Ready to Engineer
Conceive - Design - Implement - Operate
An innovative framework for engineering education
Chalmers Institute of Technology - Linköping University - Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Queen’s University,
Ontario - Queen’s University, Belfast - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm - Technical University of Denmark United States Naval Academy - University of Liverpool - University of Pretoria
“What is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery”
Wilbur Wright, 1902
CENTRAL QUESTIONS FOR
ENGINEERING EDUCATION
• What is the full set of knowledge, skills and attitudes
that a student should possess as they graduate from
university? At what level of proficiency?
• In addition to the traditional engineering
disciplinary knowledge
• Can we do better at assuring that students learn these
skills?
• Within the available student and faculty time,
funding and other resources
We are all working on these questions, and
can learn much from each other
THE NEED
Desired Attributes of an
Engineering Graduate
Underlying Need
• Understanding of fundamentals
Educate students who:
• Understanding of design and
manufacturing process
•
Understand how to conceivedesign-implement-operate
• Possess a multi-disciplinary
system perspective
•
Complex value-added
engineering systems
• Good communication skills
•
In a modern team-based
engineering environment
• High ethical standards, etc.
We have adopted CDIO as the engineering context of our education
THE CHALLENGE TRANSFORM THE CULTURE
•
•
•
•
CURRENT
Engineering Science
R&D Context
Reductionist
Individual
•
•
•
•
DESIRED
Engineering
Product Context
Integrative
Team
... but still based on a rigorous treatment of
engineering fundamentals
EVOLUTION OF
ENGINEERING EDUCATION
•
Prior to the 1950s, education was based on practice,
taught by distinguished former practitioners
•
1950s saw the introduction of engineering science, and
hiring of a cadre of young engineering scientists
•
1960s was the golden era of a balance between the old
practitioners and the young engineering scientists
•
In the 1980s, the engineering scientists aged — they
replaced the practitioners with younger scientists, and
the trend towards a scientific based education intensified
•
In the 1990s, industry recognized a growing gap between
the skills of graduating students and those needed for
engineering practice
DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING
EDUCATION
Personal,
Interpersonal
and System
Building
Pre-1950s:
Practice
2000:
CDIO
1960s:
Science &
practice
1980s:
Science
Disciplinary
Knowledge
Engineers need both dimensions, and we need to
develop education that delivers both
GOALS OF CDIO
• To educate students to master a deeper working
knowledge of the technical fundamentals
• To educate engineers to lead in the creation and
operation of new products and systems
• To educate future researchers to understand the
importance and strategic value of their work
VISION
We envision an education that stresses the fundamentals, set
in the context of Conceiving – Designing – Implementing –
Operating systems and products:
•
A curriculum organised around mutually supporting
disciplines, but with CDIO activities highly interwoven
•
Rich with student design-build projects
•
Featuring active and experiential learning
•
Set in both the classroom and a modern learning
laboratory/workspace
•
Constantly improved through robust
assessment/evaluation process.
PEDAGOGIC LOGIC
• Most engineers are “concrete operational learners”
Manipulate objects to understand abstractions
• Students arrive at university lacking personal experience
Lack foundation for “formal operational thought”
• Must provide authentic activities to allow mapping of new
knowledge - alternative is rote or “pattern matching”
• Using CDIO as authentic activity achieves two goals -Provides activities to learn fundamentals
Provides education in the creation and operation of
systems
APPROACH
Our approach is to design (in the engineering sense) an
improved educational model and implementable resources.
•
Analyze needs, and set a clear, complete and consistent set
of goals
•
Design and prototype in parallel programs with partner
universities
•
Compare results,evaluate, iterate and develop improved
models and materials
•
Create as open source of resources, not a prescription
NEED TO GOALS
•
•
•
•
Educate students who:
Process
Understand how to conceivedesign-implement-operate
Product
Complex value-added
engineering systems
In a modern team-based
1. Technical
engineering environment
And are mature and thoughtful
individuals
4. CDIO
2. Personal
3. Interpersonal
Team
Self
The CDIO Syllabus - a comprehensive statement of detailed
Goals for an Engineering Education
WHAT IS THE SET OF SKILLS?
