Table Of ContentEdward F. Crawley · Johan Malmqvist
Sören Östlund · Doris R. Brodeur
Kristina Edström
Rethinking
Engineering
Education
The CDIO Approach
Second Edition
Rethinking Engineering Education
Edward F. Crawley · Johan Malmqvist
Sören Östlund · Doris R. Brodeur
Kristina Edström
Rethinking Engineering
Education
The CDIO Approach
Second Edition
1 3
Edward F. Crawley Doris R. Brodeur
Aeronautics and Astronautics Aeronautics and Astronautics
Skolkovo Institute of Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and Technology Cambridge, MA
Moscow USA
Russia
Kristina Edström
Johan Malmqvist Education and Communication
Product and Production Development in Engineering Sciences
Chalmers University of Technology KTH—Royal Institute of Technology
Gothenburg Stockholm
Sweden Sweden
Sören Östlund
Department of Solid Mechanics
KTH—Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm
Sweden
ISBN 978-3-319-05560-2 ISBN 978-3-319-05561-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014934171
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2007, 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts
in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of
being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright
Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance
Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Foreword to the First Edition
Authors’ Note
When the first edition of Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach
was published in 2007, Charles M. Vest had stepped down from a fourteen-year
tenure as president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Subsequently, he
served as president of the U. S. National Academy of Engineering. President Vest
died on December 12, 2013. The worlds of engineering and engineering education
have lost a true visionary and champion. We have chosen to publish his foreword
unchanged because his thoughts remain as relevant and important today as when
they were first written.
Educating Engineers for 2020 and Beyond
Most of my career was played out in the twentieth century—the century of physics,
electronics, and high-speed communications and transportation. And now, we all—
and especially our students—have the privilege of living through the transition to
the twenty-rfi st century—presumably the century of biology and information.
As this transition occurs, it is an appropriate time to rethink engineering educa-
tion. When I look back over my 35-plus years as an engineering educator, I realize
that many things have changed remarkably, but others seem not to have changed
at all. Challenges that have been with us for the past 35 years include making the
first university year more exciting, communicating what engineers actually do, and
bringing the richness of human diversity into the engineering workforce. Students
must learn how to merge the physical, life, and information sciences at nano-,
micro-, and macro-scales, embrace professional ethics and social responsibility, be
creative and innovative, and write and communicate well. Our students should be
prepared to live and work as global citizens, understanding how engineers con-
tribute to society. They must develop a basic understanding of business processes,
be adept at product development and high-quality manufacturing, and know how
to conceive, design, implement, and operate complex engineering systems of
appropriate complexity. They must increasingly do this within a framework of
v
vi Foreword to the First Edition
sustainable development, and be prepared to live and work as global citizens. That
is a tall order . . . perhaps even an impossible order.
But is it really? I meet students in the hallways of MIT and other universities
who can do all of these things—and more. So, we must keep our sights high. But
how are we going to accomplish all this teaching and learning? What has stayed
constant, and what needs to be changed?
As we think about the challenges ahead, it is important to remember that some
things are constant. Students, for example, are driven by passion, curiosity, engage-
ment, and dreams. Although we cannot know exactly what they should be taught,
we focus on the environment and context in which they learn, and the forces, ideas,
inspirations, and empowering authentic situations to which they are exposed.
Another constant is the need for students to acquire a sound basis in science,
engineering principles, and analytical capabilities. In my view, a deep understand-
ing of the fundamentals is still the most important thing we provide. Much of our
current view of the engineering fundamentals was shaped by what is commonly
termed the “engineering science revolution.” This revolution was spawned largely
by faculty at MIT who, building on their experiences gained by developing radar
systems during World War II, created a radically different way to practice and
teach engineering. A towering legacy of this era, with contributions from many
major universities, was a new world of engineering education that was built on
a solid foundation of science more than on traditional macroscopic phenomenol-
ogy, charts, handbooks, and laboratories. However, the creators of this new vision
of engineering education did not mean to displace the excitement of engineering,
the opportunity for students to design and build, or the need for teamwork and eth-
ics, meant to enrich the student experience. Along the way, something got lost. We
need to rethink engineering education, and find a new balance.
Perhaps I am so old fashioned I still believe that masterfully conceived, well-
delivered lectures are still wonderful teaching and learning experiences. They still
have their place. But even I admit there is a good deal of truth in what my extraor-
dinary friend, Murray Gell-Mann, Winner of Nobel Prize in Physics in 1929, likes
to say, “We need to move from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side.”
Studio teaching, team projects, open-ended problem solving, experiential learning,
engagement in research, should be integral elements of engineering education.
The philosophy of the CDIO approach to engineering education captures these
essential features of a modern engineering education—excitement about what
engineers do, deep learning of the fundamental skills, and the knowledge of how
engineers contribute to society. It is taught in a way that captures our students’
passion.
I encourage you to read about this integrated approach and consider how it
might influence the practice of engineering education at your university.
Charles M. Vest
President, U. S. National
Academy of Engineering
Foreword to the Second Edition
Since the publication of Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach,
the number of universities that have adopted a CDIO approach in at least one of
their engineering programs and joined the collaboration of the CDIO Initiative
has increased fourfold. While the approach retains the same basic principles, its
application is now found in a much broader range of engineering disciplines, for
example, chemical engineering, biological engineering, and mining engineering.
Moreover, the general framework of the approach is now being applied in pro-
grams in business management and other professional programs.
The key documents of the CDIO approach have been updated. The CDIO
Syllabus v2.0 has added two new sections on leadership and entrepreneurship,
and given more emphasis to certain topics that were previously subsumed under
other headings, for example, ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability. The
CDIO Standards v2.0 now includes distinct rubrics for each standard to facilitate
self-evaluation. The general structure of the chapters remains the same in that
they p arallel the CDIO Standards. The chapters on implementation, history of
engineering, and outlook have also been updated since the first edition.
Chapter 1 introduces the CDIO approach as a way of comprehensively reform-
ing engineering education worldwide. It highlights some of the key features of
the approach: the importance of learning in the context of engineering practice,
the specification of intended learning outcomes for students, the need for curric-
ulum and teaching methods that integrate disciplinary content with personal and
professional skills and attitudes, and a framework of research-based practices that
significantly improve the quality and nature of undergraduate engineering edu-
cation. As such, this chapter serves as an executive summary of the book. There
are two key changes in this edition. The section on “Motivation and Change” has
been moved from Chap. 2 to Chap. 1 to support the rationale for a new approach
to engineering education—the CDIO approach—and the need for this book.
Secondly, the term The CDIO Initiative has been clarified. It is now used exclu-
sively to mean the organization of more than 100 universities worldwide that col-
laborate in the implementation of the CDIO approach in their respective programs.
The CDIO Initiative (the organization) is first described in Chap. 8 in the section
on resources that support implementation of the CDIO approach.
vii
viii Foreword to the Second Edition
As in the first edition, Chap. 2 explains the key features of the CDIO approach,
beginning with a detailed discussion of the underlying need, and the goals, vision,
and pedagogical foundation of the approach. The chapter introduces the basics
of the CDIO Syllabus, the CDIO Standards, and approaches to adaptation and
implementation, all of which are addressed in later chapters. The title has been
changed from “Overview’ to “The CDIO Approach” to reflect that the approach
is described in more detail that the word overview would suggest. Secondly, the
section on the “Requirements for the Reform of Engineering Education” has
been streamlined. A new section explains the foundational principle of the CDIO
approach, that is, that CDIO is the context of engineering education. Finally,
the chapter introduces five new themes that have influenced the CDIO approach
in explicit ways since the first edition: sustainability, globalization, innovation,
leadership, and entrepreneurship.
Chapter 3 describes the development and content of the CDIO Syllabus, that
is, the codification of contemporary engineering knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that constitute the foundation for the reform of university engineering education
programs. It explains the rationale for specifying learning outcomes in personal
and interpersonal skills, and product, process and system building skills, as well
as in technical disciplines. There are three key changes to this chapter. The first
is related to the updating and extension of the CDIO Syllabus v2.0. The second
is the extension of the discussion of ways in which the five contemporary themes
addressed in Chap. 2 are included in the CDIO Syllabus v2.0. Finally, the last
section of the chapter has been updated and reorganized to describe a process
for establishing proficiency levels and learning outcomes based on the CDIO
Syllabus. The examples of the stakeholder surveys found in the first edition are
retained, but significantly abbreviated. Our colleague, Perry J. Armstrong of
Queen’s University Belfast, who contributed to this chapter in the first edition, has
subsequently died. We have retained his name as a contributor because of his sig-
nificant influence on the topics in this chapter. We are grateful to Peter J. Goodhew
of the University of Liverpool for updating Box 3.1 Comparison of the CDIO
Syllabus with UK-SPEC.
Chapter 4 describes the rationale for a curriculum that integrates the learning of
engineering skills with disciplinary fundamentals. Furthermore, it lays the founda-
tion for curriculum design by benchmarking an existing curriculum, recognizing
pre-existing conditions, and describing the process for design and implementation
of an integrated curriculum. A new figure in Box 4.1 illustrates the components of
an integrated program description, emphasizing the importance of integration and
progression in learning. A new box written by colleagues at Singapore Polytechnic
(Box 4.4) gives an example of an integrated curriculum that includes all programs
for an entire university. Many of the figures have been revised for increased clarity.
The objectives of Chap. 5 are rephrased with greater precision. A section
describing the design-implement experiences with respect to related pedagogi-
cal models has been added. Overall, the chapter has been revised in light of the
knowledge and experience gained since 2007. An effort has also been made to
generalize the message and avoid implicit references and links to mechanical and
Foreword to the Second Edition ix
aerospace engineering, unless such examples are specifically intended. A new
section provides a clearer connection of design-implement experiences with
current pedagogical models of problem-based and project-based learning.
Greater emphasis is placed on the progression of complexity and the formation of
engineering skills and attitudes in the sequence of design-implement e xperiences,
with less focus on distinguishing between basic and advanced experiences, as
such. For the sake of clarity, some examples are explained in less detail or o mitted
altogether. In particular, Box 5.1 The Linköping Project Management Model is
omitted because it overlaps with its description in Chap. 4. The section on work-
spaces now emphasizes function and learning, with less discussion of the physical
space and equipment requirements.
The overall aim of Chap. 6 is to discuss the implementation of integrated learn-
ing at the course level. It sets the context by identifying students’ perspectives of
their educational experiences. It introduces a constructive alignment model and
gives examples of active and experiential learning approaches. Finally, the chapter
describes the ways in which more stimulating learning experiences can contribute
to the attractiveness of engineering education to more widely diverse audiences.
The term personal, interpersonal, product, process and system building skills has
been replaced by the term professional skills, except when the term is referenced
in CDIO Standards 7 and 8 or when a specific meaning is intended. Discussions of
concept tests and electronic response systems are now merged into a section on the
peer instruction method, consistent with current research and practice. The section
on faculty support for integrated learning has been moved to a later chapter and
merged with an overall approach to the enhancement of faculty skills.
Chapter 7 emphasizes the meaning of learning assessment and the alignment
of assessment methods with learning outcomes and teaching methods. Learning
assessment methods are illustrated with a number of examples. A few changes
have been made to this chapter to improve clarity and to make more explicit con-
nections to the previous chapter on teaching and learning. The constructive align-
ment of curriculum, teaching, and assessment, introduced in Chap. 6, is repeated
here with an emphasis on assessment. A sample rubric to assess a reflective jour -
nal now replaces the box that described the use of a reflective portfolio at a spe-
cific institution, hopefully with broader application. The chapter concludes by
addressing the connection between assessment results and continuous improve-
ment, as well as the key benefits and challenges to sound learning assessment.
Chapter 8 describes the key success factors that influence change in an organi-
zation and the development of a CDIO program as an example of cultural change.
Activities are suggested to help change leaders to enhance faculty competence in
personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills,
and enhance faculty competence in teaching, learning, and assessment methods.
The chapter also describes resources that facilitate the adoption and implementa-
tion of a CDIO approach in engineering programs. There are two additional case
studies illustrating the ways that the change factors discussed in the chapter were
addressed in institutions where the CDIO approach was adopted at college and
university system levels.
x Foreword to the Second Edition
Chapter 9 discusses the purpose and value of a standards-based approach to
program evaluation as a way to determine if programs are successfully imple-
menting a CDIO approach. It focuses on the characteristics of a standards-based
approach to program evaluation, key questions that guide program evaluation,
descriptions of a variety of evaluation methods, the connections between results,
continuous program improvement and quality assurance, and the overall impact of
programs that have implemented a CDIO approach. A brief description of student
self-efficacy studies has been added to the section of program evaluation methods.
The key change is related to the updating of the CDIO Standards document with
rubrics customized for each standard.
As in the first edition, Chap. 10 provides a historic framework for the reform
ideas included in the CDIO approach. It outlines some of the foundational and
continuing discussions of the objectives, content, and structure of engineering
education. Engineering institutions and educational approaches are outlined with
emphasis on national differences as well as controversies on the balance between
practice and theory. The chapter ends with an outline of contemporary challenges
to engineering education, and the problems related to a science orientation to edu-
cation and the need for communication and teamwork skills that support inter-
disciplinary cooperation and design activities. The chapter includes a discussion
of new competencies that are demanded of engineers in the areas of climate and
environment, built environments, user involvement, globalization, and entrepre-
neurship. The ways in which engineering schools respond in their disciplinary and
pedagogical approaches differ by country or culture, emphasizing the flexibility
embedded in the CDIO approach that allows it to be adapted to various situations.
The final chapter summarizes the changes in the CDIO approach since 2007
and highlights the growth and expansion in the number of collaborating universi-
ties that have adopted a CDIO approach. As in the previous edition, it identifies
factors that continue to drive change in engineering education. The section on the
future development of the CDIO approach and the anticipated growth of the CDIO
Initiative (the organization of universities that have adopted a CDIO approach in
at least one engineering discipline) examines achievements in areas identified in
2007 and projects potential emphases and directions for the future.
We are grateful for the contributions of our colleagues to each of the chapters
and for their case studies and examples that form the “boxes” in each chapter.
As always, we welcome your comments and encourage you in your endeavors to
reform engineering education.
Edward F. Crawley
Johan Malmqvist
Sören Östlund
Doris R. Brodeur
Kristina Edström
