Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 121±133, 2005 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. # 2005 TEMPUS Publications.

Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with

the CDIO Syllabus*
JOHAN BANKEL
Chalmers University of Technology, GoÈteborg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]
KARL-FREDRIK BERGGREN, MADELAINE ENGSTRO È M and INGELA WIKLUND
LinkoÈping University, LinkoÈping, Sweden
EDWARD F. CRAWLEY and DIANE SODERHOLM
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
KHALID EL GAIDI and SO È REN O
È STLUND
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Four internationally-renowned universitiesÐChalmers University of Technology, LinkoÈping Uni-
versity, Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(USA)Ðdeveloped a benchmark survey that may be used by any engineering school to benchmark
curricula for teaching of personal, interpersonal and system building skills. These skills are
enumerated in the CDIO Syllabus. Teaching activities were categorized as Introduce, Teach or
Utilize, based on intent, time spent, and linkage to learning objectives, assignments and assessment
criteria. Interviews were used to collect the data from instructors of the schools' engineering
programs. The data was then reduced and analyzed to illuminate patterns of teaching. The results
indicate that much effort is expended in covering these topics, but often in an inefficient,
uncoordinated and unplanned manner. For example, there are often frequent repetitions of
introducing a topic, without ever teaching it. In other instances, students are expected to utilize
knowledge without having been taught it. The results of the benchmark survey indicate that a
consistent and deliberately designed curriculum in this area could demand no additional resources,
yet provide a much more effective education. The survey gives useful indications of how to begin
such a curriculum redesign process.

INTRODUCTION As an evolution of the engineering science

model, a few universities adopted a problem-
UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING programs must based learning model, in which projects became
educate students in a technical discipline as well as the organizing principle of the education. It is an
in a broad set of personal, interpersonal and excellent model for development of interpersonal
system building skills. The students must learn and system-building skills, but makes projects,
these areas of knowledge and skills compre- rather than disciplines, the organizing principle
hensively, and in the allotted time. During the of the education [1±3].
20th century the models of engineering education In recent years, four leading engineering univer-
to accomplish these goals evolved. The century sities have partnered to create a new engineering
began with the hands-on practice-based model, education model, named CDIO [4]. Those schools
taught largely by practicing engineers. The are Chalmers University of Technology, LinkoÈp-
middle of the century brought the engineering ing University, and the Royal Institute of Technol-
science model. Taught primarily by engineering ogy, in Sweden, and the Massachusetts Institute of
researchers, it laid a strong foundation of funda- Technology in the USA. The CDIO Initiative, as
mentals, but de-emphasized actual engineering the partnership is called, envisions an education
practice. Recently, this model has come under that stresses the fundamentals, set in the context of
criticism as having become too abstracted from the product-system lifecycle, which can be thought
engineering practice. It perhaps failed to meet an of as having four metaphases: ConceivingÐ
underlying needÐthat the university must educate DesigningÐImplementingÐOperating, hence the
not only technically expert engineers, but also program name. The design of a CDIO education
those who can build and operate new value- reflects two goals: that university students must
added engineering systems in a modern, team- develop a deeper working knowledge of the techni-
based environment. cal fundamentals, while simultaneously developing
the skills to lead in the creation and operation of
new products and systems.
* Accepted 23 June 2004. A CDIO-based curriculum is organized around

121
122 J. Bankel et al.

