Basic Optics

1
Towards CDIO based accreditation of engineering
programmes in Sweden E. Göran Salerud
2
National educational perspective

• In Sweden there are 39 universities and
  institutions of higher education
• Swedish higher education in engineering
  programmes arearraged by
• 4 main universities (KTH, CTH, Lund and LiU)
• 7 smaller institute of tehnology
• Approximately 100 engineering programmes are
  currently available
• One cycle master progamme of 4,5 year

3
Applied physics and Electronics the Y and
Yi-programmes

• 150 (Y) 30 (Yi) students admitted each year
• 4 ½ years (180 units)
• 160 units courses 20 units Master Thesis
• 115 units mandatory, 25 units specialization and
  20 units elective
• The Yi-students study language (French, German or
  Spanish) and spend year three abroad

4
BME a specialization in the Y and Yi-programmes

• Biomedical engineering
• Applied mathematics
• Organic systems and sensors
• Theory, modeling and visualization
• Materials, electronics and photonics
• Electronics
• SoC-ware
• Mechatronics
• Control and information system
• Signal and image processing
• Communication
• Software engineering

5
National Agency for Higher Education

• Quality audits and supervision of higher
  education
• Evaluations of subjects and programmes conducted
  by the National Agency once every six years
• Review of the Master of science in Engineering
  programmes
• Purpose of review
• To stimulate the programs to improve their
  quality
• To make sure the programs follow rules and
  regulations in the Higher Education Act and
  Higher Education Ordinance
• To give information to presumtive students to use
  when they choose universities and programs

6
CDIO standards as evaluation process

• National Agency of Higher Education choose to
• Propose the use of CDIO standards to ask the
  programme management to make a
• self-evaluation and
• Evaluation conformance to the 12 CDIO standards
• Standards are mapped according to
• Description
• Rationale
• Evidence
• The CDIO Standards define the distinguishing
  features of a CDIO program, serve as guidelines
  for educational programme reform and evaluation,
  create benchmarks and goals with worldwide
  application, and provide a framework for
  continuous improvement.

7
The CDIO standards

• Principles and goals
• 1. CDIO as Context
• Adoption of the principle that product and system
  lifecycle development and deployment are the
  context for engineering education
• 2. CDIO Syllabus Outcomes
• Specific, detailed learning outcomes for
  personal, interpersonal, and product and system
  building skills, consistent with program goals
  and validated by program stakeholders

8
The CDIO standards

• Curriculum
• 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
• 4. Introduction to Engineering
• An introductory course that provides the
  framework for engineering practice in product and
  system building, and introduces essential
  personal and interpersonal skills

9
The CDIO standards

• Workspaces and laboratories
• 5. Design-Build Experiences
• A curriculum that includes two or more
  design-build experiences, including one at a
  basic level and one at an advanced level
• 6. CDIO Workspaces
• Workspaces and laboratories that support and
  encourage hands-on learning of product and system
  building, disciplinary knowledge, and social
  learning

10
The CDIO standards

• Teaching and learning
• 7. Integrated Learning Experiences
• Integrated learning experiences that lead to the
  acquisition of disciplinary knowledge, as well as
  personal, interpersonal, and product and system
  building skills
• 8. Active Learning
• Teaching and learning based on active
  experiential learning methods

11
The CDIO standards

• Competence of the teaching faculty
• 9. Enhancement of Faculty CDIO Skills
• Actions that enhance faculty competence in
  personal, interpersonal, and product and system
  building skills
• 10. Enhancement of Faculty Teaching Skills
• Actions that enhance faculty competence in
  providing integrated learning experiences, in
  using active experiential learning methods, and
  in assessing student learning

12
The CDIO standards

• Assessment and evaluation
• 11. CDIO Skills Assessment
• Assessment of student learning in personal,
  interpersonal, and product and system building
  skills, as well as in disciplinary knowledge
• 12. CDIO Program Evaluation
• A system that evaluates programs against these 12
  standards, and provides feedback to students,
  faculty, and other stakeholders for the purposes
  of continuous improvement

13
The CDIO standards

• Seven standards are considered essential to
  distinguish a CDIO program because they deal
  explicitly with personal, interpersonal and
  product/system building skills (marked with )
• Supplementary standards are highly desirable and
  reflect best practice, but are not necessarily
  distinguishing features of a CDIO program

14
The CDIO Syllabus

• A Statement of Desired Goals for Undergraduate
  Engineering Education
• Technical knowledge and resoning
• Personal and professional skills and attributes
• Interpersonal skills Teamwork and communication
• Concieving, Designing, Implementing and Operating
  systems in the enterprise and societal context

15
CDIO and ABET

• EC2000 states that accredited engineering
  programs must assure that its graduates have
  developed 11 specific attributes.
• The CDIO Syllabus of ABETs attributes is strong
• the Syllabus is more comprehensive.
• For example, ABET omits any reference to System
  Thinking (2.3), and lists only item (i), an
  ability to engage in lifelong learning, from
  among the many desirable Personal Attributes
  (2.4). (ABET omits initiative, perseverance,
  flexibility, creative and critical thinking,
  etc.)
• ABET omits enterprise and business context

16
Primary issues

• Accreditation and the CDIO Standards
• 1. What is the relationship of accreditation
  standards (ABET, CEAB, etc.) to the twelve CDIO
  Standards? How do they map onto each other?
• 2. How can the CDIO Initiative Influence
  accreditation standards in Europe?
• Difficult-to-measure learning outcomes, e.g.,
  commitment to lifelong learning
• 1. What is best practice in the assessment of
  these skills?
• 2. How can we develop appropriate tools, methods,
  and procedures?
• Program evaluation tools and methods, e.g.,
  course evaluations, student assessment of CDIO
  programs, surveys, exit interviews, portfolio
  assessment for program evaluation
• 1. What is best practice in these areas of
  program evaluation?
• 2. How can we develop appropriate tools, methods,
  and procedures?

17
Secondary issues

• Revisions to the CDIO Standards
• 1. Is there a need to change the word
  essential, or even to distinguish two levels of
  standards?
• 2. How can we explain the self-assessment scale
  for a more consistent interpretation?
• Reorganization of the Themes
• 1. Where does learning assessment belong?
• 2. At the regional level, could Assessment focus
  on program evaluation while Teaching and Learning
  tackles learning assessment?
• 3. Could TL and Assessment work together on
  learning assessment issues?
• Stakeholder Surveys
• 1. Is there a need to revisit stakeholder surveys
  in a regional context with a more specialized
  industrial base?

18
CDIO dissemination
FOUNDING COLLABORATORS
Linköping
MIT
Chalmers
KTH
CURRENT COLLABORATORS (in addition to the
founders)
UK AND EUROPE
N. AMERICA
REST OF WORLD
19
LEARN MORE ABOUT CDIO