A typical concern among faculty faced with requests for adding new and broader learning outcomes to existing degree programs, is that they might be forced to reduce their core disciplinary curriculum to make place for these new outcomes. The CDIO response to this is dual use of time – by means of integrated learning experiences, the same course slot can be used both to convey core disciplinary knowledge, professional skills, and societal relevance. However, empirical evidence for the effects of dual use of time seem to be limited. In this paper, we review empirical literature on various types of integrated learning, namely project-based learning, work-integrated learning, and content-language integrated learning. In addition, we discuss cognitive load theory and whether its findings have implications for such dual-purpose educational designs. Towards the end, we briefly discuss some frameworks, possibilities, and pitfalls for such integrated teaching.
Pages:
907-917
Affiliations:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
Keywords:
Integrated Learning
Dual use of time
Project-Based Learning
Conceptual load
learning outcomes
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 11
Year:
2022
Reference:
Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 722-735.:
Armstrong, P., et al. (2006). Meeting the CDIO requirements: an international comparison of engineering curricula. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 5(2), 263.:
Bankel, J., Berggren, K. F., Blom, K., Crawley, E. F., Wiklund, I., & Östlund, S. (2003). The CDIO syllabus: a comparative study of expected student proficiency. European Journal of Engineering Education, 28(3), 297-315.:
Björck, V., & Johansson, K. (2019). Problematising the theory–practice terminology: A discourse analysis of students’ statements on work-integrated learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(10), 1363-1375.:
Bolstad, T., et al. (2021). Sustainability in project-based learning: Project themes and self-perceived competencies. Nordic Journal of STEM Education, 5(1).:
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41(3), 587-597.:
Cañado, M. L. P. (2018). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18-33.:
Chen, C. H., & Yang, Y. C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project -based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71-81.:
Cimermanova, I. (2021). A Review of European Research on Content and Language Integrated Learning. Integration of Education, 25(2), 192-213.:
Crawley, E., et al. (2020). Education and Knowledge Exchange. In Universities as Engines of Economic Development (pp. 47-99). Springer, Cham.:
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?. Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182-204.:
Dean, B. A., & Sykes, C. (2021). How Students Learn on Placement: Transitioning Placement Practices in Work-Integrated Learning. Vocations and Learning, 14(1), 147-164.:
Dosmar, E., & Nguyen, B. A. (2021, July). Applying the framework of Fink’s taxonomy to the design of a holistic culminating assessment of student learning in biomedical engineering. In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.:
Edström, K., et al. (2007). Integrated curriculum design. In Rethinking Engineering Education (pp. 77- 101). Springer, Boston, MA.:
Edström, K. (2017). Exploring the dual nature of engineering education: Opportunities and challenges in integrating the academic and professional aspects in the curriculum (Doctoral disser tation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).:
Effeney, G. (2020). Risk in work integrated learning: A stakeholder centric model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(4), 388-403.:
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 22(6), 661-674.:
Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-integrated learning. Asia- Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 179–188.:
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Sons.:
Fleming, J. & Haigh, N.J. (2017), Examining and challenging the intentions of work-integrated learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7(2), 198-210.:
Forcael, E., et al. (2021). Relationship Between Professional Competencies Required by Engineering Students According to ABET and CDIO and Teaching-Learning Techniques. IEEE Transactions on Education.:
Goroshnikova, T. A., & Smakhtin, E. S. (2018, October). Interdisciplinary curriculum approach as a university component for large-scale education projects. In 2018 Eleventh International Conference" Management of large-scale system development" (MLSD) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.:
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project -based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101586.:
Hall, S. R., Waitz, I., Brodeur, D. R., Soderholm, D. H., & Nasr, R. (2002, November). Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. In 32nd Annual frontiers in education (Vol. 1, pp. T2A-T2A). IEEE.:
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 2012, ISSN 1989-0796, pp. 57-70:
Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350-367.:
Jackson, D. (2018). Developing graduate career readiness in Australia: shifting from extra-curricular internships to work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(1), 23- 35.:
Kans, M., & Gustafsson, Å. (2016). Analyzing the meaning of interdisciplinary in the CDIO context. In The 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016. (pp. 962-973). Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Kirschner, P. A., et al. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233.:
Leal-Rodriguez, A. L., & Albort-Morant, G. (2019). Promoting innovative experiential learning practices to improve academic performance: Empirical evidence from a Spanish Business School. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), 97-103.:
Le Deist, F. D., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence?. Human resource development international, 8(1), 27-46.:
Leppink, J., & Duvivier, R. (2016). Twelve tips for medical curriculum design from a cognitive load theory perspective. Medical teacher, 38(7), 669-674.:
Leslie, L. J., Gorman, P. C., & Junaid, S. (2021). Conceive-design-implement-operate (CDIO) as an effective learning framework for embedding professional skills. International Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 1289-1299.:
Levine, L. E., Fallahi, C. R., Nicoll-Senft, J. M., Tessier, J. T., Watson, C. L., & Wood, R. M. (2008). Creating significant learning experiences across disciplines. College Teaching, 56(4), 247-254.:
Lowe, D. B., & Goldfinch, T. (2021). Lessons From an Analysis of the Intended Learning Outcomes of Integrative Project Units Within Engineering Programs. IEEE Transactions on Education.:
Malmqvist, J., et al. (2015). A survey of CDIO implementation globally – effects on educational quality. In Proceedings of the 11th international CDIO conference (No. 12, pp. 1-17).:
Malmqvist, J., et al. (2020). Optional CDIO Standards: Sustainable Development, Simulation-Based Mathematics, Engineering Entrepreneurship, Internationalisation & Mobility. In 16th International CDIO Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 48-59).:
McCormick, K. (1988). Tidbits for Effective Teaching: A Minute Management Menu. Report, Delaware State Department of Public Instruction, March 1988.:
Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., & Mohamad Said, M. N. H. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225-4228.:
Mutereko, S., & Wedekind, V. (2016). Work integrated learning for engineering qualifications: a spanner in the works?. Journal of Education and Work, 29(8), 902-921.:
Nagle, L., Lannon, J., & McMahon, J. (2018). Integrating formal learning into work-integrated learning to create a semi-formal environment.:
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.:
Pazos, P., Magpili, N., Zhou, Z., & Rodriguez, L. J. (2016). Developing Critical Collaboration Skills in Engineering Students: Results From an Empirical Study.:
Peters, M. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to interpret student difficulties with a problem-based learning approach to engineering education: a case study. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 34(1), 53-62.:
Philipsen, R., Schmidt, T., Van Heek, J., & Ziefle, M. (2016). Fast-charging station here, please! User criteria for electric vehicle fast-charging locations. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 40, 119-129.:
Ralph, R. A. (2016). Post secondary project-based learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(1), 26-35.:
Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2017). Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction, 52, 69-79.:
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319-337.:
Sutherland, T. E., & Bonwell, C. C. (1996). Using active learning in college classes: A range of options for faculty. Jossey-Bass.:
Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden–why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301-320.:
Varouchas, E., et al. (2018). Towards an integrated learning analytics framework for quality perceptions in higher education: A 3-tier content, process, engagement model for key performance indicators. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(10-11), 1129-1141.:
Ward, R., et al. (2021). Towards a 21st century personalised learning skills taxonomy. In 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 344-354). IEEE.:
Winberg, C., et al. (2020). Developing employability in engineering education: a systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(2), 165-180.:
Wood, Y. I., et al. (2020). Conventional, Remote, Virtual and Simulated Work-Integrated Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331-354:
on October 17, 2022 - 03:51 Maria Siiskonen
Conceive
Design
Implement
Operate
