Foundations For A New Type Of Design Engineers – Experiences From DTU Meeting The CDIO Concept

Home » Foundations For A New ...

Foundations For A New Type Of Design Engineers – Experiences From DTU Meeting The CDIO Concept

U. Jørgensen, H. Lindegaard, S. Brodersen (2011).  Foundations For A New Type Of Design Engineers – Experiences From DTU Meeting The CDIO Concept . 19.
2011 7th International CDIO Conference, DTU, Denmark
PDF icon 123_paper.pdf

Since 2002 a new design-engineering education has been in operation at the Technical University of Denmark. It fulfils the requirements in the CDIO concept but builds in addition on a change in what is considered core disciplines in engineering. Three fields of knowledge are represented almost equally in the curriculum: natural and technical sciences, design synthesis and socio-technical analysis, which adds to the dominant focus in engineering on natural and technical sciences. Combined with the integration and coordination of disciplines, a series of projects providing a progression of challenges to the students learning, and a focus on the outcomes of the learning processes of competences needed in design engineering, the curriculum represents a radical innovation in engineering curriculum.

The paper describe the foundational elements of this educational program and present an assessment of the key factors that has made this program attract new groups of students to engineering including an almost equal recruitment of male and female students. In outcome and performance terms the educational program at the same time has delivered a quite efficient study environment for students. Since 2007 graduates have finished every year and an evaluation of the education based on the graduates and their employers’ experiences supports the visions of the curriculum and adds to what is needed to reform engineering education.

The paper presents a critical comparison of the CDIO basic standards and principles with the learning content and experiences from the design-education at DTU and raise three questions to whether the advice provided by the CDIO syllabus satisfies the stated principles. The critique points to the following: (a) conceiving not being taken serious in the CDIO syllabus, (b) a too narrow view of engineering knowledge ignoring socio-technical insights, (c) the importance of engineering practices and competences in creating authentic assignments, (d) to reverse the hierarchy of topics and disciplines, and (e) a need for mechanisms to coordinate curriculum and cross-disciplinary cooperation. The creation of successful reforms in engineering education does not alone result from introducing project or problem based learning in the classroom. There is a need to focus on the objectives and disciplinary support for project assignments understanding the scattered character of technical disciplines. There is also a need for introducing measures that support teams building and continued cooperation among teachers to overcome the isolation.

 

Authors (New): 
Ulrik Jørgensen
Hanne Lindegaard
Søsser Brodersen
Pages: 
19
Affiliations: 
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Keywords: 
Design-engineering
socio-technical competences
Teamwork
authentic projects
disciplinary integration
Year: 
2011
Reference: 
Williams R., Retooling: A Historian Confronts Technological Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003.: 
Vincenti W.G., What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1990.: 
Auyang S.Y., Engineering: An Endless Frontier. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2004.: 
Ihde D. and Selinger E., Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2003.: 
Crawley E., The CDIO Syllabus – A statement of goals for undergraduate engineering education. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. MIT, 2001.: 
Crawley E., Malmqvist J., Ostlund S. and Brodeur D., Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.: 
Cohen S.S. and Zysman J., Manufacturing Matters – The Myth of the Post-Industrial Economy. New York: Basic Books, 1987.: 
Mindell D., Between Human and Machine – Feedback, Control, and Computing before Cybernetics. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2002.: 
Hughes A.C. and Hughes T.P., Systems, Experts, and Computers: The Systems Approach in Management and Engineering, World War II and after. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000.: 
Juhlin O. and Elam M., What the New History of Technological Knowledge Knows and How It Knows It. In Juhlin O., Prometheus at the Wheel: Representations of Road Transport Informatics. Linköping: Tema T, Linköping Universitet, 1997.: 
Lutz B. and Kammerer G., Das Ende des graduierten Ingenieurs? (The end of the ‘craft-based’ engineer?). Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1975.: 
Wengenroth U., Managing Engineering Complexity: A Historical Perspective. Paper for the Engineering Systems Symposium at MIT, 2004.: 
Kjersdam F., and Enemark S., The Aalborg Experiment – Implementation of Problem Based Learning, Aalborg: Aalborg University Press, 2002.: 
Beder S., The New Engineer: Management and Professional Responsibility in a Changing World. The University of Wollongong, 1998.: 
Sørensen K.H., Engineers transformed: From managers of technology to technology consultants. In The Spectre of Participation, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1998. : 
Bucciarelli L. L., Designing Engineers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996: 
Downey G., Are engineers losing control of technology? From ‘problem solving’ to ‘problem definition and solution’ in engineering education. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 83, 2005.: 
Bijker W.E., Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs – Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.: 
Andreasen M.M., Jørgensen U., Clausen, C. et al. design•ing – en design dagsorden for Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (design•ing – a design agenda for the Technical University of Denmark), Educational planning document, Technical University of Denmark, 2001.: 
Andreasen M.M., Jørgensen U., Boelskifte P., Clausen C. et al. design•ing – indstilling om en uddannelse i design & innovation ved Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (design•ing – proposal for Proceeding of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, June 20-23, 2011 an education in design & innovation at the Technical University of Denmark), Educational planning document, Technical University of Denmark, 2002.: 
Boelskifte P. and Jørgensen U., Design & innovation. Developing a curriculum for future design engineers at the Technical University of Denmark. Proceedings: Engineering and Product Design Conference, Napier University, Edinburgh, September 2005. : 
NFS (2004) ED2030: Strategic Plan for Engineering Design, Workshop on Engineering Design in 2030, Aristona State University.: 
Brodersen S. and Lindegaard H., Hovedpointer fra workshops med D&I kandidater, D&I undervisere og D&I censorer. D&I Evaluering, Afrapportering 1. DTU Management, August 2009.: 
Brodersen S. and Lindegaard H., Hovedpointer fra telefon survey med D&I kandidater og aftagere. D&I Evaluering, Afrapportering 2. DTU Management, June 2010.: 
Brodersen S. and Lindegaard H., Kvalitative Interviews med D&I Censorer, Undervisere, Kandidater og Studerende. D&I Evaluering, Afrapportering 3. DTU Management, August 2010. : 
Armstrong P.J., The CDIO Syllabus: Learning outcomes for engineering education. In Crawley E., Malmqvist J., Ostlund S. and Brodeur D., Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.: 
Young P.W. and Hallström S., Design-implement experiences and engineering work. In Crawley E., Malmqvist J., Ostlund S. and Brodeur D., Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.: 
Jørgensen U., Historical Accounts of Engineering Education. In Crawley E., Malmqvist J., Ostlund S. and Brodeur D., Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.: 
on September 13, 2012 - 15:54   jenroy
  • Printer-friendly version
Go to top