Introductory Workshop THE CDIO APPROACH TO ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Introductory Workshop THE CDIO APPROACH TO ENGINEERING EDUCATION

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES Explain the CDIO approach to engineering education Determine ways in which the CDIO approach may be adapted to your own programs Share your ideas and experiences of engineering education reform

PLAN FOR TODAY’S WORKSHOP MORNING AFTERNOON WHY HOW INTEGRATED CURRICULUM CDIO AS THE CONTEXT THE CDIO SYLLABUS WHAT DESIGNIMPLEMENT EXPERIENCES LEARNING PROGRAM WORKSPACES INTRO TO ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT FACULTY COMPETENCE HOW WELL EVALUATION

SCHEDULE FRIDAY 09: 45 - 10: 30 1. CDIO Essentials I – Ready to Engineer 10: 30 - 11: 30 2. CDIO Essentials II – Teaching & Learning 11: 30 - 12: 00 BREAK 12: 00 - 13: 00 Regional Meeting 13: 00 - 14: 00 Networking Lunch 14: 00 - 14: 50 3. CDIO for Program and Faculty Development 14: 50 - 16: 00 4. CDIO and Continuous Improvement 16: 00 - 17: 30 Workgroup Reports and Tasking 17: 30 - 18: 00 Concluding Remarks

INTRODUCTIONS • • Name University Department or Program Principal role in the program, e. g, department head, faculty, instructional support staff • Reason(s) you are participating in this workshop

Introductory Workshop Part 1: READY TO ENGINEER: Professor Ron J. Hugo University of Calgary, Canada hugo@ucalgary. ca

PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES Explain CDIO as the context for engineering education Describe the content and structure of the CDIO Syllabus v 2. 0 Learn how to engage stakeholders in the validation of program objectives

A Brief History of Engineering Education

British Engineering in 1855 -6

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

British Engineering in 1855 -6 TABLE exhibiting the strongest Forms and best Proportions of riveted Joints, as deduced from the Experiments and actual Practice.

European Engineering Education (late 1800’s) The British, more empirically oriented, pioneered mechanical engineering and autonomous professional societies. The French, more rationalistic oriented, emphasis on mathematics and developed university engineering education. Technical training shifted from apprenticeship to university education. The Russian Review, Jul 1956

Number of Engineering Student (US) (1900 -1930) Engineers were being educated, but who taught them?

Number of Engineering Ph. D’s (1920 -1930) Few Ph. D’s, Engineering Educators were mainly Engineering Practitioners.

Engineering Education Pendulum (1920 -1930) Empirical / Practice Based Education Engineering. Science Based Education Strong British Influence / Engineering Practitioners as Educators

Engineering Education Influencers (1920 – 1945) Stephen Timoshenko Theodore von Kármán St. Petersburg (1897 -1901) University of Göttingen (1905 -1906) Westinghouse (1923 -1927) U of Michigan (1927 -1936) Stanford (1936 -1950’s) Budapest University (1898 -1902) University of Göttingen (1902 -1908) Caltech - GALCIT (1930 -1944) Concerned over the strong empirical nature of Engineering Education in N. A.

Engineering Education Pendulum (1930 -1945) Empirical / Practice Based Education Engineering. Science Based Education European born and educated immigrants like Timoshenko and von Kármán stress the need for more mathematical-physics integration and the development of graduate programs.

Number of Engineering Ph. D’s (1930 -1945) Graduate programs start to develop under influence of European immigrants.

ACCELERATED CHANGE – STEP 1 TRINITY SITE – JULY 16, 1945 Robert Oppenheimer – Berkeley Physicist Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves “Physicists win World War II” Image Sources: wikipedia. org

Number of Engineering Ph. D’s (1945 -1955) Post WWII: government funding enables “Engineering Science Faculty” to first appear.

Change Process Accelerated – Step 2 (1957 - 1975) Sputnik Wernher von Braun and Saturn V Apollo Program “The Great Space Race”

Number of Engineering Ph. D’s (1955 -1975) The “Great Space Race”: Engineering Science Faculty start to exceed Engineering Practitioner Faculty.

Engineering Education Pendulum (1975 -1990) Empirical / Practice Based Education Engineering. Science Based Education Manhattan Project, Radar Development, Sputnik, Apollo Program

WHAT DO ENGINEERS DO? TWO OPPOSING VIEWS “To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. ” - Thomas Alva Edison (1847 -1931) “Scientists investigate that which already is. Engineers create that which has never been. ” - Theodore von Kármán (1881 -1963)

EVOLUTION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Innovation, Implementation, Collaboration Skills, Practice Pre-1950 s: Practice 1960 s: Science & practice 1980 s: Science Analytical Skills, Disciplinary Knowledge, Theory