•
Technical Knowledge & Reasoning:
Knowledge of underlying sciences
Core engineering fundamental knowledge
Advanced engineering fundamental knowledge
•
Personal and Professional Skills & Attributes
Engineering reasoning and problem solving
Experimentation and knowledge discovery
System thinking
Personal skills and attributes
Professional skills and attributes
•
Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork & Communication
Multi-disciplinary teamwork
Communications
Communication in a foreign language
•
Conceiving, Designing, Implementing & Operating Systems in the
Enterprise & Societal Context
External and societal context
Enterprise and business context
Conceiving and engineering systems
Designing
CDIO Syllabus contains
Implementing
2-3 more layers of detail
Operating
1
T E CH N IC AL K N OWL E DGE A N D RE A SON IN G
1.1. K N OWL E DGE O F UND E RL Y IN G
S C IE NC E S
1.2. CO R E EN G IN EE R IN G FUN D AM E NT A L
K N OWL E DGE
1.3. A D VA N CED E N G INE E R ING
F U ND A MEN T AL K NOW LEDG E
2
P E RSO N AL A N D PR O FE S S IONA L SK IL L S
A N D AT T R IBU T ES
2.1. E N G INEE R IN G RE A SON IN G A ND
P R OB LEM SO LV ING
2.1.1. P ro bl em Id en tifi c at ion a nd F orm u la ti o n
2.1.2. M ode lin g
2.1.3. E stim at ion a nd Q ua litative A na ly sis
2.1.4. A na ly sis W ith Un ce rt a in ty
2.1.5. S ol u tion a nd R ec om m e nd ation
2.2. E X PE R IM E NT A T ION A N D KN O WLE D GE
D IS C OVE R Y
2.2.1. H yp othe sis F orm ul a tion
2.2.2. S urve y o f P rint a nd E lec tron ic
L ite ra tu re
2.2.3. E xp erim en ta l I nq ui ry
2.2.4. H yp othe sis T es t, a nd D ef en se
2.3. S Y ST E M TH IN K IN G
2.3.1. T hi n king H olistica lly
2.3.2. Em er ge nc e an d In terac ti o ns in
S ys te m s
2.3.3. P ri o ri tiza ti on a nd F oc us
2.3.4. T ra de offs , Jud gm en t an d B a la nc e in
R es olut ion
2.4. P E RSO N AL S K ILL S A ND A T T IT U DES
2.4.1. In itiat ive a nd W illingn es s to T a ke
R isk s
2.4.2. P erse ve ra nc e an d Fl e xibi lity
2.4.3. C re at ive T hi nk ing
2.4.4. C ri tica l Th ink in g
2.4.5. A w a re nes s o f On eÕ
s Pe rs on al
K now ledg e, S k ill s , an d A ttit u des
2.4.6. C urios ity a nd L ife lo ng L ea rn in g
2.4.7. T im e an d R e so urce Ma na gem en t
2.5. P R OF E SS ION A L S K ILLS A N D
A T T IT U DES
2.5.1. P ro fe s sion al E th ics , I n te grity ,
R es pon sib ili ty a n d A c co un ta bilit y
2.5.2. P ro fe s sion al B eh av io r
2.5.3. P ro ac ti v el y P la nn in g fo r O ne Õ
s C aree r
2.5.4. S ta yi n g C u rren t on W orld of E ng inee r
3
INT E RP E RSO N AL S K IL L S : T E AMWO R K AN D
CO M MUN IC A T ION
3.1. T E AMW O RK
3.1.1. F orm ing E ff e ctive T eam s
3.1.2. T eam O pe ra ti o n
3.1.3. T eam G ro w th an d Ev ol u ti on
3.1.4. L ea de rs hip
3.1.5. T ec hn ic al T e am ing
3.2. CO M MUN IC A T ION
3.2.1. C om m u ni c ation S trat eg y
3.2.2. C om m u ni c ation S truc tu re
3.2.3. W ri tte n Com m un ica ti on
3.2.4. E lec tron ic/M ul tim ed ia C om m un ic ation
3.2.5. G ra ph ic al C om m un ica tion
3.2.6. O ra l P re se ntation a nd In te rp erso na l
C om m u ni c ation
CDIO SYLLABUS
3.3.
