This paper is a case report of why and how CDIO became a shared framework for Community Service Engineering (CSE) education. CSE can be defined as the engineering of products, product-service combinations or services that fulfill well-being and health needs in the social domain, specifically for vulnerable groups in society. The vulnerable groups in society are growing, while fewer people work in health care. Finding technical, interdisciplinary solutions for their unmet needs is the territory of the Community Service Engineer. These unmet needs arise in local niche markets as well as in the global community, which makes it an interesting area for innovation and collaboration in an international setting. Therefore, five universities from Belgium, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Sweden decided to work together as hubs in local innovation networks to create international innovation power. The aim of the project is to develop education on undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate levels. The partners are not aiming at a joined degree or diploma, but offer a shared short track blended course (3EC), which each partner can supplement with their own courses or projects (up to 30EC). The blended curriculum in CSE is based on design thinking principles. Resources are shared and collaboration between students and staff is organized at different levels. CDIO was chosen as the common framework and the syllabus 2.0 was used as a blueprint for the CSE learning goals in each university. CSE projects are characterized by an interdisciplinary, human centered approach leading to inter-faculty collaboration. At the university of Porto, EUR-ACE was already used as the engineering education framework, so a translation table was used to facilitate common development. Even though Thomas More and KU Leuven are no CDIO partner, their choice for design thinking as the leading method in the post-Masters pilot course insured a good fit with the CDIO syllabus. At this point University West is applying for CDIO and they are yet to discover what the adaptation means for their programs and their emerging CSE initiatives. CDIO proved to fit well to in the authentic open innovation network context in which engineering students actively do CSE projects. CDIO became the common language and means to continuously improve the quality of the CSE curriculum.
DOCUMENT
Since March 2015 the Faculty of Technology, Innovation and Society (TIS) of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) is a CDIO member with all its twelve programs: Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Management, Mechatronics, Electrical Engineering, Building Engineering, Civil Engineering, Climate and Management, Industrial Design Engineering, Industrial Design Engineering [Open Innovator], Engineering Physics, Mathematics & Applications, and Process & Food Technology. This paper describes the implementation of CDIO at TIS and discusses methods, opportunities and challenges of such a large endeavor. The CDIO standards have been coupled to the faculty and program policy plans, based on a comparison of CDIO and the Dutch/Flemish compulsory NVAO accreditation standards. The self-evaluation process has exposed differences between the programs, which has lead to grouping them in a fast track (already working with CDIO), a drawing board track (implementing CDIO in a future new curriculum design) and a quality track (using CDIO to improve the quality of the current program). Each track has its own needs and challenges, and thus requires a different approach and will show a different speed of adaptation. Other factors also plea for a more customized implementation process. Challenges discussed are the varying level of understanding of CDIO, combining CDIO with educational blueprints such as 4C/ID or design thinking, technical bachelor of applied sciences programs versus engineering ones and the motivational drivers for change on faculty staff member level. Working in a professional CDIO learning community leads to ownership of CDIO. Despite being a top-down decision, the adoption of CDIO in the twelve programs takes place bottom-up, ensuring continuous education improvement. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzannececiliabrink/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/oda-kok-007590b/
DOCUMENT
Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovation (IDE) is a 3-year, English taught, VWO entry-level, undergraduate programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). The IDE curriculum focuses on the fuzzy front end of (open) innovation, sustainable development, and impact in the implementation phase of product-service design. The work field of Industrial Design Engineering and Open Innovation, like many other domains, is growing increasingly more complex (Bogers, Zobel, Afuah, Almirall, Brunswicker, Dahlander, Frederiksen, Gawer, & Gruber, 2017). Not only have the roles of designers changed considerably in the last decades, they continue to do so at increasing speed. Therefore, industrial design engineering students need different and perhaps more competencies as young professionals in order to deal with this new complexity. Moreover, in our transitional society, lifelong learning takes a central position (Reekers, 2017). Students need to give their learning path direction autonomously, in accordance with their talents and interests. IDE’s Quality & Curriculum Committee (QCC) realized in 2015 there is too much new knowledge to address in a 3-year programme. Instead, IDE students need to learn how to become temporary experts in an array of topics, depending on the characteristics of each new project they do (see Textbox 1). The QCC also concluded that more than just incremental changes to the current curriculum were needed; thus, the idea for a flexible, choice-based semester approach in the curriculum was born: ‘Curriculum M’ (Modular). A co-creational approach was applied, in which teaching staff, students, alumni, prospective students, industry (including the (international) social profit sector), and educational advisors collaborated to develop a curriculum that would allow students to become not just T-shaped (wide basis, one expertise) professionals, but U- or W-shaped professionals, with strong links to other disciplines.
