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!