P1246990945qWezy

1
Executive Summary and Overview Ed Crawley Johan
Malmqvist
The Wallenberg CDIO Program
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The Opportunity ? To educate engineers
• - To conceive, design, implement operate
• - Complex value-added systems
• - In a team-based engineering environment
• Our Strategy ? Reform the curriculum
• Improve teaching learning
• Create engineering learning
  workshop/laboratories
• Continuous improvement by assessment
• Our Product ? An improved integrated model for
  engineering education
• Investment Required ? 30M to define the
  education process, create the
  laboratory/workshops and create the
  educational materials to promote widespread
  adoption

3
OUTLINE

• Needs, goals, educational philosophy and product
• Approach, strategy, organization
• Long term vision of impact and products
• Year one plan and highlights

4
THE NEED

• Desired Attributes of an Engineering Graduate
• Understanding of fundamentals
• Understanding of design manufacturing process
• Possess a multi-disciplinary system perspective
• Good communication skills
• High ethical standards, etc.

• Underlying Need
• Educate students who
• Understand how to conceive- design-implement-ope
  rate
• Complex value-added engineering systems
• In a modern team-based engineering
  environment

We are adopting CDIO as the engineering context
of our education
5
CONCEIVE - DESIGN -IMPLEMENT - OPERATE
A generalized description of a total system
lifecycle - ideas to ashes

• Conceiving - defining the need and technology,
  considering the enterprise strategy and
  regulations, developing the concept,
  architecture, and business case - deciding what
  you will design
• Designing - creating the design, i.e. the
  information artifact (plans, drawings,
  algorithms, etc) which describes what you will
  implement
• Implementing - transforming the information
  artifact - the design - into the product you
  deliver (manufacturing/coding, test and
  validation)
• Operating - using the implemented product to
  deliver the intended value, including
  maintaining, evolving and retiring the system

6
OPPORTUNITY

• To foster creativity
• Through hands-on experience and student projects
• To create a learning community
• Through interaction of students-faculty-staff-alum
  s-industry-parents-others
• To transform the culture
• Engineering science Engineering products

7
GOALS

• To educate students
• To master a deeper working knowledge of the
  technical fundamentals
• To lead in the creation and operation of new
  products and systems
• To understand the importance and strategic value
  of their future research work

8
VISION - EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

• We envision an education that stresses the
  fundamentals, set in the context of
  Conceiving-Designing-Implementing-Operating
  systems and products
• A curriculum organised around the disciplines,
  but with CDIO activities highly interwoven.
• With disciplines mutually supporting and
  interacting.
• Rich with student projects complemented by
  internships in industry.
• Featuring active, experiential, and group
  learning.
• Set in both the classroom and a modern learning
  workshop/ laboratory, networked with the outside
  world.
• Constantly improved through robust
  assessment/evaluation process.

9
PEDAGOGIC LOGIC

• Most engineers are concrete operational
  learners
• Manipulate objects to understand abstractions
• Students arrive at University lacking personal
  experience
• Lack foundation for formal operational thought
• Must provide authentic activities to allow
  mapping of new knowledge - alternative is rote or
  pattern matching
• Using CDIO as authentic activity achieves two
  goals --
• Provides activities to learn fundamentals
• Provides education in the creation and operation
  of systems

10
APPROACH

• Our approach is to design (in the engineering
  sense) an improved educational model.
• Analyze needs, and set a clear, complete
• and consistent set of goals
• Create models through research and
  development efforts
• Create an assessment process and metrics of
  performance
• Design and prototype in 4 parallel programs
• Compare results, iterate and converge on improved
  integrated educational model

Chalmers
KTH
LiU
MIT
11
STRATEGY
Curriculum
Teaching Learning
Workshop/ Laboratories
Assessment/ Evaluation
Change Process
12
VISION - IMPACT OUTPUTS
ULTIMATEGOAL
Impact on student education
Impact on other programs
Impact on our 4 programs
INTERMEDIATE GOAL
PROGRAM OUTPUTS
CHANGE PROCESS
DIFFUSION ADOPTION
13
VISION - ULTIMATE GOAL
To educate a large number of students, world-wide