INDUSTRY REACTION: WE HAVE A PROBLEM! Growing concerns – 1980 - 1995: • 1978 – Finiston Report in the UK • 1984 - Bernard M. Gordon “What is an Engineer? ” – • “society … around the world … is not entirely pleased with the current state of general [engineering] education. ” • 1995 – Boeing Company “Desired Attributes of an Engineer”

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

GOVERNMENT EXPECTATIONS The application of “the theory and principles of science and mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical problems … the link between perceived social needs and commercial applications” - U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007

THE MAIN GOALS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION To educate students who are able to: • Master a deeper working knowledge of the technical fundamentals • Lead in the creation and operation of new products, processes, and systems • Understand the importance and strategic impact of research and technological development on society Think like von Karman Perform like Edison “Ready to Engineer”

EVOLUTION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Innovation, Implementation, Collaboration Skills, Practice Pre-1950 s: Practice 2000: CDIO 1960 s: Science & practice 1980 s: Science We are not where we want to be – engineering education needs reform! Analytical Skills, Disciplinary Knowledge, Theory

CENTRAL QUESTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION DESIGNERS • What is the professional role and practical context of the profession(al)? (need) • What knowledge, skills and attitudes should students possess as they graduate from our programs? (program learning outcomes) • How can we do better at ensuring that students learn these skills? (curriculum, teaching, learning, workspaces, assessment) Massachusetts Institute of Technology

THE LEARNING CONTEXT FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE • A focus on the needs of customers, clients, and patients • Delivery of products, processes, and services • Incorporation of inventions and new technologies • Stewardship of the environment • A focus on solutions, not disciplines • Working with others and providing leadership in technical endeavors • Communicating effectively • Working efficiently, within resources, and/or profitably

THE PROFESSIONAL ROLE(S) OF ENGINEERS “Engineers Conceive, Design, Implement, and Operate Complex products and systems in a modern team-based Engineering environment. ” By Константин Сергеевич… By Dmitriy Pichugin

CONTEXT FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION: THE C-D-I-O PROCESS Lifecycle of a product, process, or system: Conceive: customer needs, technology, enterprise strategy, regulations; and conceptual, technical, and business plans Design: plans, drawings, and algorithms that describe what will be implemented Implement: transformation of the design into the product, process, or system, including manufacturing, coding, testing and validation Operate: the implemented product or process delivering the intended value, including maintaining, evolving and retiring the system Duke University

BENEFITS OF LEARNING IN CONTEXT Learning in the context of professional practice: • Increases retention of new knowledge and skills • Interconnects concepts and knowledge that build on each other • Communicates the rationale and relevance of what students are learning • Enables students to build their own frameworks for learning Danmarks Tekniske Universitet

BEST PRACTICE – STANDARD 1 CDIO Standard 1 -- The Context Adoption of the principle that product, process, and system lifecycle development and deployment -- Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and Operating -- are the context for engineering education It’s what engineers do! • Provides the framework for teaching skills • Allows deeper learning of the fundamentals • Helps to attract, motivate, and retain students •

THE VISION An education that stresses disciplinary knowledge set in the context of Conceiving-Designing-Implementing. Operating products, processes, and systems • A curriculum that is centered on students, multidisciplinary, and based on specified learning outcomes • Featuring active and experiential learning, including a variety of project-based learning experiences • Set in both classrooms and modern learning laboratories and workspaces • Constantly improved through robust assessment and evaluation processes

THE ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENGINEER: PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES What is the full set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that a student should possess as they graduate from a university? • At what level of proficiency? • Beyond traditional engineering disciplinary knowledge. The CDIO Syllabus (First Level of Detail) 4. CDIO – Conceiving, Designing, Implementing, and Operating in Enterprise / Societal Context 1. Technical Knowledge and Reasoning 2. Personal and Professional Skills and Attributes UNESCO’s Four Pillars of Education - Learning to know (1) Learning to be (2) Learning to live together (3) Learning to do (4) 3. Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork and Communication

THE CDIO SYLLABUS • Comprehensive — all relevant primary source material • • • correlated and included Prioritized by stakeholders — extensive survey of stakeholders to determine priority and level of accomplishment Reviewed by peers — experts in each field reviewed materials and correlated with field-specific primary source material Appropriate — filtered to those aspects appropriate to university teaching and learning Expressed as learning objectives or competency statements in an appropriate taxonomy Basis for rigorous curriculum design and assessment processes

CDIO SYLLABUS – 3 RD LEVEL OF DETAIL (x. xx)

ACTIVITY: EXPECTED PROFICIENCY Rate your own proficiency of each CDIO learning outcome at the x. x level (2. 1, 2. 2, 2. 3, …). Use: q the condensed version of the CDIO Syllabus q the five levels of proficiency: 1. To have experienced or been exposed to 2. To be able to participate in and contribute to 3. To be able to understand explain 4. To be skilled in the practice or implementation of 5. To be able to lead or innovate in

