CDIO Curriculum Design Doris R. Brodeur Massachusetts Institute of Technology dbrodeur@mit.edu November 2005

Discuss the major components of curriculum design TODAY’S OBJECTIVES Discuss the major components of curriculum design Examine samples of curriculum design from representative CDIO programs Consider initial phases of curriculum re-design in your engineering programs

OUTLINE The CDIO Principle Curriculum Goals Learning Outcomes Stakeholder Input Benchmarking Existing Conditions Curriculum Structure and Sequence Mapping of CDIO Learning Outcomes Support of Curriculum Re-Design Curriculum Evaluation

THE CURRICULUM DESIGN PROCESS

THE CDIO PRINCIPLE Engineering Education should produce graduates who; understand how to conceive-design-implement-operate complex value-added products and systems in a modern team-based engineering environment and are mature and thoughtful individuals.

GOALS OF A CDIO PROGRAM 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 1 2 3 These goals are accomplished by designing an integrated curriculum that addresses multiple learning outcomes simultaneously

STANDARD 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 Disciplinary subjects make explicit connections among related and supporting content and learning outcomes Explicit plan identifies ways in which the integration of CDIO skills and multidisciplinary connections are to be made Rationale: The teaching of personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills is not an addition to an already full curriculum, but an integral part of it. Curriculum and learning experiences make dual use of available time. Faculty play an active role in suggesting appropriate linkages and integration of CDIO skills.

LEARNING OUTCOMES What are the essential features of your institution and how do they help shape the ideas, values, and attitudes of your students? What are the essential features of your academic program and how do they help shape the ideas, values, and attitudes of your students? What should graduates of your academic program know, understand, and be able to do when they leave the institution? How do you as faculty and program leaders contribute to the development of the skills and abilities of your program’s graduates?

The CDIO Learning Outcomes

The CDIO Learning Outcomes (cont.)

THE CDIO SYLLABUS 3rd Level of Detail

THE CDIO SYLLABUS 4th Level of Detail

EFFECTIVE LEARNING OUTCOMES . . . Reflect the institution’s mission and the values it represents Are in alignment at course, academic program, and institutional levels Focus on skills and abilities central to the discipline and based on professional standards Focus on the learning resulting from an activity, or course, or program Are general enough to capture important learning, but clear and specific enough to be measurable Focus on aspects of learning that will develop and endure but that can be assessed in some form now

SAMPLE LEARNING OUTCOMES

STAKEHOLDER INPUT Survey random samples from stakeholder groups Students Faculty Alumni Industry Governmental agencies and accrediting bodies Professional societies and organizations Ask survey groups to rate the desired proficiency or importance of each of the program learning outcomes

The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden SAMPLE SURVEY RESULTS The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

SAMPLE ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS Proficiency / Importance 1 2 3 4 5 Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland 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

Proficiency / Importance SAMPLE SURVEY RESULTS Proficiency / Importance 1 2 3 4 5 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

OTHER SURVEY QUESTIONS % WANTING MORE TIME DEVOTED TO THIS AREA OF CURRICULUM Developing Skills and Attributes Practical Work: Design, Build and Test Practical Work: Laboratory Classes Additional Subjects Mathematics Engineering Science AREA OF CURRICULUM Older Alumni Younger Alumni 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

BENCHMARKING EXISTING CONDITIONS Benchmark the existing curriculum for the inclusion of CDIO learning outcomes and topics Benchmark existing teaching, learning, and assessment practices Benchmark the availability and use of existing workspaces and facilities Recognize constraints on curriculum design from institutional sources

CURRICULUM BENCHMARKING Survey faculty and academic staff for their input into the CDIO learning outcomes that are already included in the curriculum Classify the extent of inclusion: Introduce (I): spend a little time, no explicit learning outcome, assignment or grading Teach (T): include in compulsory activity, there is a related learning outcome, students get to apply and receive feedback (often in assessment) Utilize (U): assume the students possess this skill, and use it to reach some other learning outcome

SAMPLE CURRICULUM BENCHMARKING x 3.3 Communication in foreign languages . 3.2 Communications . 3.1 Teamwork . 2.5 Professional skills and attributes . 2.4 Personal skills and attributes . 2.3 System thinking . 2.2 Experimenting and knowledge discovery. 2.1 Engineering reasoning and problem solving U T I CDIO SyllabusTopic

EXERCISE: CURRICULUM BENCHMARKING Using the CDIO Syllabus topics and learning outcomes, make a list of those that you address in your courses. For each one, decide the extent to which each topic or learning outcome is addressed: Introduce (I): spend a little time, no explicit learning outcome, assignment or grading Teach (T): include in compulsory activity, there is a related learning outcome, students get to apply and receive feedback (often in assessment) Utilize (U): assume the students possess this skill, and use it to reach some other learning outcome

BENCHMARKING TEACHING PRACTICE

BENCHMARKING WORKSPACES

CONSTRAINTS ON CURRICULUM DESIGN Program purpose and length pre-professional degree number of years High-level program design lower level and upper level 3 phases: applied science fundamentals, engineering fundamentals, specialized courses and electives Underlying structure of the curriculum length of the school year, terms, semesters unit of instruction (course) programs shorter than, or longer than, a course