• To master a deeper working knowledge of the
  technical fundamentals
• To lead in the creation and operation of new
  products and systems
• To understand the importance and strategic value
  of their future research work

Students are our Ultimate Customers
14
VISION - INTERMEDIATE GOAL

• To impact the educational programs at
• a large number of leading universities.
• Our four academic programs
• Other programs at our universities
• Programs at other universities

Program owners are our immediate customers
15
VISION - PROGRAM OUTPUTS

• Educational goals
• CDIO Syllabus
• Survey process

Curriculum
T L
W/L
A E
Models for the design and utilization of
workshop/labs
Models for curriculum structure and design
Program evaluation tools and processes
Understanding and addressing barriers to student
learning
Program
Environment rich in active, experiential learning
with enhanced feedback
Assessment of student achievement tools and
processes
Workshop based educational experiences
Curricular materials for CDIO education
Student Experience
16
VISIONDIFFUSION ADOPTION

• We will create a set of products to support
  diffusion and adoption by the other programs
• Information to increase awareness and interest
• A transfer process for knowledge and materials
• Support for the change process in adopting
  programs
• A progressive process of diffusion
• Chalmers KTH LiU MIT
• beta partners
• Widespread diffusion

17
METRICS OF SUCCESS

• Explicit, and derived directly from our roadmap
• Students with demonstrated increases in
  knowledge, skills and changed attitudes
• Other academic programs impacted
• Program outputs (i.e. curricular models, workshop
  concepts, assessment tools)
• Outputs to support diffusion and adoption

18
PLANNING TOWARD VISION
Vision
4 year Roadmap
2nd year Plan
First year Goals
1st year plan
Original Proposal
19
SIX MAIN GOALS FOR YEAR ONE

• 1. Create a detailed program plan by October 1,
  2000
• 2. Formalize the requirements on the educational
  reforms by updating the syllabi and curricula for
  each university.
• 3. Build the team to accomplish the task
• 4. Execute a number of curricular and pedagogic
  experiments, aiming at concrete results within
  the timeframe of one year
• 5. Develop the preliminary suite of assessment
  tools necessary to measure our progress
• 6. Develop detailed plans for our workshop
  laboratories, outfit them, and conduct some pilot
  experiments in them

20
1. DETAILED PROGRAM PLAN

• The detailed plan has been created.
• Activities listed and responsibilities assigned
• Outcomes have been clearly identified
• Due to the delayed funding decision, the planning
  has taken place in the autumn rather than the
  summer. The detailed plan was established by
  February 15, 2001
• A roadmap plan for years 2-4 has been assembled,
  which will form the basis for future yearly plans

21
PLAN STRUCTURE
22
FIRST YEAR PLAN
23
2. FORMALIZE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REFORM

• Adoption and translation of the CDIO Syllabus
• Surveys conducted to establish expected level of
  proficiency
• Data analyzed and compared
• Curriculum redesign underway in all programs
  based on these requirements

24
3. BUILD THE TEAM

• Review committee
• US academic Richard M. Murray, Chair, Division
  of Engineering and Applied Science, Caltech
• US industrialist Ray Leopold, Chief Technology
  Officer, Motorola (Network Systems Sector)
• European academic Thomas Gray, Mechanical
  Engineering Dept, Univ of Strathclyde, UK
• Swedish industrialist Kaj Holmelius, former CTO
  of Scania Trucks

• Deans level supporters
• Lennart Josefson, Chalmers
• Mats Hanson, KTH
• Mille Millnert, LiU
• Tom Magnanti, MIT
• These together with Bengt Halse (SAAB) constitute
  the steering committee

