CDIO and Eurace QUALITY ASSURANCE

1
CDIO and Eur-aceQUALITY ASSURANCE
CDIO Regional Nordic Meeting October 20-21,
2008 Technical University of Denmark Lyngby,
Denmark
2
Background

• CDIO, as a general idea, aims to raise the
  quality of the educational programs that apply
  the concept
• CDIO includes a number of components that can be
  classified as quality assurance tools
• We are all also exposed to national schemes for
  accreditation and evaluation
• International accreditation schemes are emerging,
  eg within the EU we need to relate to these
• The aim of this presentation is to compare CDIO
  with the EUR-ACE framework discuss similarities
  and differences

3
Outline

• Background
• CDIO quality assurance components and process
• EUR-ACE quality assurance components
• Comparison
• Conclusions

4
CDIO quality assurance components

• CDIO syllabus WHAT
• CDIO standards HOW
• CDIO self-evaluation HOW WELL

5
CDIO QA components as part of a programs QA
process
Program description (based on CDIO syllabus and
standards) Course plans Agreement
Program board meetings Teacher meetings Student-pr
ogram manager meetings
Revise program description, course plans and
agreement Sign the agreement for the next
academic year
Teaching in courses and projects Assessment and
examination of learning outcomes
Course evaluations Class evaluations Follow-up of
agreement
Alumni survey CDIO self-assessment model Ladok
6
Bologna process components(Bologna WG on
Qualifications Frameworks)

• Qualifications framework
• 1st (bachelor), 2nd (master) and 3rd (doctor)
  cycles
• ECTS credit system
• Learning outcomes-based approach
• Dublin descriptors
• European standards for internal and external
  quality assurance proposed (ENQA, 2005)
• General, applicable to all university education
• Needs to complemented for particular fields
  and/or professional degrees

7
EUR-ACE framework (EUR-ACE, 2005)

• The principal aim of the EUR-ACE project is to
  develop a Framework for the accreditation of
  engineering degree programmes in the European
  Higher Education Area (EHEA).
• The bases for the accreditation are expressed as
  Programme Outcomes for 1st and 2nd cycle
  engineering degrees
• The Programme outcomes are generic and need to be
  interpreted by users to reflect the specific
  demands of different branches, cycles and
  profiles.
• The Standards for accreditation can be used in
  both the design and the evaluation of programmes
  in all branches of engineering and for different
  profiles.

8
The EUR-ACE syllabus(my numbering)

• Knowledge and Understanding
• Engineering Analysis
• Engineering Design
• Investigations
• Engineering Practice
• Transferable Skills

9
Details of EUR-ACE syllabus, 1st cycle

• Knowledge and Understanding
• 1.1 knowledge and understanding of the scientific
  and mathematical principles underlying their
  branch of engineering
• 1.2 a systematic understanding of the key aspects
  and concepts of their branch of engineering
• 1.3 coherent knowledge of their branch of
  engineering including some at the forefront of
  the branch
• 1.4 awareness of the wider multidisciplinary
  context of engineering.
• Engineering Analysis
• 2.1 the ability to apply their knowledge and
  understanding to identify, formulate and solve
  engineering problems using established methods
• 2.2 the ability to apply their knowledge and
  understanding to analyse engineering products,
  processes and methods
• 2.3 the ability to select and apply relevant
  analytic and modelling methods.

10
EUR-ACE syllabus, 1st cycle, cont

• Engineering Design
• 3.1 the ability to apply their knowledge and
  understanding to develop and realise designs to
  meet defined and specified requirements
• 3.2 an understanding of design methodologies, and
  an ability to use them.
• Investigations
• 4.1 the ability to conduct searches of
  literature, and to use data bases and other
  sources of information
• 4.2 the ability to design and conduct appropriate
  experiments, interpret the data and draw
  conclusions
• 4.3 workshop and laboratory skills.
• Engineering Practice
• 5.1 the ability to select and use appropriate
  equipment, tools and methods
• 5.2 the ability to combine theory and practice to
  solve engineering problems
• 5.3 an understanding of applicable techniques and
  methods, and of their limitations
• 5.4 an awareness of the non-technical
  implications of engineering practice

11
EUR-ACE syllabus, 1st cycle, cont

• 6. Transferable Skills
• 6.1 function effectively as an individual and as
  a member of a team
• 6.2 use diverse methods to communicate
  effectively with the engineering community and
  with society at large
• 6.3 demonstrate awareness of the health, safety
  and legal issues and responsibilities of
  engineering practice, the impact of engineering
  solutions in a societal and environmental
  context, and commit to professional ethics,
  responsibilities and norms of engineering
  practice
• 6.4 demonstrate an awareness of project
  management and business practices, such as risk
  and change management, and understand their
  limitations
• 6.5 recognise the need for, and have the ability
  to engage in independent, life-long learning.