CURRICULUM DESIGN COMPONENTS Learning outcomes derived from CDIO Syllabus and stakeholder surveys Curriculum structure organized around the disciplines, with skills and projects interwoven Sequences of learning experiences Mapping of personal, interpersonal and system building skills onto curriculum structure Integration of personal, interpersonal and system building skills into courses

CURRICULUM STRUCTURE A strict disciplinary curriculum Organized around disciplines, with no explicit introductions or skills An apprenticeship model Based on projects, with no organized introductions of disciplines A Problem Based curriculum Organized around problems, but with disciplines interwoven A CDIO based curriculum Organized around disciplines, but with skills and projects interwoven Disciplines run vertically, projects and skills run horizontally

CURRICULUM STRUCTURE TIME The FRAMEWORK, a first-year course to lay the foundation in CDIO skills, that accompanies other foundational subjects, and perhaps involves innovative structures Various innovative curriculum structures to carry CDIO skills as a part of the regular curriculum, in the ENGINEERING CORE The elective and specialization courses, accompanied by a CAPSTONE design-build course perhaps also using innovative structures

CURRICULUM STRUCTURE Conventional Block Sequential Merged Bus Simultaneous In order to facilitate the design, it is necessary to consider alternatives to the the conventional modular curriculum structure

PRE-EXISTING CURRICULUM AT QUB Engineering Courses (Core + Electives) (Core) 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 4th YEAR Lab Classes Labs / Projects Individual Project (Design or Research) Design Courses Non-Engineering Courses

RE-DESIGNED MEng PROGRAM AT QUB Design Courses Non-Engineering Courses Engineering Courses (Core + Electives) (Core) 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 4th YEAR Lab Classes Individual Project (Design or Research) Labs / Projects Engineering Courses (Core) (Electives) DBE Lab Classes First Year Course Individual Research Project Team-based Design-Build Project Project-based Manufacturing Course

SAMPLE SEQUENCE AND MAPPING 3.2 Communications

EXERCISE: SEQUENCING CURRICULUM OUTPUT: ”Final” learning outcomes, competence for the engineer INPUT: Previous knowledge and skills Course (black box) Input to following courses All courses in the program are presented through their input-output only The black box approach enables efficient discussions Makes connections visible (as well as lack thereof !) Serves as a basis for improving coordination between courses

MAPPING OF CDIO TOPICS ONTO CURRICULUM Identify the CDIO skills and learning outcomes that are already taught in each course and build on strengths some courses already integrate some of these skills some faculty are more enthusiastic about developing their courses in this direction Find appropriate combinations of CDIO Syllabus topics and disciplinary content Take advantage of the course’s sequence in the program

SAMPLE MAPPING AND INTEGRATION

CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Institutional Mission Program Goals CURRICULUM EVALUATION Institutional Mission Program Goals Curriculum Faculty Development Program Objectives and Outcomes Teaching and Learning Learning Assessment Learning Environment

Data-Based Ccurriculum Improvement DATA COLLECTION METHODS Curriculum Plan and Design Program Entry Program Exit Continuous Improvement Validation With Key Stakeholders Diagnostic Tests Senior Exit Interviews Course Evaluations Institutional Self-Studies Admission Reports Senior Surveys Reflective Memos Curriculum Mapping Baseline Skill Assessment Portfolio Assessment Workspace Usage Reports Resource Allocation Studies Baseline Interviews Course- Embedded Assessment Alumni Surveys Data-Based Ccurriculum Improvement

CHALLENGES To work within existing institutional constraints To persuade faculty to take ownership of personal, interpersonal, and system building skills To support faculty in the enhancement of their CDIO skills and teaching skills To sustain enthusiasm for curriculum reform beyond the initial stages To plan economically realistic learning activities To facilitate regular communication among program leaders, faculty, and teaching staff To implement cost-effective methods of curriculum evaluation

LESSONS LEARNED The CDIO curriculum design process can be carried out in many different ways Program leader support and modest resources are required Support and commitment for the change process are needed from faculty, program leaders at all levels, student groups, industry groups, and other stakeholder groups Active student participation in all phases fosters creative ideas and facilitates implementation

LESSONS LEARNED (cont.) A project management approach (phases with clear deadlines, the right decision at the right time) helps to keep curriculum change moving The tools and experience of CDIO programs help pave the way for curriculum design at other engineering institutions Monitoring of progress and achievements needs to be regular and consistent A continuous improvement process needs to be in place

RESOURCES ON THE CDIO WEB SITE -- http://www.cdio.org BOOKS MIT CDIO Report: The CDIO Syllabus: A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Engineering Education The CDIO Syllabus: A Comparative Study of Expected Student Proficiency, J. Bankel, K. F. Berggren, K. Blom, E. F. Crawley, S. Ostlund, and I. Wiklund. Creating the CDIO Syllabus, A Universal Template for Engineering Education, 2002, E. F. Crawley Benchmarking Engineering Curricula With the CDIO Syllabus, 2005, J. Bankel, K. F. Berggren, E. F. Crawley, K. El Gaidi, M. Engstrom, S. Ostlund,, D. Soderholm, I. Wiklund The Implemention Kit (I-Kit) -- Curriculum BOOKS Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses, M. E. Huba and J. E. Freed, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000 Understanding by Design, G. Wiggins and J. McTighe, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia, 1998

SUMMARY QUESTIONS What parts of the CDIO curriculum design process seem most useful to you at this time? What first steps will you take? What do you foresee as the major obstacles? What resources will you need to re-design your curriculum?