the disciplines, but with CDIO activities inter- knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by contem-
woven. Disciplines are mutually supporting and porary engineers [10±19]. The Syllabus essentially
interacting. The program is rich with student constitutes a requirements document for under-
projects complemented by internships in industry, graduate engineering education. In assembling
and features active, experiential, and group learning and organizing the Syllabus, our goal was to
set in both the classroom and a modern learning develop a clear, complete, and consistent set of
workshop-laboratory [5, 6]. By participating in a set detailed topics that facilitate implementation and
of authentic personal technical experiences centered assessment. The initial set of topics or require-
around conceiving, designing, implementing and ments, were derived from an examination of
operating, students attain both of the desired objec- resources from the last 50 years delineating desired
tives: they develop the skills needed to build systems, skills and attributes for engineers [1019]. One
and they better master the sought-after deep important source was the ABET (Accreditation
working knowledge of the fundamentals. Board of Engineering and Technology) EC 2000
As the first step in establishing the CDIO model, criteria for accrediting engineering programs.
and as described in detail in previous papers and There is a strong correlation between the topics
reports, we developed and codified a compre- in the CDIO Syllabus with ABET's criteria 3a±k
hensive understanding of abilities needed by the [9].
contemporary engineer [7]. This codification, the We began by reformulating the underlying need
CDIO Syllabus, is described below. to be met by engineering education. We assert that
The goal of this paper is to develop and demon- graduating engineers should be able to conceiveÐ
strate a benchmarking technique that assesses an design-implement-operateÐcomplex value-added
existing curriculum in terms of how it satisfies the engineering systems in a modern team-based en-
educational goals for personal, interpersonal and vironment. Once this CDIO premise is accepted
system building skills that are codified in the as the context of engineering education, more
CDIO Syllabus. The specific objective of this detailed goals can be derived.
paper is to document the location and degree to The true departure point for the derivation of
which various topics of the CDIO Syllabus are the CDIO Syllabus' content is the simple statement
now taught in the four partner academic that engineers engineer; that is, they build systems
programs. This benchmarking documentation and products for the betterment of humanity.
will serve as the basis for subsequent curriculum Graduating engineers should appreciate engineer-
redesign activity. ing process (conceiving, designing, implementing
The four programs involved span university, and operating), be able to contribute to the devel-
disciplinary and national boundaries. Three of opment of engineering products (complex value-
the universities are in Sweden; the fourth is in the added engineering systems), and do so while work-
USA. They are the Mechanical Engineering ing in engineering organizations (a modern team-
Program at the Chalmers University of Technol- based environment). Implicit is the additional
ogy, GoÈteborg; the Vehicle Engineering Program expectation that engineers, as university graduates,
at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), should develop as whole, mature, thoughtful
Stockholm; the Applied Physics and Electrical individuals [8].
Engineering Program at LinkoÈping University These four high-level expectations map directly
(LiU), LinkoÈping; and the Aeronautics and Astro- to the first level organization of the CDIO Sylla-
nautics program at the Massachusetts Institute of bus. Examining the mapping of the items 1
Technology, Cambridge. through 4, the first levels of the Syllabus, to these
This paper begins with a description of the CDIO four expectations, we can see that a mature,
Syllabus, and of the stakeholder survey that deline- thoughtful individual interested in technical endea-
ates the desirable level of resource commitment that vors possesses a set of personal and professional
should be devoted to each CDIO Syllabus topic. A skills, which are central to the practice. In order to
survey process for benchmarking the CDIO content develop complex value-added engineering systems,
of our existing programs is then described. Having students must have mastered the fundamentals of
conducted the benchmark surveys, the data is the appropriate technical knowledge and reasoning.
analyzed in three ways: organizationally for inter- To work in a modern team-based environment,
nal structure and efficiency; comparatively among students must have developed the interpersonal
universities; and qualitatively against the desirable skills of teamwork and communications. Finally,
resource commitment. Observations about the to create and operate products and systems, a
amount, distribution and pattern of teaching are student must understand something of conceiving,
then made, which are the precursor to effective designing, implementing, and operating systems in
curriculum redesign. the enterprise and societal context.
Figure 1 is the CDIO Syllabus, in condensed
form, which shows the breakdown of these four
THE CDIO SYLLABUS goals into second and third levels. For example,
the first goal, 1 Technical Knowledge and Reason-
An initial product of the CDIO program was the ing, is broken down into three second level
CDIO Syllabus, a codification of the engineering elements, the first of which is 1.1 Knowledge of
 Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with the CDIO Syllabus 123

Fig. 1. The CDIO Syllabus (condensed).

