of general education. Its displeasure is reflected in the barrage of criticism leveled at the graduate who cannot read effectively, cannot write effectively, and cannot master moderately complex arithmetic. The well-publicized question, “Why can’t Johnny read?” sums up the societal concerns. A parallel question, “Why can’t Mr. /Dr. Engineer engineer effectively?” is now increasingly being asked, and sums up the frustration of engineering supervisors and of the public who suffer from the failures of inadequate designs. Critics of engineering education often cite the following inadequacies among the complaints about the educational system’s “product”: Disproportionately low and increasingly poor economic return for the amount of employed engineering resources Limited formal training in, and exposure to, a breadth of basic technical knowledge Inadequate training and orientation to a meaningful depth of engineering skills Inadequate understanding of the importance of precise test and measurement Insufficient competitive drive and perseverance Inadequate communication skills Lack of discipline and control in work habits Fear of taking personal risks Therefore, it is appropriate that we re-examine our perceptions of real engineering to focus our attention on the content in terms of what we want engineers to do in their careers, while we are exploring the application of new technology to the methods of education. Definition I propose to define a REAL, that is, professional, ENGINEER as one who has attained and continuously enhances technical, communications, and human relations knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and who contributes effectively to society by theorizing, conceiving, developing, and producing reliable structures and machines of practical and economic value. The greater the breadth of knowledge, the more varied and accomplished the skills, and the more dedicated the attitude of any individual engineer, the more significant will be the accomplishment, resulting in proper recognition as a role model, teacher, and leader.... Knowledge Knowledge for a real engineer is more than acquired data, and certainly much more than acquired engineering data. The cognitive process is different from the acquisitive process. While today’s engi- neer may use information technology to make any of the world’s data instantly available, the real engineer has developed a relational understanding of the data and will have learned how to recall and correlatively process relevant data in order to synthesize new information to solve problems. The areas of required knowledge are not limited to those of science or technology, as con- sideration of the role of the engineer as leader will reveal. An understanding of societal evo- lution through study of history, economics, sociology, psychology, literature, and arts will enhance the value of the engineering contribution. And, in the shrinking world that the new communications technology is producing, we should not forget the study of foreign lan- guages—an item often ignored on the western side of the Atlantic. Skills A real engineer’s skills are essentially scheduled problem solving techniques of design, in which the concentrated disciplines of science and technology are exercised with the personal creativity and judgment developed from training and experience. In addition, because engi- neering accomplishments are achieved in a group environment, communication skills are critical to the roles as follower and as leader. These skills can be acquired only by doing: the practice may be on simulated problems, or, as for the entry-level medical doctor, on real cases under expert supervision. However, no (Continued ) Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 12 12 Rethinking Engineering Education BOX 2.1. WHAT IS AN ENGINEER?—CONT’D amount of case study can replace the practice in learning how to debug a design, for example. The case study technique may be useful, but it is not sufficient to qualify the real engineer. Attitudes A real engineer’s attitudes will directly affect the quality of his design solutions, whatever the problem. The real engineer is a leader of a team of resources: financial, personal, and mate- rial, at all levels of engineering activity. Successful team leadership implies a degree of self- criticism, where egotism and humility have counterbalancing influences. It requires a spirit of curiosity and courage that leads to creativity and innovation. Successful leadership is characterized by a forcefulness that gives orders, as well as receives orders, and accepts the challenges of competition in the marketplace with a perseverance to succeed. Leadership exhibits a loyalty downward as well as loyalty upward, and requires the earning of respect of project team members for personal competence, tolerance, and supervisory guidance. – B. M. GORDON, ANALOGIC CORPORATION BOX 2.2. DESIRED ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENGINEER A good understanding of engineering science fundamentals Mathematics (including statistics) Physical and life sciences Information technology (far more than computer literacy) A good understanding of design and manufacturing processes A multi-disciplinary, systems perspective A basic understanding of the context in which engineering is practiced Economics (including business practices) History The environment Customer and societal needs Good communication skills Written, oral, graphic, and listening High ethical standards An ability to think both critically and creatively—independently and cooperatively Flexibility, i.e., the ability and self-confidence to adapt to rapid or major change Curiosity and a desire to learn for life A profound understanding of the importance of teamwork. – THE BOEING COMPANY *Reprinted with kind permission of Boeing Management Company. tion of industry in the developed world included industry-led workshops and programs on engineering education, and industry influence on accrediting and professional bodies. It also included direct industry and foundation funding of educational initiatives, and industry influence on government to create resources and incentives for change. This was not a random or ill-coordinated effort, but a coherent reaction to what industry considered a major threat to its human resource flow from universities. What these and other commentaries by indus- trialists have in common is that they always underscore the importance of Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 13 2. Overview 13 engineering science fundamentals and engineering knowledge, but then go on to list a wider array of skills that typically include elements of design, communi- cations, teamwork, ethics, and other personal skills, and attributes. Requirements for the reform of engineering education In response to this input from our stakeholders, we