25
ORGANIZATION
Wallenberg Foundation Board
Curriculum
Teaching Learning
Program Directors Ed Crawley Co-Chair Johan
Malmqvist Co-Chair
Steering Committee
Workshop/Labs
Assessment
Coordination
26
3. TEAM BUILDING (cont.) STAFFING TABLE
27
4. CURRICULAR AND PEDAGOGIC EXPERIMENTS

• Chalmers
• Design-build experience in 4th year Mechatronics
  project course
• Mud cards in the Internal Combustion Engines
  course
• The Project Bruno has used an industrial project
  to link courses in the 2nd year
• KTH
• Design-build project based on systems for
  solar-powered flight
• Survey of self-tutorials for MATLAB for
  introductory course use
• LiU
• Introductory project course for 1st year being
  developed
• A set of 4th year project courses based on the
  CDIO theme is under development
• MIT
• Problem formulation approach in aerodynamics
  course for 3rd year students.
• Early engineering experience course in spring term

28
5. DEVELOP THE PRELIMINARY SUITE OF ASSESSMENT
TOOLS

• Learning objectives and taxonomies Faculty
  workshops
• Development of tools for CDIO skills assessment
• Course evaluation
• Web-based evaluations (LiU, MIT)
• Instructor-student evaluation panels (Chalmers,
  KTH)
• Instructor reflective memos (KTH, MIT)
• Program evaluation
• The Balanced Scorecard developed at LiU
• Accreditation model of program evaluation applied
  at MIT

29
6. DESIGN, DEVELOP, OUTFIT OUR WORKSHOPS/LABORATOR
IES

• Chalmers
• Physical prototype workshop concept development
• The IDE (Industrial Design Engineering) studio
• LiU
• Workshop survey to identify needs for future labs
• Plans for electronics, control and vehicular
  systems labs
• KTH
• The Hangaren, a lab space for work in the Solar
  Powered Flight project has been established
• MIT
• Learning Lab has full initial capability, and has
  been used in prototype mode in the spring

30
SCHEDULE AND FUNDING

• Delay in Wallenberg Board decision caused a
  October rather than June start up
• Impact of losing summer for planning time
• Kept this review in early summer (9 mo vs. 12 mo)
• Funding was below request
• Appropriate for start-up year, considering
  ramp-up time for hiring
• Envision ramp-up to original request level
• KTH was excluded from funding
• Used internal sources to be a full partner
• Recommend inclusion in program funding

31
TASKS FOR THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

• Evaluate the progress of the program after Year 1
  and 3
• Questions to consider
• Are we addressing the right issues?
• Do we have the right strategy and plan?
• Are we making progress according to the plan?
• What is the potential impact of the program?
• Do you recommend any changes?

32
TASKS FOR THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

• Evaluation after Year 1
• To ensure that we are on the right track
• 2-3 page report to the Wallenberg Foundation as
  input to the decision on funding for Y2-Y4
• The committee has the option to recommend the
  Foundation to continue, modify or terminate the
  program
• Draft report compiled during meeting, final
  report due 3 weeks after meeting. Submission to
  the Wallenberg Foundation via the co-directors
• Evaluation after Year 3
• In time to support corrective action for any
  identified weaknesses
• Leading to a potential application to the
  Wallenberg Foundation for a second funding period

33
SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• We understand the need, and have established
  stretch goals
• We have developed a new education philosophy
  to meet the needs of today and tomorrow
• We have a vision of what to do and how to do
  it
• We are off to a great start
• Team formed and working well
• Common set of goals - the CDIO syllabus
• Plans and communication formulated
• Buy-in from our universities and faculties
• Benchmarking and analysis of existing program
• Successful early pilots

34
PLAN FOR THIS REVIEW MEETING

• Overview and Roadmap have been presented
• Each group will present its
• Goals and overview
• Highlights of progress in first year
• Plans for years 2-4
• Student Report
• Diffusion and adoption
• Review committee meeting, report and presentation
  of preliminary findings

We want to engage you and seek your active
participation!