Discovering Proficiency Levels For CDIO Syllabus Topics Through Stakeholder Differentiation

Discovering Proficiency Levels For CDIO Syllabus Topics Through Stakeholder Differentiation

Engineering education is based on articulated goals and student learning outcomes developed through curriculum programs. The first task of turning the CDIO vision into a curriculum program is to develop an understanding of abilities needed by contemporary engineers. Such abilities are discovered from stakeholders who formalize the knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected from engineering graduates. Engineering education has four key stakeholder groups: students, industry, university faculty, and society. The vision of engineers the society needs varies between groups of stakeholders. For instance, industry and university faculty may disagree about the levels of proficiency the engineers may achieve regarding a particular CDIO syllabus topic, e.g. Knowledge of marketing principles. This paper presents an approach to generate unified syllabuses departing from surveys conducted to several stakeholder groups. The approach considers, for every CDIO syllabus topic, a specific proficiency level and an impact factor. The proficiency level is a specific value assigned by each stakeholder to each topic. The impact factor is a value that is associated to each stakeholder group according to his experience and proficiency level on a particular topic. The approach has a direct application for practical curricula committees and is supported by an open source tool.



Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 9 – 13, 2013. 

 

Authors (New): 
Hugo Arboleda
Álvaro Pachón
Andrés Paz
Gonzalo Ulloa
Pages: 
10
Affiliations: 
Universidad Icesi, Colombia
Keywords: 
Curriculum Design
stakeholder differentiation
proficiency level discovery
Year: 
2013
Reference: 
Schmeer, K., 1999. “Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis”. November 1999. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates Inc.: 
Preskill, H., & Jones, N. FSG Social Impact Advisors, Strategic Learning and Evaluation Center. (2009). “A practical guide for engaging stakeholders in developing evaluation questions”. Retrieved from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation website: http://www.fsg.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/PDF/Engaging_Stakeholders_Guide.pdf: 
"Module 8: Data Collection Methods”. Retrieved from World Bank website: http://www.worldbank.org/oed/ipdet/presentation/M_08-Pr.pdf: 
Todd, R., & Magleby, S. (2005). Elements of a successful capstone course considering the needs of stakeholders. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(2), 203-214. : 
10.1080/03043790500087332
Sorensen, C., Todd, R., Magleby, S. and Parkinson, A., Re-engineering design education: design process and learning activities, in Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology Division, Minneapolis, MN, September 1994.: 
Pukelis, K., Savickiené, I., Fokiené, A., “Methodology for the Curriculum of Vocational Teacher Qualification Improvement”. Retrieved from website: http://www.unistuttgart.de/bwt/dateien/forschung/projekte/lehrerbildung/propeto/8_Methodology_english.pdf: 
Schmeer, K., “Stakeholders Analysis Guidelines”. Retrieved from website: http://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/toolkit/33.pdf: 
“Stakeholder analysis toolkit v2”. Retrieved from Manchester Metropolitan University website: http://www.mmu.ac.uk/bit/project-management-toolkits.php: 
Yström, A., Peterson, L., Von Sydow, B., Malqvist, J., “Using Personas to Guide Education Needs Analysis and Program Design”. Proceedings of the 6th International CDIO Conference, École Polytechnique, Montréal, June 15-18, 2010. : 
Edward Crawley, Johan Malmqvist, Soren Ostlund, Doris Brodeur. Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Springer. 2007.: 
Academic Curricula Design and Management System, https://github.com/unicesi/academ: 
Go to top