4
• Syllabus at 3rd
level
• One or two more
levels are detailed
• Rational
• Comprehensive
• Peer reviewed
• Basis for design
and assessment
CO M MUN IC A T ION I N FO R E IGN
L A NG U AGE S
3.3.1. E ng lis h
3.3.2. L an gu age s w ithi n t he E urop ea n U n io n
3.3.3. L an gu age s ou ts ide th e E u ro pea n
U nion
CO N CE IV IN G , D E S IGN ING , I MP L EME N T ING
A N D OPE R AT IN G S YS T EM S IN T H E
E N TE R PR IS E A ND SO C IE TA L CON T EX T
4.1. E X TE R NA L A ND S O C IET A L CON T E X T
4.1.1. R oles and R es po ns ib ili ty o f E n gine ers
4.1.2. T he Im p ac t o f En gine ering o n S o ciety
4.1.3. S oc ie ty Õs Re gu la ti o n of E n gine erin g
4.1.4. T he H istorica l an d Cu ltu ra l Co nt e xt
4.1.5. C on tem po ra ry Is su es a nd V al ue s
4.1.6. D ev elop in g a G lo ba l Pe rs pe ctive
4.2. E N TE R PR IS E A ND BU SI NES S C ON T EX T
4.2.1. A pp re ci a ting D iff e ren t E nterpr ise
C ultu res
4.2.2. E nter p rise S tr a te gy , Go al s a nd
P lann ing
4.2.3. T ec hn ic al E n tr ep re ne ursh ip
4.2.4. Wo rk ing S uc ce ss fu lly i n O rg an iz at ion s
4.3. CO N CE IV IN G A ND E N G INEE R IN G
S Y ST E MS
4.3.1. S etti n g Sy stem G oa ls a nd
R eq uire m en ts
4.3.2. D efining F un ction , C o nc ep t an d
A rc hi tec tu re
4.3.3. M ode lin g o f S y stem a nd E nsu ri n g
G oa ls C an B e M e t
4.3.4. D ev elopm en t P ro je ct M an ag em e nt
4.4. D E S IGN ING
4.4.1. T he D es ig n P roc es s
4.4.2. T he D es ig n P roc es s Ph as in g an d
A pp ro ac he s
4.4.3. U til iza ti o n of K no w led ge in De sig n
4.4.4. D isc ip lin ary De sign
4.4.5. M ulti d isc ip lin ary De sign
4.4.6. M ulti- ob jec ti v e D es ign
4.5. IMP LEME N T ING
4.5.1. D es ig ni ng th e Im pl em en ta ti on P roc es s
4.5.2. H ardw are M an ufac tu rin g P ro ces s
4.5.3. S oftw ar e I m p lem en ti n g P roc es s
4.5.4. H ardw are S o ft wa re In te grat ion
4.5.5. T es t, V e ri fica ti on , V alida ti on a nd
C ertif ica ti o n
4.5.6. Im p lem e ntation Ma na gem en t
4.6. O P ERA TI NG
4.6.1. D es ig ni ng and O pt im izi ng O pe ra ti o ns
4.6.2. T ra ining a nd O pe ra ti o ns
4.6.3. S up po rting t he S ys te m Li fec yc le
4.6.4. S ys te m Im prov em e nt and E vo lution
4.6.5. D ispo sa l a nd L ife -E nd I ss ue s
4.6.6. O pe ra ti o ns Ma na gem en t
SYLLABUS LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY
• 6 groups surveyed: 1st and 4th year students, alumni 25
years old, alumni 35 years old, faculty, leaders of
industry
• Question: For each attribute, please indicate which of
the five levels of proficiency you desire in a graduating
engineering student:
–
–
–
–
–
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
2.
5
P
4.
4.
4.
6
pe
ra
g
g
t in
t in
ss
g
xt
in
ce
iv
te
en
ro
ce
on
em
O
pl
P
on
n
C
ig
Im
es
5
D
3
C
n
xt
io
te
at
or
k
es
ng
es
w
ut
on
ic
lC
un
s
ta
m
ib
ki
n
n
t io
ut
am
ttr
Te
es
ie
in
4.
us
oc
om
1
lA
ib
in
ta
so
4.5
4
B
S
C
3.
na
ttr
Th
en
ea
5
4.
2
1
2
io
s
lA
m
na
te
so
ss
er
3.
fe
P
4.
ro
4
ys
R
Exposure
im
g
Participate
S
er
r in
xp
ee
E
in
Understand
3
2
ng
2.
E
Skilled
Practice
2.
1
Innovate
2.
2.
AT WHAT LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY ?
Proficiency expectations
at MIT Aero/Astro
4
3.5
3
Faculty
Industry
Y. Alum
2.5
O. Alum
2
1.5
1
REMARKABLE AGREEMENT!
CAN WE DO BETTER?
We can if we retask:
•
•
•
•
•
Curriculum
Laboratories and workspaces
Teaching resources
Faculty competence
Assessment
And evolve to a model in which these resources are better
employed to promote student learning
RETASKING CURRICULAR ASSETS
How can we create:
• Mutually-supportive disciplinary subjects integrating
personal, professional and product/system building
skills?
