Comparing Two Approaches For Engineering Education Development: PBL And CDIO

K. Edström, A. Kolmos (2012). Comparing Two Approaches For Engineering Education Development: PBL And CDIO. 15.

2012 8th International CDIO Conference, Queensland UT, Australia

comparing_two_approaches_for_engineering_education_development_pbl_and_cdio.pdf

During the last decade there have been two dominating models for reforming engineering education: Problem/Project Based Learning (PBL) and the CDIO Initiative. The aim of this paper is to compare the PBL and CDIO approaches to engineering education reform, to identify and explain similarities and differences.

CDIO and PBL will each be defined and compared in terms of the original need analysis, underlying educational philosophy and the essentials of the respective approaches to engineering education. In these respects we see many similarities. Circumstances that explain differences in history and experiences will be identified and discussed. The comparison gives an overview of history and experiences, organization of community, curriculum implementation principles, model of change, variation in implementation, body of research, and extent of dissemination (world map). It is suggested that the two approaches have much in common and can be combined, and especially that the practitioners have much to learn from each other’s experiences through a dialogue between the communities.

This structured comparison will potentially indicate specifically what an institution experienced in one of the communities can learn from the other, as well as provide a chart for anyone who wishes to learn about any of these models. As a conclusion, some observations on common lessons learned will be made.

Authors (New):

Kristina Edström

Anette Kolmos

Pages:

Affiliations:

KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden

Aalborg University, Denmark

Keywords:

CDIO

Problem-based learning

Project-Based Learning

Year:

2012

Reference:

Crawley, E. F., The CDIO Syllabus: A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Engineering Education, MIT CDIO Report #1, 2001.:

Gordon, B. M., What is an Engineer? Invited keynote presentation. Annual conference of the European Society for Engineering, University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, 1984.:

Augustine, N. R., Socioengineering (and Augustine’s Second Law Thereof). The Bridge, Fall 1994, 3-14.:

The Boeing Company. Desired Attributes of an Engineer: Participation with Universities. See for instance: J. H. McMasters and N. Komerath, Boeing - University Relations - A Review and Prospects for the Future, Proc. ASEE Annual Conf. & Expo, 2005.:

Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), ABET, 1996.:

Savin-Baden, M. and Howell Major, C., Foundations of Problem-based Learning, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2004.:

Graaff, E. de & Kolmos, A., 2003. Characteristics of Problem-based Learning, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 19, No. 5, p657-662. :

Savin-Baden, M., Facilitating Problem-based Learning: Illuminating Perspectives. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2003.:

Barrows, H. S., Problem-based Learning in Medicine and Beyond: A Brief Overview, in Wilkerson, LuAnn & Wim H. Gijselaers (eds.). Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 68, 1996, pp. 3-12.:

Illeris, K., Problemorientering og deltagerstyring: oplæg til en alternative didaktik (Problem orientation and participation: draft for an alternative didactic). Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1976.:

de Graaff, E. and Kolmos, A., Management of Change Implementation of Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering, Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2007.:

Dewey, J., Experience and Education. New York: Collier and Kappa Delta Pi, 1938.:

Kolb, D., Experiential Learning - Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall PER, New Jersey, 1984.:

Schon, D.A., Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1987.:

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D., Rethinking Engineering Education, The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.:

The CDIO Standards v. 2.0 (with customized rubrics), CDIO, 8 December 2010:

Malmqvist, J., Edström, K., Gunnarsson K., Östlund, S., Use of CDIO Standards in Swedish National Evaluation of Engineering Educational Programs. 1st Annual CDIO Conference Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada June 7-8, 2005.:

Kolmos, A. ; de Graaff, E.; Du, X. Diversity of PBL - PBL Learning Principles and Models. In Du, X ; Graaff, E.d. ; Kolmos, A., eds. Research on PBL Practice in Engineering Education. Rotterdam : Sense Publishers, 2009. s. 9-21.:

Thomas, John W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. Autodesk Foundation, http://www.bie.org/research/study/review_of_project_based_learning_2000:

http://www.cdio.org/:

Suchman, M. S., Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1995, pp. 571-610.:

on November 26, 2012 - 11:54 jenroy

Comparing Two Approaches For Engineering Education Development: PBL And CDIO

Navigation

Comparing Two Approaches For Engineering Education Development: PBL And CDIO

Share this content.