Education directly affected students' futures. However, the roles of students in the educational process, decision making, and development were generally less than other stakeholders. The paper proposed an optional standard in order to formally and systematically include the student engagement into CDIO framework in four spheres of engagement – (1) the management, (2) provision of education, (3) research, and (4) industry and society at the degree of partnership at least. With this platform, the optional standard would directly support most of the main standards in planning, operation, and development of activities and evaluation.
Pages:
10
Affiliations:
Chulalongkorn University,Thailand
Keywords:
Student involvement
Operational implementation
CDIO optional standards
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO standard 4
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 6
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 9
CDIO Standard 10
CDIO Standard 11
CDIO Standard 12
Year:
2021
Reference:
Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: implications for policies and practices. The European Higher Education Area (pp. 343-359). Springer.:
Campbell, D. A., Dawes, L. A., Beck, H., Wallace, S., Dansie, B., & Reidsema, C. (2009). An extended CDIO syllabus framework with preparatory engineering proficiencies. Proceedings of the 5th International CDIO Conference, Singapore: Singapore Polytechnic.:
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.:
Cheah, S. M., & Leong, H. (2018). Relevance of CDIO to industry 4.0–Proposal for 2 new standards, Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference, Japan: Kanazawa Institute of Technology.:
Drees, S., & Peters, H. (2016). ASPIRE-to-excellence academy. Educación Médica, 17(3), 115-118.:
Dunne, E., & Owen, D. (Eds.). (2013). Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education. Emerald Group Publishing.:
Ferreira, E. P., & Martins, A. (2016). EduScrum–The empowerment of students in engineering education?. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 596-605), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Gommer, E. L., Hermsen, E. E., & Zwier, G. G. (2016). Flipped Math, lessons learned from a pilot at Mechanical Engineering. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 937-947), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
González, A., Barrera, D., León, M., Curiel, M. & Prieto, L. (2018). Student success: On the need for a new standard. Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference (pp. 937-947), Japan: Kanazawa.:
Hargreaves, D. J. (2016). Directed student engagement and learning in a large engineering unit. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 518-527), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Hunt, D., Klamen, D., Harden, R. M., & Ali, F. (2018). The ASPIRE-to-Excellence Program: A global effort to improve the quality of medical education. Academic Medicine, 93(8), 1117-1119.:
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773.:
Leong, H., Shaun, A. J., & Singh, M. N. (2016). Enhancing students self-directed learning and motivation. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (p. 739-749), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Lumlertgul, N., Kijpaisalratana, N., Pityaratstian, N., & Wangsaturaka, D. (2009). Cinemeducation: A Pilot student project using movies to help students learn medical professionalism. Medical teacher, 31(7), e327-e332.:
Male, S., King, R., & Hargreaves, D. (2016). Drivers and barriers to industry engaging in engineering education. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 73-83), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Malmqvist, J., Edstrom, K., & Hugo, R. (2017). A Proposal for introducing optional CDIO standards. Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference, Canada: Calgary.:
Malmqvist, J., Wedel, M. K., Lundqvist, U., Edström, K., Rosén, A., Astrup, T. F., Vigild, M., Hussman, P. M. Grom, A., Lyng, R., Gunnarsson, S., Leong, H., Huay, W. K. and Kamp, A. (2019). Towards CDIO Standards 3.0. Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Denmark: Aarhus University.:
Malmqvist, J., Edström, K. Rosén, A., Hugo, R. & Campbell, D. (2020). Optional CDIO standards: Sustainable development, simulation-Based mathematics, engineering entrepreneurship, Proceedings of the 17th International CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chulalongkorn University & Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Bangkok, Thailand, June 21-23, 2021. internationalisation and mobility. Proceedings of the 16th International CDIO Conference, Sweden: Gothenburg.:
Maneeratana, K., Ruengsomboon, T., Chawalitrujiwong, A., Aksomsiri, P., & Asawapithulsert, K. (2017). Class-wide course feedback methods by student engagement program. Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE 2017) (pp. 393-398). Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.:
Martín, J. L., Romero, A. M., Tanarro, E. C., Lantada, A. D., Sánchez, Á. G., Bayo, A. H., ... & Rossi, C. (2016) The “INGENIA” initiative for promoting CDIO At TU Madrid: Lessons learned for enhanced performance. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 570-579), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Patricio, M. (2016). The ASPIRE initiative: excellence in student engagement in the school. Educación Médica, 17(3), 109-114.:
Peters, H., Zdravkovic, M., João Costa, M., Celenza, A., Ghias, K., Klamen, D., Mossop, L., Rieder, M., Nadarajah, V. D., Wangsaturaka, D., Wohlin, M., & Wohlin, M. (2019). Twelve tips for enhancing student engagement. Medical Teacher, 41(6), 632-637.:
Picas, C. C. (2014). On an Android-based Arduino-governed unmanned quadcopter platform: The CDIO Academy Case. Master Thesis, University Politecnica de Catalunya.:
Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 521-558.:
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). Student Engagement in Higher Education. New York.:
Song, D., Tavares, A., Pinto, S., & Xu, H. (2017). Setting engineering students up for success in the 21st century: Integrating gamification and crowdsourcing into a CDIO-based web design course. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13, 3565-3585.:
Tran, D., D Ha, B., & Bao, N. L. E. (2016) Validity assessment of the P-B-P model across various engineering disciplines for better team learning results. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 409-423), Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.:
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1-15.:
Trowler, V. and Trowler, P. 2010. Student Engagement Evidence Summary, York, UK: Higher Education Academy.:
Wongkietkachorn, A., Prakoonsuksapan, J., & Wangsaturaka, D. (2014). What happens when teachers do not give students handouts?. Medical Teacher, 36(9), 789-793.:
on February 3, 2022 - 04:36 Maria Siiskonen
Conceive
Design
Implement
Operate
