Foundations for a new type of design-engineers – experiences from DTU meeting the CDIO concept

Since 2002 a new design-engineering education has been in operation at the Technical University of Denmark. It fulfils the requirements in the CDIO concept but builds in addition on a change in what is considered core disciplines in engineering. Three fields of knowledge are represented almost equally in the curriculum: natural and technical sciences, design synthesis and socio-technical analysis, which adds to the dominant focus in engineering on natural and technical sciences. Combined with the integration and coordination of disciplines, a series of projects providing a progression of challenges to the students learning, and a focus on the outcomes of the learning processes of competences needed in design engineering, the curriculum represents a radical innovation in engineering curriculum. The paper describe the foundational elements of this educational program and present an assessment of the key factors that has made this program attract new groups of students to engineering including an almost equal recruitment of male and female students. In outcome and performance terms the educational program at the same time has delivered a quite efficient study environment for students. Since 2007 graduates have finished every year and an evaluation of the education based on the graduates and their employers’ experiences supports the visions of the curriculum and adds to what is needed to reform engineering education. The paper presents a critical comparison of the CDIO basic standards and principles with the learning content and experiences from the design-education at DTU and raise three questions to whether the advice provided by the CDIO syllabus satisfies the stated principles. The critique points to the following: (a) conceiving not being taken serious in the CDIO syllabus, (b) a too narrow view of engineering knowledge ignoring socio-technical insights, (c) the importance of engineering practices and competences in creating authentic assignments, (d) to reverse the hierarchy of topics and disciplines, and (e) a need for mechanisms to coordinate curriculum and cross-disciplinary cooperation. The creation of successful reforms in engineering education does not alone result from introducing project or problem based learning in the classroom. There is a need to focus on the objectives and disciplinary support for project assignments understanding the scattered character of technical disciplines. There is also a need for introducing measures that support teams building and continued cooperation among teachers to overcome the isolation.

[1]  Jacqulyn Lauer-Glebov,et al.  Assessment and innovation: One darn thing leads to another , 2005 .

[2]  E. L. Haslam,et al.  A learning model that develops students' active learning and reflective practices , 1997, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change.

[3]  Rosalind H. Williams,et al.  Retooling: A Historian Confronts Technological Change , 2002 .

[4]  Walter Guido Vincenti,et al.  What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History by Walter G. Vincenti , 1992, Technology and Culture.

[5]  Søsser Grith Kragh Brodersen,et al.  Hovedpointer fra telefon survey med D&I kandidater og aftagere: Afrapportering 2 , 2010 .

[6]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Designing Engineers , 1994 .

[7]  N. Cross.  Designerly ways of knowing , 2006 .

[8]  Michael May,et al.  CDIO IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION , 2007 .

[9]  Mats Bladh,et al.  Systems, experts, and computers : The systems approach in management and engineering, World War II and after. , 2001 .

[10]  Sharon Beder,et al.  The New Engineer: Management and Professional Responsibility in a Changing World , 1998 .

[11]  Knut Steinar Engelsen,et al.  Variations in portfolio assessment in higher education: Discussion of quality issues based on a Norwegian survey across institutions and disciplines , 2007 .

[12]  Søsser Grith Kragh Brodersen,et al.  Hovedpointer fra workshops med D&I kandidater, D&I undervisere og D&I censorer: Afrapportering 1 , 2009 .

[13]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1995 .

[14]  G. Downey,et al.  Are Engineers Losing Control of Technology?: From ‘Problem Solving’ to ‘Problem Definition and Solution’ in Engineering Education , 2005 .

[15]  L. Burton.  Undergraduate engineering education: teaching, learning, assessing-a symbiosis , 1998 .

[16]  Sanghee Yeo.  The aims of education and other essays. , 2013, Korean journal of medical education.

[17]  G. Boulton‐Lewis.  Teaching for quality learning at university , 2008 .

[18]  William Condon,et al.  Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities , 2004 .

[19]  P. W. Young,et al.  Design-Implement Experiences And Engineering Workspaces , 2007 .

[20]  P. J. Armstrong.  The Cdio Syllabus: Learning Outcomes For Engineering Education , 2007 .

[21]  Walter G. Vincenti,et al.  What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. , 1992 .

[22]  Eric A. Cornell,et al.  Teaching freshmen to write technical reports and to navigate the library: a Win-Win situation , 1997, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change.

[23]  Ulrik Jørgensen,et al.  Design & Innovation: Developing a Curriculum for Future Design Engineers at the Technical University of Denmark , 2005 .

[24]  Mae Keary,et al.  Technology Matters: Questions to Live with , 2007 .

[25]  Edward M. White,et al.  Portfolio Assessment in an American Engineering College. , 2005 .

[26]  Ulrik Jørgensen,et al.  Historical Accounts Of Engineering Education , 2007 .

[27]  Johan Malmqvist,et al.  Rethinking Engineering Education - The CDIO Approach , 2007 .

[28]  Olli-Pekka Lundén,et al.  An Alternative Teaching Method for Electrical Engineering Courses , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[29]  Don Ihde,et al.  Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality , 2006 .

[30]  Stephen S. Cohen,et al.  Manufacturing Matters: The Myth of Post-Industrial Economy , 1988 .

[31]  Y.V. Zastavker,et al.  Is integration really there? Students’ perceptions of integration in their project-based curriculum , 2007, 2007 37th Annual Frontiers In Education Conference - Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports.