1. CDIO Curriculum Design
Doris R. Brodeur
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
November 2005

2. 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

3. 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

4. THE CURRICULUM DESIGN PROCESS

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. The CDIO Learning Outcomes

10. The CDIO Learning Outcomes (cont.)

11. THE CDIO SYLLABUS
3rd Level of Detail

12. THE CDIO SYLLABUS
4th Level of Detail

13. 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

14. SAMPLE LEARNING OUTCOMES

15. 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

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

17. SAMPLE ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS
Proficiency / Importance
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

18. Proficiency / Importance
SAMPLE SURVEY RESULTS
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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. SAMPLE CURRICULUM BENCHMARKINGx
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

23. 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

24. BENCHMARKING TEACHING PRACTICE

25. BENCHMARKING WORKSPACES

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. SAMPLE SEQUENCE AND MAPPING
3.2 Communications

34. 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

35. 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

36. SAMPLE MAPPING AND INTEGRATION

37. CURRICULUM EVALUATION

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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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?