• An introductory course that provides a framework for
engineering education?
INTEGRATED SKILLS
CDIO SyllabusTopic
I
2.1 Engineering reasoning and problem solving
2.2 Experimenting and knowledge discovery.
2.3 System thinking
.
2.4 Personal skills and attributes
3.2 Communications
U
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
2.5 Professional skills and attributes
3.1 Teamwork
x
T
x
.
x
.
x
.
3.3 Communication in foreign languages
x
.
x
INTRO SUBJECT - THE FRAMEWORK
• To motivate students to study
engineering
• To provide a set of personal
experiences which will allow early
fundamentals to be more deeply
understood
Capstone
• To provide early exposure to
system building
• To teach some early and essential
skills (e.g., teamwork)
Sciences
Disciplines
Intro
RETASKING LABS AND WORKSPACES
How can we:
• Insure that students participate in repeated design-build
experiences?
• Develop workspaces that support hands-on learning of
product/system building, disciplinary knowledge,
knowledge discovery, social learning?
WORKSPACE MODES OF LEARNING
Reinforcing Disciplinary
Knowledge
Knowledge Discovery
Learning Lab
System Building
Community Building
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
Hangaren
DESIGN-BUILD EXPERIENCES
Design build experiences:
• Provide authentic activities onto which more abstract learning can be
mapped
• Provide the natural context in which to teach many CDIO syllabus
skills (teamwork, communications, designing, implementing)
• Reinforce by application
previously learned abstract
knowledge, to deepen
comprehension
DTU Design & Innovation
Lightweight Shelter Project
RETASKING TEACHING RESOURCES
How can we:
• Provide integrated experiences supporting deep and
conceptual learning of technical knowledge, as well as
personal, interpersonal and product/system building
skills?
• Employ teaching and learning methods based on active
experiential learning methods?
INTEGRATED LEARNING EXPERIENCES
• In disciplinary subjects, it is possible to construct learning exercises that
integrate both technical learning and learning of CDIO Syllabus skills
(problem solving, system thinking, experimentation, etc.)
• It is important for students to see their role models — the engineering
faculty — involved with issues such as ethics, communication,
enterprise and societal issues.
ACTIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL
TEACHING/LEARNING
• Active learning techniques stress students' active
involvement in their own learning; rather than simply
passively listening
• Project-based and design-build courses epitomize active
learning
• Lecture-based courses can include one or several active
learning strategies, such as muddiest-point-in-the-lecture
cards, concept questions, and turn-to-your-partner
discussions.
CONCEPT QUESTIONS
A black box is sitting over a hole in a table. It is isolated in every way
from its surroundings with the exception of a very thin thread which is
connected to a weight.
You observe the weight slowly moving upwards towards the box.
(Original problem due to Levenspiel, 1996)
1) This situation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
2) Heat must be transferred down the thread
3) The First Law is satisfied, the energy in the box is increasing
4) The First Law is satisfied, the energy in the box is decreasing
5) The First Law is satisfied, the energy in the box is constant
REAL-TIME PRS RESPONSE
Responses from sophomores
RETASKING FACULTY COMPETENCE
How can we enhance faculty competence:
• In personal, interpersonal and product/system building
skills?
• In active and experiential teaching and learning, and in
assessment?
FACULTY COMPETENCE IN SKILLS
Web-based Instructor Resource Modules
FACULTY COMPETENCE IN LEARNING
Linköping University faculty workshop: Teaching
Conceptual Understanding
RETASKING ASSESSMENT ASSETS
How can we create:
• Assessment of student learning that measures student
knowledge and skills in personal, interpersonal and
system building, as well as traditional disciplinary
knowledge?
• Evaluate programs against the rigorous goals of the
CDIO initiative?