CDIO SYLLABUS – 4 th LEVEL OF DETAIL (x. xx) + Bloom’s Verbs with Examples 2. 0 PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND ATTRIBUTES 2. 1 ANALYTICAL REASONING AND PROBLEM SOLVING 2. 1. 1 Problem Identification and Formulation Evaluate data and symptoms Analyze assumptions and sources of bias Examine issue prioritization in context of overall goals Formulate a plan of attack (incorporating model, analytical and numerical solutions, qualitative analysis, experimentation and consideration of uncertainty) 2. 1. 2 Modeling Employ assumptions to simplify complex systems and environment Choose and apply conceptual and qualitative models Choose and apply quantitative models and simulations 2. 1. 3 Estimation and Qualitative Analysis Estimate orders of magnitude, bounds, and trends Analyze tests for consistency and errors (limits, units, etc. ) Demonstrate the generalization of analytical solutions

VALIDATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS Stakeholders are individuals or groups who share an interest, and have an investment, in graduates of a particular program. They benefit from the program’s success, and hold programs accountable for results. Methods to get stakeholder input and support • Interviews • Focus-group discussions • Surveys • Peer review • Workshops

VALIDATION OF CDIO LEARNING OUTCOMES (x. x level of Syllabus) 5. Innovate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 4. Skilled Practice 3. Understand 2. Participate 1. Exposure REMARKABLE AGREEMENT!

VALIDATION OF CDIO LEARNING OUTCOMES - ALUMNI Proficiency / Importance Massachusetts Institute of Technology Queen’s University Belfast 2. 1 Eng. Reasoning and Problem Solving 2. 2 Experimenting and Knowledge Discovery 2. 3 System Thinking 2. 4 Personal Skills 2. 5 Professional Skills & Attitudes 3. 1 Teamwork and Leadership 3. 2 Communications 4. 1 External & Societal Context 4. 2 Enterprise & Business Context 4. 3 Conceiving 4. 4 Designing 4. 5 Implementing 4. 6 Operating 1 2 3 4 5

BEST PRACTICE – STANDARD 2 CDIO Standard 2 -- Learning Outcomes Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills, as well as disciplinary knowledge, consistent with program goals and validated by program stakeholders Organizes the framework for curriculum design • Serves as the basis of student learning assessment •

THE 12 STANDARDS OF CDIO 1 WHY 2 CDIO AS THE CONTEXT THE CDIO SYLLABUS WHAT 12 3 HOW 7, 8 INTEGRATED CURRICULUM 4 INTRO TO ENGINEERING 5 DESIGNIMPLEMENT EXPERIENCES LEARNING ACTIVE / INTEGRATED PROGRAM 6 WORKSPACES 11 ASSESSMENT 9, 10 FACULTY COMPETENCE HOW WELL EVALUATION

BEST PRACTICE: THE 12 CDIO STANDARDS 1. The Context Adoption of the principle that product. Process, and system lifecycle development and deployment are the context for engineering education 2. Learning Outcomes Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal, interpersonal, and product, . process and system building skills, consistent with program goals and validated by program stakeholders 3. Integrated Curriculum A curriculum designed with mutually supporting disciplinary subjects, with an explicit plan to integrate personal, interpersonal, and product, process, and system building skills 4. Introduction to Engineering An introductory course that provides the framework for engineering practice in product. Process, and system building, and introduces essential personal and interpersonal skills 5. Design-Implement Experiences A curriculum that includes two or more designimplement experiences, including one at a basic level and one at an advanced level 6. Engineering Workspaces and laboratories that support and encourage hands-on learning of product, process, and system building, disciplinary knowledge, and social learning 7. Integrated Learning Experiences Integrated learning experiences that lead to the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge, as well as personal, interpersonal, and produc, process, t and system building skills 8. Active Learning Teaching and learning based on active experiential learning methods 9. Enhancement of Faculty Skills Competence Actions that enhance faculty competence in personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills 10. Enhancement of Faculty Teaching Competence Actions that enhance faculty competence in providing integrated learning experiences, in using active experiential learning methods, and in assessing student learning 11. Learning Assessment of student learning in personal, interpersonal, and product, process, and system building skills, as well as in disciplinary knowledge 12. Program Evaluation A system that evaluates programs against these 12 standards, and provides feedback to students, faculty, and other stakeholders for the purposes of continuous improvement

THE ORIGINAL FOUR

DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE: OVER 130 COLLABORATORS IN 6 REGIONS

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT CDIO … Visit www. cdio. org!

OPEN-SOURCE RESOURCES Available at http: //www. cdio. org • The CDIO Syllabus • The CDIO Standards • Start-Up Guidance • Implementation Kit (I-Kit) • Instructional Resource Materials (IRMs) Other Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach by Crawley, Malmqvist, Östlund, Brodeur & Edstrom, 2014 • Annual international CDIO conference (Kanazawa 2018, Aarhus 2019) • Local, regional, and international workshops • Skoltech, Moscow, Russia, 17 – 19 January 2018 •

Thank You!