Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
International CDIO status survey
Aims


To map out where and in what programmes/disciplines CDIO is applied
To evaluate effects on outcomes, perceived benefits, limitations, barriers for
implementation and development needs
Basic idea




Develop a database with CDIO implementation data that is based on an annual survey
and that can be followed up over time
Design of survey based on process model of education that includes input, output,
process, control and resource elements with associated indicators of high educational
quality see below
The basic hypothesis is that CDIO implementation requires changes to the independent
variables of the model, mainly and somewhat simplified control, process and resources,
whereas its impact is on dependent variables (outputs and to some extent input). That is,
an increase in CDIO standards rating should cause (correlate with) an increase in output
parameter values and that this effect should increase over time.
Questions categories
o University categorization and CDIO use
o State of university’s CDIO implementation
o Statements on effects on input, resource and output metrics
o Barriers and success factors
o Open-ended questions
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
Figure 1.
General model education process model
Figure 2.
CDIO-adapted education process model
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
1.
University categorization & use of CDIO
1.1
What is the name of you university
 Scroll list
1.2
What country are you located in?
 Scroll list
1.3




1.4





What is the size of your university in terms of number of students?
< 1,000 students
1,000-5,000 students
5,000-15,000 students
> 15,000 students
What is the QS ranking of your university?
< 100
100-250
250-600
> 600
Do not know
1.5
To what disciplines have you applied CDIO? (multiple choices allowed)












Aeronautics & aerospace engineering
Applied physics
Bioengineering
Civil engineering
Chemical engineering
Computer science and engineering
Electrical engineering
Engineering mathematics
Industrial engineering
Mechanical engineering
Other engineering disciplines, specify …………………………………………..
Non-engineering disciplines, specify ……………………………………………
1.6




1.7
For how long have you applied CDIO?
0-1 years
1-3 years
3-6 years
> 6 years
What degrees do your CDIO programs offer?
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014




Bachelor
Master (including 5-6 year integrated master programs)
Doctoral
Other, specify
1.8
What CDIO community activities do your regularly participate in? (multiple choice
allowed)






Annual international conference
Fall meeting
Regional meetings
National meetings
On-line CDIO leaders meetings
Other, specify ………………………………………………………
1.9
What educational challenges or opportunities prompted you to apply CDIO? (multiple
choice allowed)
 Poor student recruitment
 Employer complaints of lacking skills amongst graduates
 Poor student retention
 Poor student satisfaction
 Community for collaboration
 Leading universities were doing CDIO
 Ambition to make engineering education more authentic
 Needed a systematic methodology for educational development
 Accreditation requirements
 Needed approach to develop generic skills (teamwork, communication, ethics) in
education
 Wanted to include more design and innovation in education
 Internationalization of education
 Poor employability of graduates
 Poor alumni satisfaction
 Other, specify ……………………………………………………………
1.10




The number of strong CDIO proponents at your university are:
1-2
3-5
6-8
>8
1.11
The number of strong CDIO proponents at your university are:
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
3.
Implementation state with respect to fulfillment of the CDIO
standards
Please assess your education’s rating toward the CDIO standards self-evaluation rating scale
(a) when you started your CDIO project and (b) your current state.
Add links to explain rating scale and specialized rubrics.
Question: include “cannot assess” for both initial state and current state?
CDIO standard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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
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.
Integrated curriculum
A curriculum designed with mutually supporting disciplinary courses,
with an explicit plan to integrate personal and interpersonal skills,
and product, process, and system building skills
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
Design-implement experiences
A curriculum that includes two or more design-implement
experiences, including one at a basic level and one at an advanced
level
Engineering workspaces
Engineering workspaces and laboratories that support and
encourage hands-on learning of product, process, and system
building, disciplinary knowledge, and social learning
Integrated learning experiences
Integrated learning experiences that lead to the acquisition of
disciplinary knowledge, as well as personal and interpersonal skills,
and product, process, and system building skills
Active learning
Teaching and learning based on active experiential learning
methods
Enhancement of faculty competence
Actions that enhance faculty competence in personal and
interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills
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
Learning assessment
Assessment of student learning in personal and interpersonal skills,
and product, process, and system building skills, as well as in
disciplinary knowledge
Program evaluation
A system that evaluates programs against these twelve standards,
and provides feedback to students, faculty, and other stakeholders
for the purposes of continuous improvement
Initial
state
(0-5)
Current
state
(0-5)
Cannot
assess
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
4.
Effects educational input, resource and output indicators
For each statement below, please state your agreement on a ten-level scale from “totally
disagree” (1) to “totally agree” (10).
Statement
Quality of final degree reports/capstone design
projects have improved
Graduates have less knowledge of math and
science
Graduates have improved personal skills
Graduates have improved interpersonal skills
Graduates have improved conceive-designimplement-operate skills
CDIO implementation required significant
investments in education infrastructure
CDIO implementation has led to increased
operating costs
Faculty engineering professional competence has
improved
Faculty teaching competence has improved
Student retention has improved
Student recruitment has improved
Graduate employability has improved
Alumni satisfaction has increased
More alumni are starting new companies
We have received recognition for high quality in
education (for example awards from government
agencies)
Our graduates have received more awards (for
example prizes for project or won student
competitions)
Course satisfaction ratings have improved
We have an increased number of published
papers on educational development
We have increased collaboration with other
universities for educational development
Graduates entry salaries are higher than for
nearby universities who have not implemented
CDIO
Other, please specify
Totally
disagree
1
Neutral
5
Totally
agree
10
Cannot
assess
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
5.
Barriers and success factors
For each statement below, please state your agreement on a ten-level scale from “totally
disagree” (1) to “totally agree” (10).
Statement
University management strongly supported our
CDIO implementation
We had sufficient financial resources to
implement CDIO
Faculty were resistant to CDIO
Faculty engineering professional competence was
a barrier to CDIO implementation
Faculty teaching competence was a barrier to
CDIO implementation
It was easy to customize the CDIO framework to
fit our local context
CDIO is well aligned with the vision and strategy
of our department/university
Faculty were incentivized and recognized for
CDIO implementation efforts
The CDIO implementation was associated with
higher ambitions for our education
CDIO has created attention for education in our
university
We had clear visions and goals for what we
wanted to achieve by the CDIO implementation
We measured the impact of our CDIO
implementation with suitable indicators
If the main CDIO proponent at your university was
to retire tomorrow, the changes that have been
made to date would remain five years from now
Other, please specify
Totally
disagree
1
Neutral
5
Totally
agree
10
Cannot
assess
Draft for discussion August 19, 2014
6.
Open-ended questions
6.1
What customizations of the CDIO framework (the syllabus and the standards) have
you performed?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6.2
What development or change needs do you see for the CDIO framework?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6.3
What development or change needs do see for the CDIO Initiative (the network of
universities that develops the CDIO framework)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6.5
Any other comment?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………