began developing the CDIO Initiative by examining these sources of advice from industry that reflected on the needs for the education of our students. When we tried to synthesize these “lists” that were proposed by industry, we observed that they were driven by a more basic need, that is, the reason society needs engineers in the first place. Therefore, the starting point of our effort was a restatement of the underly- ing need for engineering education. We believe that every graduating engineer should be able to: Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate complex value-added engineering products, processes, and systems in a modern, team-based environment More simply, we must educate engineers who can engineer. For the responsi- bilities of engineering are these: to execute a sequence of tasks, in order to design and implement a product, process, or system within an organization. This emphasis on the product or system lifecycle (Conceive-Design- Implement-Operate) gives the initiative its name. We define value-added as the additional worth created at a particular stage of production, or through image and marketing. It refers to the contribution of the factors of produc- tion to raising the value of a product, process, or system. Conceiving-Designing-Implementing-Operating as the context of engineering education. We assert that conceiving-designing-implementing-operating should be the context of engineering education. The context for education is the cultural framework, or environment, in which technical knowledge and skills are learned. The culture of the education, the skills we teach, and the atti- tudes we convey should all indicate that conceiving-designing-implementing- operating is the role of engineers in their service to society. It is important to note that we assert that the product or system lifecycle should be the context, not the content, of the engineering education. Not every engineer should spe- cialize in product development. Rather, engineers should be educated in disci- plines, that is, mechanical, electrical, chemical, or even engineering science. However, they should be educated in those disciplines in a context that will give them the skills and attitudes to be able to design and implement things. This leads us to the first requirement for a program in engineering education reform: The program adopts the principle that product, process, and system development and deployment—conceiving, designing, implementing and operating—are the context for engineering education. Later in this chapter we identify this requirement as CDIO Standard 1. Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 14 14 Rethinking Engineering Education If we accept this conceive-design-implement-operate premise as the con- text of engineering education, we can then rationally derive more detailed learning outcomes for the education of our students. We can systematically answer the first of the two central questions, namely, “What is the full set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that engineering students should possess as they leave the university, and at what level of proficiency should they possess them?” The rationale for adopting the principle that the system lifecycle—con- ceiving, designing, implementing and operating—is the appropriate context for engineering education is supported by the following arguments: It is what engineers do. It is the underlying need and basis for the “skills lists” that industry proposes to university educators. It is the natural context in which to teach these skills to engineering students. The first point has been argued above—what modern engineers do is engage in some or all phases of conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating. The second point is evidenced by the widespread, consistent and organized reaction from industry in the last few decades. The third point is more subtle. In principle, it is possible to teach students the skills and atti- tudes of engineering while they work by themselves on engineering theory, but this may not be very effective. What could be a more natural way to edu- cate students in these skills than to set the education in the context of prod- uct and system development and deployment, that is, the very context in which students will use the skills? This observation seems so self-evident that it bears consideration as to why the engineering product, process, and system lifecycle is not currently the common context of engineering education. Quite simply, it is that engineer- ing schools are not, by and large, populated by engineer practitioners, but by engineering researchers. These researchers develop engineering science knowledge by conducting research with a reductionist approach that largely rewards the efforts of individuals. In contrast, in the desired near real-life engineering context, the focus is on producing engineering products and sys- tems by conducting development with an integrative approach that largely rewards team efforts. At the same time, this desired context must still empha- size a rigorous treatment of the engineering fundamentals. Consequently, what we must recognize is that the transformation of the education from the current to the desired context is one of cultural change. We must improve both the skills and attitudes of current engineering faculty by enhancing their collective faculty competence. Some would argue that such a transformation is unimaginable in a univer- sity setting. In fact, the current tension in engineering education in many countries is the result of just such a transformation. As recently as the 1950s, and more recently in some countries, university engineering faculty were distinguished practitioners of engineering. Education was based largely on practices and preparation for practice. The 1950s saw the beginning of the Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 15 2. Overview 15 engineering science revolution, and the hiring of a cadre of young engineering scientists. The 1960s might be called the golden era, in which students were educated by a mix of the older practice-based faculty and the younger engi- neering scientists. However, by the 1970s, as older practitioners retired, they were replaced by engineering scientists. On average, the culture and context of engineering education took a pronounced swing toward engineering science. Maintaining the fundamentals while strengthening the skills. The intended con- sequence of this change in context and culture that occurred in the latter half of the twentieth century was to place the education of engineering students on a more rigorous and scientific foundation, equipping them to address unknown future technical challenges. Nothing proposed here is intended to minimize the importance of this change, or the vast contributions that engi- neering science research has produced in the last half-century. However, the unintended consequence of this change was a shift in the culture of engineer- ing education that diminished the perceived value of many of the key skills and attitudes that had been the hallmark of engineering education up to that time. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that in much of the developed world, the late 1970s and 1980s became the period in which industry started to rec- ognize the change in the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of graduating stu- dents. Industry reacted in the 1980s with observations and expressions of concern, and when these did not bring results, with a more cohesive response in the 1990s, as previously discussed. This evolution of engineering faculty composition can also be traced to a notional representation of the way in which a balance was struck between the teaching of personal, interpersonal, and process skills, and product and sys- tem building skills; and the technical fundamentals. Figure 2.2 illustrates this evolution. Prior to 1950, the context of practice prevailed. By the 1960s, more balance was prevalent. By the 1980s, engineering science dominated with a strong emphasis on technical fundamentals. The trend is shown as a trade-off curve because, assuming that education is an information transferring activity, Pre- 1950s: Personal, Practice Interpersonal and System Building Skills 2000s: 1960s: CDIO Science & Practice 1980s: Science Disciplinary Knowledge FIGURE 2.2. EVOLUTION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 16 16 Rethinking Engineering Education limitations on bandwidth and time allow only a certain amount of content to be covered. This model forces questions such as “What must be removed to make room for this new material?” We assert that there are alternative educational models to that of information transfer that allow relief from this apparent conflict. We can therefore identify the second requirement for successful engineering education reform: The education emphasizes the technical fundamentals, while strengthening the learning of personal and interpersonal skills; and product, process, and system building skills. Engagement of key stakeholders. Engineering education has four key stake- holder groups: students, industry, university faculty, and society. To this point, we have considered industry as a major stakeholder of education. Industry is the ultimate customer for the students we graduate, but the immediate cus- tomers for the education are the students themselves. Students pass the con- ventional economic tests for the true customer, that is, they pay for the service of education (or, in some countries, society pays for them), and they are the entity to which the service of education is transferred. In their educational choices, students act as both consumers and investors. They exhibit investor behavior in that they think about the long-term personal and economic impact of a specific course of study. They exhibit consumer behavior if when faced with two options that have equal long-term benefit, they will opt for the more interesting, lower-effort, or enjoyable option. Students are the direct cus- tomers and beneficiaries of the educational service and the arbiters of con- sumer needs, but are often not sufficiently mature or informed in their opinions about the investor aspect of education. Industry, including program alumni working in industry, is informed about investments required for long-term benefit and is therefore a proxy for the investor interests of the students. University faculty are the developers and deliverers of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and they bring their own insights into both the investor and consumer needs of students. In addition to industry, society, through leg- islation and accreditation, sets requirements on engineering education, including degree requirements and emphasis on societal goals such as sus- tainable development. In some countries, the government pays students’ edu- cational fees. Thus, all four stakeholder groups have important views on educational goals. These factors lead to the third requirement for successful engineering education reform: The learning outcomes of students in a program should be set in a way that reflects the viewpoints of all key stakeholder groups: students, industry, university faculty, and society. Attracting and retaining qualified students. Why should industry and engineer- ing educators care about the consumer and investor behaviors of students? In many developed and developing nations, there is a shortage of students in engineering, science, and technology. Students are not attracted to study these Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 17 2. Overview 17 fields at university; they are not retained in the programs; or, upon graduation, they move to different fields. All other factors being equal, it would be desir- able to reform engineering education so that it was more attractive to students. Therefore, the fourth requirement for a successful engineering education reform is: Curriculum and pedagogy are revised to make engineering education more likely to attract, retain, and graduate qualified students into the profession, without compromise to quality or content. Program-level scope of the reform effort. Many dedicated engineering edu- cators have responded to the needs for reform of engineering education, and many in industry, government, and accrediting bodies have tried to help. These efforts can be characterized by their nature and scale: 1) small scale at the level of a course or module; 2) program scale at the level of a degree program, 3) consortia of universities or programs working together; and, 4) research programs on education. In any program, there are faculty who are exceptionally dedicated to teach- ing. Universities and funding sources often invest resources in these faculty members to develop new pedagogical approaches based on practice and new content. These faculty members often receive departmental and university awards for teaching and are revered by their students. They are important sources of new ideas and form a pool of early adopters in systemic reform efforts. However, an individual faculty member cannot easily influence an entire program. The reform of engineering education must be addressed on a department or degree program level at the very least. In this way, common expectations for faculty performance and student responsibility for learning can be set and maintained. The educational program must not be viewed as a set of elements, but as a system in which each element carries both individ- ual and collective learning objects for the program. Thus, the fifth require- ment for success in engineering education reform: Any successful attempt at engineering education