Note A number of learning outcomes are added for
2nd cycle, others modified to indicate progress
12
Comparison EUR-ACE syllabus CDIO syllabus
13
Observations

• The EUR-ACE syllabus lacks a structure rooted in
  a purpose, what do engineers do?
• The proficiency levels are given in the EUR-ACE
  syllabus
• There are strong differences between 1st and 2nd
  cycle goals in the EUR-ACE syllabus
• All EUR-ACE topics are covered by the CDIO
  syllabus
• The EUR-ACE includes some statements not
  explicitly addressed in the CDIO syllabus (link
  theory and practice, workshop skills)
• The CDIO syllabus also has categories for Systems
  thinking (2.3), Communication in foreign
  languages, Conceiving (4.3), Implementing (4.5)
  and Operating which are essentially absent in the
  EUR-ACE syllabus
• Conceiving and Foreign languages are better
  represented in the 2nd cycle EUR-ACE syllabus
• Higher level of detail in the CDIO syllabus
  supports interpreting what is meant by abstract
  statement

14
EUR-ACE Standards for accreditation

• Programme educational objectives consistent with
  the needs of all stakeholders and programme
  outcomes and the EUR-ACE programme outcomes for
  accreditation
• A curriculum and related processes which ensure
  achievement of the programme outcomes
• Academic and support staff, facilities, financial
  resources etc adequate to accomplish the
  programme outcomes
• Appropriate forms of assessment which attest the
  achievement of the programme outcomes
• A management system able to ensure the systematic
  achievement of the programme outcomes and the
  continual improvement of the programme

15
Dimensions

• Needs, Objectives and Outcomes
• Educational Process
• Resources and Partnerships
• Assessment of the Educational Process
• Management System

16
1. Needs, Objectives and Outcomes
17
2. Educational Process
18
2. Education evidence to be collected in
self-evaluation report

• 2.1 Planning
• Curriculum (syllabus, ECTS credits, credits for
  course work and personal study), its transparency
  and publicity.
• Definition/description of modules
  characteristics (credits, contents, specific
  learning outcomes, assessment methods of
  individual modules), their transparency and
  publicity.
• Integration of professional practice (external
  practical experience, laboratories, projects,
  etc.).
• Final examination, thesis, project, etc..
• Correspondence of curriculum and modules
  characteristics to the programme outcomes.
• Planning of the delivery.
• Teaching methods and techniques (fulltime, part
  time, parallel to or
• integrated in professional work, use of
  multimedia or telematics devices, etc.).
• Measures to promote students mobility.

• 2.2 Delivery
• Correspondence of the delivery with the planning.
• Results of the students evaluation of taught
  modules.
• Results of the students and tutors evaluation
  of external practical
• experiences.
• Results of students mobility.
• Number of staff and their workload for
  counselling and support to the students.

• 2.3 Learning Assessment
• Examination papers and coursework (samples of
  assessed coursework, continuous assessments,
  project reports).
• Transparency and publicity of the standards and
  rules concerning the assessment of student
  performance.

19
3. Resources and Partnerships
20
4. Assessment of the Educational Process
21
5. Management System
22
Observations

• The EUR-ACE accreditation standards/criteria are
  Whats, ie they do not say how a particular
  criteria should be addressed
• Many of the criteria are measurable, but there is
  no declaration of what is good (enough)
• The CDIO standards are Hows which address of 19
  out of 24 criteria
• Criteria that lack corresponding CDIO standard
  include entrance requirements, organization,
  financial resources, throughput time and
  partnerships
• The EUR-ACE accreditation criteria also requires
  many specific documentary evidence which are not
  CDIO-specific

23
Accreditation vs CDIO-styleself-evaluation QA
models
24
Use of CDIO standards self-evaluation model in
Swedish national engineering degree program
evaluation

• Classic evaluation questions were complemented by
  a CDIO-style self-assessment, aiming to
• Attain a more comprehensive, overall assessment
  of the university and program
• Give the external review panel an additional
  instrument for its analysis and evaluation
• Provide the universities/programs with an
  instrument that can be applied as a basis for
  future continuous improvement efforts

25
Experiences gained (Malmqvist Sadurskis, 2008,
Malmqvist et al., 2006)
26
Conclusions

• The CDIO syllabus is more logically structured
  and reflects a more encompassing view of
  engineering than EUR-ACEs
• The CDIO standards provide solutions on how to
  work with many of the issues raised in an
  EUR-ACE accreditation
• The EUR-ACE accreditation model is comprehensive
  but still a skeleton, lacks values for the
  requirements
• An evaluation process based on a rating scale,
  such as the CDIO self evaluation model, is more
  useful for continuous improvement than a
  threshold value scale
• If the trends towards ranking-oriented
  evaluations continue, a CDIO standards-based self
  evaluation can be an important part of the
  evaluation package

27
References

• Bologna Working Group on Qualifications
  Frameworks (2005) A Framework for Qualifications
  of the European Higher Education Area, Ministry
  of Science, Technology and Innovation,
  Copenhagen, Denmark.
• ENQA (2005) Standards and Guidelines for Quality
  Assurance in the European Higher Education Area.
  European Association for Quality Assurance in
  Higher Education, 2005, Helsinki, Finland
• EUR-ACE (2005) EUR-ACE Framework Standards for
  the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes,
  http//www.feani.org/EUR_ACE/PrivateSection/Docume
  nts/A1_EUR-ACE_Frwrk20Stds_Final_05_11_17.pdf
• Malmqvist, J., Edström, K., Gunnarsson, S.
  Östlund, S. (2006) The Application of CDIO
  Standards in the Evaluation of Swedish
  Engineering Degree Prog-rammes. World
  Transactions of Engineering and Technology, 5 (2)
  pp. 361-364.
• Malmqvist, J., Sadurskis, A. (2008) Quality
  Assurance of Engineering Education in Sweden,
  Technical Report, Chalmers University of
  Technology, Sweden