STREAMLINING ACADEMIC CHANGE PROCESSES THROUGH ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

STREAMLINING ACADEMIC CHANGE PROCESSES THROUGH ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

F. Zaar, M. Andersson (2020).  STREAMLINING ACADEMIC CHANGE PROCESSES THROUGH ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES. Volume 1, pp.225-234.

Adaptability, innovation, and efficiency are core engineering skills that students have to acquire to keep pace in a fast-changing world. It is, therefore, important that change processes in engineering education reflect and promote these skills. Further, as stated by, e.g., the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG, 2015) and the CDIO Standard 12 (2010), efficient assurance, enhancement, and evaluation of educational quality is vital. However, change and quality management within universities are often slow and unwieldy (Graham, 2012; Kamp, 2016). Despite being the manifesto of engineering education, systematic problem solving is rarely incorporated into program organization and development. We have applied the CDIO concept to create a new, sustainable line of communication between students and faculty, in the form of a short program-level student questionnaire where the results are used as input to further discussion. Key concepts in the design of our method have been a collaboration between students and faculty, iterative feedback loops, and simultaneous bottom-up and top-down work by student representatives and the program director, respectively. These approaches have minimized the risk of failure and delay as well as actively utilized the creative power of the student body. In the questionnaire, distributed four times per year, students can anonymously share any opinions about the program. The program director and a student representative work together to evaluate the responses, immediately forwarding feedback to the correct recipient. Students are informed about key outcomes to ensure a trustful relationship between them and the faculty and promote active participation. With our method, issues are detected and handled at an early stage, allowing the focus within the program to remain on education, innovation, and quality enhancement. In this work, we will detail our methodology for streamlining communication as characterized by the engineering methods taught at universities. We will demonstrate some results obtained so far in improving the time-efficiency of quality management, through active student representation and trustful faculty dialogue. Still being in the early stages of operation, we will also reflect on the future outlook of our strategy. Finally, we will discuss the benefits of utilizing the CDIO concept for implementing change processes in higher engineering education.

Authors (New): 
Felicia Leander Zaar
Magnus Andersson
Pages: 
Volume 1, pp.225-234
Affiliations: 
Uppsala University, Sweden
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden
Keywords: 
Programme development
Quality enhancement
Student involvement
CDIO Standard 1
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 12
Year: 
2020
Reference: 
Bennedsen, J., Georgsson, F., & Kontio, J. (2016). Updated Rubric for Self-Evaluation (v.2.1). Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference (pp. 140-153). Turku, Finland: Turku University of Applied Sciences.: 
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Johansson, H.B., Jerbrant, A., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., Soulard, J., & Kjellgren, B. (2015). The Pedagogical Developers Initiative - Changing Educational Practices and Strengthening CDIO Skills. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference. Chengdu, China: Chengdu University of Information Technology.: 
CDIO (2010). The CDIO Standards v 2.0 (with customized rubrics). Retrieved from the CDIO initiative: http://www.cdio.org/knowledgelibrary/documents/cdio-standards-v-20-customized-rubrics.: 
ESG (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Brussels, Belgium. : 
Georgson, F., & Holmgren, H. (2012). A Quality System for Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.: 
Graham, R. (2012). Achieving Excellence in Engineering Education: The Ingredients of Successful Change. London, UK: The Royal Academy of Engineering. : 
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3 (2), 020102-1-020102-14.: 
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytical Review of Literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984.: 
Kamp, A. (2016). Engineering Education in a Rapidly Changing World: Rethinking the Vision for Higher Engineering Education. Delft, The Netherlands.: 
Kilstrup, M., Hellgren, L. I., & Andersson, P. (2011). “Good Teaching Practice” at DTU Systems Biology - Sustaining Quality in Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technical University of Denmark. : 
Kjellgren, B., Havtun, H., Wingård, L., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., Hjelm, N., & Berglund, A. (2018). The Pedagogical Developers Initiative – Sustainable Impact or Falling Into Oblivion?, Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference (pp. 738-747). Kanazawa, Japan: Kanazawa Institute of Technology.: 
Kleijnen, J., Dolmans, D., Willems, J., & van Hout, H. (2014). Effective Quality Management Requires a Systematic Approach and a Flexible Organisational Culture: a Quality Study Among Academic Staff. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 103-126: 
Leander Zaar, F., & Andersson, M. (2020). Quality Enhancement Through Trustful Interaction Between Students and Teachers. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED 2020), 1117-1123.: 
Naimi-Akbar, I., Havtun, H., & Nyberg, S. (2018). Systematic Course Analysis - How Infrastructure and Research Findings Collaborate to Support Course Development. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (article No. 1570433377). San Jose, California, USA.: 
Papadopoulou, P., Bhadani, K., Hulthén, E., & Malmqvist, J. (2019). CDIO Faculty Development Course - Built-In Implementation. Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference (pp. 489-500). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University.: 
Pham, C. B., Goss, J. S. & Nguyen H. L. (2012). CDIO in Engaging Students for Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology. : 
Go to top
randomness