Underlying Sciences. 1.1 is further broken down Sciences (1.1). A body of Core Engineering Funda-
into four third-level elements, the first of which is mental Knowledge (1.2) builds on that science
1.1.1 Mathematics. We refer to these levels gener- core, and a set of Advanced Engineering Funda-
ically as the `X.X' level for the second level and the mentals (1.3) moves students toward the skills
`X.X.X' level for the third level. It is important to necessary to begin a professional career. This is
note that the full CDIO Syllabus exists at up to five the curriculum that engineering school faculty
levels of detail. usually debate and define. Therefore, the CDIO
This breakdown is necessary to transition from Syllabus merely leaves a placeholder here, since the
the high level goals, to the level of teachable and Part 1 details will vary from field to field.
assessable skills. The organization and content of In the remainder of the Syllabus, we have
the four main parts will now be discussed. included the knowledge, skills and attitudes that
Part 1 of the Syllabus is Technical Knowledge all engineering graduates are likely to require. Part
and Reasoning. Modern engineering professions 2 of the Syllabus is Personal and Professional Skills
rely on a necessary core Knowledge of Underlying and Attributes. The three modes of thought most
124 J. Bankel et al.

practiced professionally by engineers are Engineer- supporting product lifecycle and improvement, to
ing Reasoning and Problem Solving (2.1), Experi- end-of-life planning.
mentation and Knowledge Discovery (2.2) and Products and systems are created and operated
System Thinking (2.3). Each starts with a subsec- within an Enterprise and Business Context (4.2),
tion which is essentially `formulating the issue,' and engineers work and enterprises exist within a
moves through the particulars of that mode of larger Societal and External Context (4.1). An
thought, and ends with a section which is essen- understanding of these frameworks is essential to
tially `resolving the issue.' Those personal skills the successful practice of the engineering profes-
and attributes, other than the three modes of sion.
thought, which are used primarily in a professional Once we had determined our topics, we created a
context, are called Professional Skills and Atti- process to translate the list into substantive
tudes (2.5). The subset of personal skills that are requirements. We began this process by conduct-
not primarily used in a professional context, and ing a stakeholder survey. The survey questionnaire
are not interpersonal, are Personal Skills and asked two main questions for each second level
Attitudes (2.4). (X.X) topic. The first question asked respondents'
In Part 3, the Interpersonal Skills are outlined. opinions of proficiency levels desired of graduating
The Interpersonal Skills are a distinct subset of the engineers. The second asked respondents to assign
general class of personal skills, and divide into a resource level to each topic in such a way that the
Teamwork (3.1), Communications (3.2) and resources would total 100 points.
Communications in Foreign Languages (3.3). We surveyed students and four groups of profes-
Part 4, Conceiving, Designing, Implementing sionals: faculty from within and outside our
and Operating Systems in the Enterprise and university; mid- to upper-level leaders of industry;
Societal Context, presents a view of how product our institutions' recent alumni (about five years
or system development moves through four meta- following their graduation); and our institutions'
phases: Conceiving (4.3), Designing (4.4), Imple- older alumni (about 15 years following their
menting (4.5) and Operating (4.6). The chosen graduation). The results were compiled for the
terms are descriptive of the hardware, software, programs at the four universities and are
and process industries. Conceiving runs from compared below to the benchmark results.
market or opportunity identification through
high level or conceptual design, and includes devel-
opment project management. Designing includes BENCHMARK SURVEY PROCESS
aspects of the design process, as well as disciplin-
ary, multidisciplinary, and multi-objective design. Before curriculum redesign could even begin, we
Implementing includes hardware and software needed to understand exactly how our existing
processes, test and verification, as well as design curricula stood up to the expectations of the
and management of the implementation process. CDIO Syllabus. The four universities collabora-
Operating covers a wide range of issues from tively composed a survey (Fig. 2) to probe the
designing and managing operations, through extent to which CDIO Syllabus topics were

Fig. 2. The CDIO benchmarking survey form as used by MIT.

 Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with the CDIO Syllabus 125

currently covered in their undergraduate engineer- Examples of Teach:

ing courses. For each of 14 CDIO topics at the 1. The process and methodology of product
second (X.X) level, faculty were asked if they design (4.4) are explicitly presented to students
currently Introduced, Taught, and/or Utilized the through lectures and presentations, and then
topic in their course. practiced by the students in a graded project or
After we observed that the word `teach' was assignment.
used to describe a great number of varying activ- 2. Several workshops are presented on working in
ities occurring within courses, we decided to make teams and group dynamics (3.1), and a coach
the distinction among Introduce, Teach, and works with students on improving teamwork
Utilize (shortened to I, T and U). It was apparent throughout the semester's team project. The
that various levels of effort and depth were asso- students' teamwork skills are assessed along
ciated with different activities and the one-word with their project results.
label `teach' was not adequate to describe these
various levels. Thus, the definitions of Introduce,
Teach and Utilize were composed. Each definition Utilize
contains six elements: intent, relationship to learn- . Assumes students already have some proficiency
ing objectives, time, relationship to assignments, in this topic.
relationship to assessment, and examples. The . No specific learning objective is linked to this
definitions of Introduce, Teach and Utilize, as topic, but the student will use knowledge of this
the terms are used in the benchmarking study topic to reach other learning objectives.
and this paper, are as follows: . No time explicitly allotted to teaching this topic.
. Assignments/exercises/projects/homework are
not designed to explicitly teach this topic.
Introduce . Tests or other evaluation instruments are not
. Touch on, or briefly expose, the students to this designed to explicitly assess this topic.
topic.
. No specific learning objective of knowledge
retention is linked to this topic. Examples of Utilize:
. Typically, less than one hour of dedicated lec- 1. When taking a course other than commun-
ture/discussion/laboratory time is spent on this ications, students are expected to use their
topic. skills in preparing and giving oral presentations
. No assignments/exercises/projects/homework (3.2) that explain their work. However, no
are specifically linked to this topic. explicit instruction in oral presentation skills is
. This topic would probably not be assessed on a given.
test or other evaluation instrument. 2. When working in a laboratory session, students
are expected to use their experimentation skills
(2.2) while carrying out assignments and
Examples of Introduce: research. However, no explicit instruction on
1. At the beginning of class, an example is given of techniques of experimentation is given.
the operation of an engineering system (4.6) to
motivate an aspect of the design. However, no
explicit discussion of the design or analysis of
operation is presented. BENCHMARK SURVEY PROTOCOL
2. An ethical problem or dilemma (2.5) is pre-
sented to the students that sets the context of an Each of the four universities completed the
example or lecture. However, no explicit treat- CDIO Curriculum Benchmarking survey using its
ment of ethics or its role in modern engineering own CDIO project members, but using the same
practice is presented. survey protocol. The survey was completed
through a face-to-face meeting between the
CDIO project member and the faculty member
Teach responsible for each course. At the three Swedish
. Really try to get students to learn new material. universities, the interview was conducted at the
. The learning objective is to advance at least one same time as a second survey on teaching methods.
cognitive level (e.g. no exposure to knowledge, All interviews took place during the 2001±2002
knowledge to comprehension, comprehension to academic year. There were 22 interviews conducted
application). at Chalmers, 20 interviews at KTH, 28 at LiU
. Typically, one or more hours of dedicated lec- and 16 at MIT. The Swedish schools conducted
ture/discussion/laboratory time are spent on this their interviews in Swedish; MIT conducted its
topic. interviews in English.
. Assignments/exercises/projects/homework are In all cases, the entire suite of the compulsory
specifically linked to this topic. courses in a specific program was benchmarked.
. This topic would probably be assessed on a test Representative courses in upper class years were
or other evaluation instrument. also surveyed. Of course, in all academic programs,
126 J. Bankel et al.