reform includes most, or all, of the learning experiences from which a student benefits, and, therefore, must be set and maintained at a program or department level. Collaboration for engineering education reform. A number of university con- sortia around the world are working on engineering education reform. (See Table 2.1) For example, the IDEA League is an international consortium of four major research universities in London, Delft, Aachen, and Zürich. There are many advantages to working with university consortia when they are prop- erly structured—the principal being acceleration of effort. Consider, for exam- ple, a reasonable timeline for systemic education reform: in Year 1, an opportunity for improvement is identified, and an approach developed; in Year 2, the approach is tested; in Year 3, it is refined and re-tested; and, in Year 4, it is arguably finalized. Now consider the tasks associated with this reform: a) the curriculum—what will be taught and where; b) the pedagogical  Ch02.qxd 18 23/4/07 TABLE 2.1. EXAMPLES OF UNIVERSITY CONSORTIA FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION REFORM Group name/location Affiliated institutions Focus and projects 4:06 PM The IDEA League Imperial College London Exchange of ideas and expertise in education and research in science http://www.idealeague.org TU Delft and technology RWTH Aachen ETH Zürich Center for the Advancement of Engineering Colorado School of Mines Collaboration focused on scholarship on learning engineering, Page 18 Education (CAEE) Howard University teaching engineering, and engineering education. Share http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee Stanford University publications, presentations, and workshops. University of Minnesota University of Washington Rethinking Engineering Education Center for the Integration of Research, University of Wisconsin Development of a national faculty in science, technology, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL) Michigan State University engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Graduate-through-faculty http://cirtl.wceruw.org Pennsylvania State University development founded on teaching-as-research concepts implemented within learning communities. National Center for Engineering and University of Georgia One of 17 NSF-funded Centers for Learning and Teaching. Technology Education (NCETE) University of Illinois Community of researchers in engineering and technology http://www.ncete.org University of Minnesota education.Goal is to infuse engineering skills into K-12 schools. Utah State University VaNTH Center for Bioengineering Educational Vanderbuilt University Exchange of research in bioengineering, learning science, learning Technologies Northwestern University technology, and assessment. http://www.vanth.org University of Texas Harvard-MIT Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 19 2. Overview 19 component—how the curriculum will be taught; c) the evaluation component— how the intended outcomes will be measured and improved; and d) workspace and logistics—the learning environment. The advantages of a consortium are parallel development and shared tasks. As a team, collaborating universities identify common opportunities for improvement, implement several different approaches simultaneously, and compare results based on common evaluation tools. This collaboration greatly accelerates reform efforts. It also allows the sharing of resources and experience, which reduces the cost of transition and increases the likelihood of success. These benefits can be summarized as a sixth requirement for successful educational reform: Engineering education reform is undertaken by a consortium of programs or departments to allow parallel development and the sharing of resources. Founded on best-practice educational approaches. Likewise, there are a number of engineering education reform efforts around the world that are research based, that is, they seek to identify best practice and to develop new approaches based on learning theory. For example, the National Academy of Engineering in the United States coordinates a number of research centers and projects through its Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE). Engineering faculty are seldom aware of educational theories and practices that could help them accelerate reform efforts. Many of these research-based initiatives have been successful at bringing together inter- ested parties from both engineering and education to build stronger teams. Some research centers focus on one specific technical discipline, for example, biomedical engineering. Others are more broadly applicable. This leads to the seventh requirement for successful engineering education reform: Engineering education reform is built on a well-informed adoption of best prac- tice and understanding of models of learning that are broadly applicable to engineering disciplines. Not demanding of significant new resources. All academic programs exist within an environment of limited resources. This is true across the range of institu- tions, including polytechnical and research intensive universities. When enter- ing into a program of education reform, we must differentiate between resources needed in the transition and resources in steady state. It is inevitable that in the reform transition, some extra resources, supplied by the teaching staff themselves or preferably by the university, will be needed. Change is not without cost. However, in steady state, we cannot expect more resources, and, therefore, must find new approaches that largely retask existing resources— faculty time, student time, space, etc. This leads to the eighth and final require- ment for successful engineering education reform: Engineering education reform is based on retasking existing resources during ongoing operation. The CDIO Initiative was designed and developed to meet these eight requirements. Ch02.qxd 23/4/07 4:06 PM Page 20 20 Rethinking Engineering Education THE CDIO INITIATIVE The CDIO Initiative is an approach to the contemporary reform of engi- neering education. It strives to meet the eight requirements for successful engineering education reform, as defined in the previous section of this chap- ter. It is founded on three key ideas: a set of goals, a vision or concept for engineering education, and a pedagogical foundation that ensures that the vision is realized. These three key ideas are presented in sequence in this section. The goals The CDIO Initiative has three overall goals: To educate students who are able to: 1. Master a deeper working knowledge of technical fundamentals 2. Lead in the creation and operation of new products, processes, and systems 3. Understand the importance and strategic impact of research and technologi- cal development on society For the reasons discussed above, we believe