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING
• CDIO skills specified as course learning objectives
• Assessment methods matched to course learning
objectives
• Creation of tools to assess personal, interpersonal, and
product and system-building skills, for example, oral
presentations and team collaboration
• Reflection on learning achievement through journals and
portfolios
• Timely feedback to students so they can improve their
learning
THE CDIO STANDARDS
1. CDIO as Context*
Adoption of the principle that product and system
lifecycle development and deployment are the context
for engineering education
2. CDIO Syllabus Outcomes*
Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal,
interpersonal, and product 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 and system
building skills
4. Introduction to Engineering
An introductory course that provides the framework for
engineering practice in product and system building,
and introduces essential personal and interpersonal
skills
5. Design-Build Experiences*
A curriculum that includes two or more design-build
experiences, including one at a basic level and one at
an advanced level
6. CDIO Workspaces
Workspaces and laboratories that support and
encourage hands-on learning of product 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 product and system
building skills
8. Active Learning
Teaching and learning based on active experiential
learning methods
9. Enhancement of Faculty CDIO Skills*
Actions that enhance faculty competence in personal,
interpersonal, and product and system building skills
10. Enhancement of Faculty Teaching Skills
Actions that enhance faculty competence in providing
integrated learning experiences, in using active
experiential learning methods, and in assessing student
learning
11. CDIO Skills Assessment*
Assessment of student learning in personal,
interpersonal, and product and system building skills,
as well as in disciplinary knowledge
12. CDIO 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
*essential
CHANGE PROCESS
• Understanding of need, and commitment
• Leadership from the top
• Nourish early adopters
• Quick successes
• Moving off assumptions
• Involvement and ownership
• Appeal to professionalism
• Students as agents of change
• Adequate resources
• Faculty learning culture
• Faculty recognition and incentives
1. Principle that
CDIO is the
Context*
Existing
curriculum
Existing learning
spaces
Existing faculty
T&L competence
Existing assessment
& evaluation
Curriculum
benchmarking
Lab/workshop
space survey
Faculty survey on
teaching, learning
and assessment
Survey of
assessment and
program evaluation
Design curricular
assignment of
CDIO topics
Design workshops
and
usage mode
Identifying
opportunities to
improve T&L
Design assessment &
evaluation framework
2. CDIO Syllabus
survey and
learning objectives*
Identify best
practice and possible
innovation
9. Enhance faculty
competence in personal, interpersonal and
system building*
3. Curricular
Design*
6. Workshop
development
4. Introductory 5. Design-build
course
Courses*
Program operation and
student learning
10. Enhance faculty competence in
teaching and learning,
and in assessment
7. Authentic
learning
experiences*
12. Program
evaluation
8. Active
learning
11. Student
assessment*
CDIO INITIATIVE OUTCOMES
•
Create a model, a change process and open source on-line
library of education materials that facilitate easy adaptation:
– Start up support and guidance
– Examples and synthetic evaluations in Starter Kits
– Workshops to interest and educate the faculty
– An evolving community for interaction, development and ongoing
contributions
•
Have programmatic impact at many universities
•
Significantly increase the number of students worldwide who
can conceive-design-implement-operate new products and
systems
LONG-TERM VISION
The CDIO Initiative has:
•
Created a model, a change process and library of
education materials that facilitate easy adoption of the
CDIO programs
•
Is having programmatic impact at a growing number of
universities around the world
•
Is increasing the number of students worldwide who can
conceive-design-implement-operate new products and
systems
INVITATION
• The model is still a postulate
• Many universities are developing important elements of this
fabric — learning materials, teaching and learning
approaches, assessment tools, views of space
• CDIO will soon become a Web-based open architecture to
which which all can contribute and draw from
• We invite you to join as a collaborator
CDIO DISSEMINATION APPROACHES
• Web
• Workshops
– www.cdio.org
– Collaborators’ sites
• Site visits
• Published papers
– School
– Industry
• Conference
presentations
• Hard-copy/CD info
packages
• WOM (word-of-mouth)
• Book
• Media coverage
• Handbooks (DIY guide
series)
– Professional publications
• Academic
• Industry
– General media
– “So You Want to Build a Learning
Laboratory”
– “So You Want to Conduct a
Stakeholder Survey”
CDIO DISSEMINATION
ORIGINAL COLLABORATORS
Chalmers
EUROPE
KTH
Linköping
N. AMERICA
MIT
REST OF WORLD
NEW COLLABORATORS
Denmark Tech. U.
Queen’s U., Belfast
U. Liverpool
US Naval Academy
Queen’s U. Ontario
U. Pretoria
Singapore Poly.
(pending)
CDIO INITIATIVE STRUCTURE
CDIO Council
Chalmers, Linköping, Queen’s2, USNA, KTH, MIT, DTU, U. Pretoria
Africa Regional
Centre
U. Pretoria
N. American
Regional
Center
European
Regional
Center
MIT applying
Regional Collaborator
U. Liverpool
Meetings
• Regular Regional Meetings
• Council Meetings
• CDIO Annual Conference
Other regional
centers
LEARN MORE ABOUT CDIO
Visit www.cdio.org!
Descargar

No Slide Title