students choose some electives to complete their whether it was new, stable or undergoing signifi-
degree program, often from among tens or even cant reform; and whether it had an associated set
hundreds of options. It would be impractical to of learning objectives.
survey all of these courses. The interviews often had several positive devel-
Interviews began with an explanation that the opmental aspects. Among those was that they
goal of the curriculum benchmark survey was to caused instructors to reflect on their courses, and
benchmark in which courses, and to what degree, see the possibilities of including some of the skills
CDIO topics were currently deployed, so an effec- in an explicit way. Another aspect was the positive
tive redesign of the curriculum could take place. and trustful contact the interviewer developed with
The respondents were reminded of the background the instructors, and yet another was that the inter-
of the CDIO project, and then shown the views underlined the need for faculty members to
condensed version of the CDIO Syllabus, the obtain additional knowledge about curriculum
survey form, and the definitions of Introduce, design and the CDIO program.
Teach, and Utilize. The respondents were then There were inherent limitations in the survey
asked, `In relation to your course, do you I process. The survey results captured a moment in
(Introduce), T (Teach) or U (Utilize) this topic time, and reflected the observations and opinions
(e.g. 2.1)?' and `Which sub-area(s), if any, do you of the current instructor of the course. The survey
emphasize (e.g. 2.1.1, 2.1.2)?' Respondents could protocol required the cooperation and attentive-
choose more than one response from among I, T ness of the respondent for rather lengthy periodsÐ
and U, although they were reminded that by 30 to 90 minutes of questioning, the longer time
definition, teach automatically implied introduce. being more typical if the detailed X.X.X level of
The questions were repeated for 2.2 through 2.5, information was obtained for every item. Gener-
3.1 through 3.3, and 4.1 through 4.6. Respondents ally, instructors responded positively to the inter-
were encouraged to discuss course activities with views. In some cases, during the course of the
the CDIO project member if they were unsure interview, their stance became markedly brighter
which definition best fit, and the project member as they realized the significant and positive effects
and respondent would then agree on the label. The of their teaching. A very few faculty respondents
written definitions of I, T and U were consulted appeared short of time and did not seem to
often, and every effort was made to assure consis- thoughtfully respond; some became agitated if
tency of the responses to these definitions. the interviewer pressed for more information.
Frequently, faculty respondents and interviewers Some instructors seemed concerned that not
needed to consult the expanded version of the many CDIO skills appeared in their courses. It
CDIO Syllabus to determine the specific content was therefore important to assure them that the
of a topic. One of the most difficult questions for purpose of the investigation was not to evaluate or
the respondents concerned 2.3 System Thinking. rate their courses but only to identify the starting
This difficulty was probably due to respondents' point of the CDIO endeavor. Even though the
preconceived opinions of the definition of System respondents were encouraged to accurately report
Thinking. on their courses, it may be the case that a few
The survey form was designed to collect data faculty respondents skewed their responses to
about the second (X.X) level of CDIO topics, for appear as if they were already embracing the
example 2.1 Engineering Reasoning and Problem CDIO initiative. Additionally, small inconsisten-
Solving. The Syllabus subdivides 2.1 into third cies inadvertently introduced by the four inter-
(X.X.X) level topics, for example 2.1.1 Problem viewers and the two languages used cannot be
Identification and Formulation, 2.1.2 Modeling. discounted.
At times, a faculty respondent would state that Within the limitations mentioned, we feel that
within an X.X topic, one of the X.X.X topics could the survey produced an acceptably accurate bench-
be rated as a Teach, but the rest were an Introduce, marking of the existing curricula, and certainly
or None. In such cases, the second or X.X item was provided far more insight than existed prior to
rated a Teach, and a note made. Two of the this exercise.
universities, Chalmers and LiU, collected complete
sets of information on all of the topics at the third
level of detail. RESULTS
Additional questions were also asked: `If your
answer was T or U, which courses, if any, provide The results of the curriculum benchmark survey
the previous I?'; `If your answer was T, which were analyzed for internal consistency, compara-
courses, if any, will provide U?'; and `Do you tively and against the consensus resource alloca-
have any additional comments?' tion level.
Finally, additional respondent information was The raw data at the second (X.X) level CDIO
obtained, including the name of the instructor, the Syllabus topics is shown in Fig. 3 for the Applied
number of times the instructor had taught the Physics and Electrical Engineering Program at
course, and whether the instructor was familiar LiU, which will be used consistently as an example.
with the CDIO Syllabus. We also collected course The figure shows the compulsory courses in the
information including course name and number; first six semesters, and then the courses taken in
 Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with the CDIO Syllabus 127