DOCUMENT
In a lifelong learning society students need to deal with the responsibility to give their learning path direction, find motivation, and prove what they have learned. What pedagogics and what kind of didactic structure do you need to bring this about in higher education? What does it mean for the professionality of the teaching staff, the organization of the teams, and the needed facilities? A co-creational approach is applied in redesigning the curriculum of the undergraduate programme Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovator, which offers multidisciplinary projects in authentic learning environments, and caters for the professional profiling needs of our future students. Teaching staff, students, alumni, future students, industry (including the social profit sector), and educational scientists collaborate towards the flexible, integrated and choice-based 'Project M(odular) Curriculum'. This paper describes the arguments for the choices made from an educational point of view, taking the twelve CDIO standards and CDIO syllabus as a blue print. In certain standards, project M goes beyond the framework to fulfil the needs of stakeholders, take the newest useful (engineering) educational research outcomes into account, and come to a curriculum design that will be adaptable and versatile enough to hold value for the coming ten years at least. Based on the experiences of Project M, considerations on refining CDIO standards 5, 8, 11 and 12 are presented in the discussion, together with a rationale to add a rubric score to the CDIO self-evaluation, and the discussion of minor gaps in the CDIO syllabus. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellen-sjoer-06506a2/
DOCUMENT
In two projects I have experimented with student designing their own assessment. One project was for a minor with only a few participants, so suitable for the experiment. The other was a regular course with approximately 50 students where the assessment form was partially free. I have done this project for over more than 10 years now. In this project every project group of students gets the assignment to let the other students experience what they have learned in their project. We would like to discuss how we can give students the opportunity to design their own assessment and still measure intended learning outcomes. And how can we learn from different cultures (between programs, faculties, universities and countries) in facilitating students to design their own assessment. Besides, we think by giving students more control over their own learning we will challenge students to focus on thriving and not just surviving.
DOCUMENT
The Utrecht School of Journalism has a long tradition in international higher education. The School’s European Culture & European Journalism (ED&EJ) programme is an example of a pedagogical practice in higher education where advanced students learn how to perform in an international context. Journalism students from Moscow to Ottawa and from Helsinki to Bilbao learn alongside Dutch students. It is not only the content of the programme and the reporting for the Web Magazine that makes the EC&EJ programme an inspirational educational experience. The programme demonstrates the importance of sharing different professional and cultural values. This sharing and confronting of professional standards contributes to an important new qualification for all higher educated professionals: awareness of cultural differences and similarities
DOCUMENT
Technological developments have a major impact on how we live, work and learn together. Several authors refer to a fourth revolution in which robots and other intelligent systems take over an increasing number of the current (routine) tasks carried out by humans (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Est et al., 2015; Ford, 2016; Helbing, 2014; Ross, 2017; Schwab, 2016). The relationship between man and machine will change fundamentally as a result. We are already noticing this shift, most specifically in the workplace. E.g., in the field of health care, digitalisation and robotisation can empower patients and their families. Hospitals are primarily intended for clients with complex care needs. This has consequences for the tasks carried out by nurses, who become more of a ‘care director’ or ‘research nurse’. Hospitals approach this in different ways, resulting in considerable diversity as to how these roles are fulfilled. These changes, albeit diverse, can also be seen in the roles of accountants, police officers and financial advisers at banks (Biemans, Sjoer, Brouwer and Potting, 2017). The traditional occupational profiles no longer exist and the essence of these professions is shifting. This does not make such occupations less attractive, but requires different qualities. The demand for more highly educated professionals who can carry out complex tasks in a creative and interdisciplinary manner will increase (McKinsey, 2017). Also, other social developments, such as migration and greenification, prompt us to ask new questions, resulting in new paths towards identifying solutions.
MULTIFILE
This book consists of thirteen chapters with elaborations on several perspectives of the Universities kaleidoscope. The aim of our book is not meant as a purely scientific endeavour, but as a contribution to the future development of universities. The style is popular science, primarily targeted at our lecturers as one of the most important social capitals we have. As the book is addressed to them, all chapters discuss their role, directly or indirectly. The focus is always on the ability to offer students the best possible learning environment. This requires first and foremost a dialogue on the professional diversity of lecturers. Innovative behaviour appears to be crucial for all of them. In addition to these abilities of lecturers, the design of the curriculum is essential for all parties involved. A curriculum largely determines the themes and contents addressed, how work-related, engaging and stimulating learning activities are developed and how lecturers design these on the micro level based on their expertise. Frans Jacobs & Ellen Sjoer (Editors). (See also seperate chapters).
DOCUMENT
This short paper describes the first prototyping of a self-evaluation process of Curriculum Agility at a Faculty of Technology in Sweden. The process comprises guided, semi-structured, individual interviews at different organisational levels within the faculty, a joint narrative based on those interviews, prioritizing development strategies per level, and jointly mapping them on importance and implementation time. The self-evaluation is part of and based on the research on the principles of Curriculum Agility. The results show the interplay in timely curriculum change for futureproof engineering education between the teaching staff, the systems and the people who control the systems. The self-evaluation brings together the different perspectives and perceptions within the faculty and gives insight in how those affect he willingness towards and occurrence of curriculum development. This work in progress indicates how doing such a qualitative self-evaluation paves the road for transparent strategic dialogues on a holistic level about what to give attention and organize differently.
DOCUMENT
In Proceedings of the first CARPE conference november 2011
DOCUMENT