Fig. 3. June 2002 survey raw data for the second (X.X) level of the CDIO Syllabus topics in the eight semesters of LiU's Applied
Physics and Electrical Engineering program. ITU ˆ Introduce, Teach, Utilize. Slight differences between Figs 3 and 4 reflect program
development over the 20012002 period.

the seventh and eighth semesters for one speciali- Focusing on the entries for Teaching, the image
zation, electronics. In the sixth, seventh and eighth changes a bit. Recall that Teaching is the activity
semester, students take an additional four or five specifically intended to change students' level of
elective courses. In the ninth semester, a student is knowledge of a topic. While about 40% of the
typically occupied with thesis work. Two project entries in Section 2 are marked Teaching, only 6%
courses (in semesters 1 and 6) were under devel- of the Section 3 entries and 8% or the Section 4
opment at the time of the survey, and responses are entries are so marked.
not included in the figure. Individual entries in the More insight is gained by examining Fig. 4,
matrix indicate if the instructor reported an I, T or which indicates the frequency of occurrences of I,
U, or the allowable combinations, TU (Teach and T and U for each of the second (X.X) level topics
then Utilize to promote learning of another topic) in the LiU program with a specialization in Elec-
and IU (Introduce and Utilize to promote learning tronics. There is strong teaching and utilization of
of another topic). Recall that neither IT nor ITU topics 2.1 to 2.4, 4.1 and 4.3 to 4.5. In Section 3,
are allowable combinations, since Teach automa- Interpersonal Skills, we observe a pattern in which
tically implies Introduce. subjects are never taught, but are utilized for the
Examining the pattern and occurrences of I, T learning of other topics. This is somewhat anom-
and U in the raw data reveals interesting patterns. alous, as is the occurrence of an IU (Introduce and
One is simply the large number of CDIO Syllabus Utilize) in any given topic/course entry of Fig. 3.
topics covered by many courses. Faculty are aware Rather few courses touch on topics 2.6, 4.2 and
that knowledge of CDIO topics is important. 4.6. This pattern of utilizing without teaching is
Therefore, they are eager to correlate elements of repeated in the data from the other three
their courses with syllabus topics, which can programs. Figure 5, which shows just the teaching
explain faculty reporting the extensive number of activity, but for all four universities, indicates
topics covered. About 40% of all entries in the patterns similar to the more complete data set
compulsory courses are combinations of I, T and shown for LiU.
U, which indicates wide engagement with CDIO The data for all four universities reveal that
Syllabus topics. However, the engagement is not there is a great deal of engagement with the
uniformly distributed. About 65% of the course/ CDIO Syllabus topics, but there is much repetition
topics entries in Syllabus Section 2 (Personal and of I and T with little, if any, evidence of a
Professional Knowledge and Skills) are occupied, coordinated design of this aspect of the curricu-
while only about 40% of the Section 3 topics lum. In fact, this presents an opportunity for
(Personal and Interpersonal) are filled, and a redesignÐit appears that the precious resource of
mere 20% of the Section 4 (Conceiving, Designing, time is already committed, but probably not used
Implementing and Operating) entries are filled. efficiently or consistently.
128 J. Bankel et al.

Fig. 4. Introduce, Teach and Utilize at the second (X.X) level in LiU's electronics specialization program as of June 2001.

Delving into the data at the third (X.X.X) level efforts on other subtopics. This is an inherent
reveals additional information. Figure 6 shows the weakness in performing the survey only at the
percentage of occurrences of I, T and U for 3.2 second level.
Communications subtopics in the LiU and Chal- An analysis of the CDIO curriculum bench-
mers compulsory courses investigated. There is marking data can be made by comparing the
good teaching and strong utilization of commun- reported activity (for the compulsory courses)
ications at the two programs, but the details show with the desired level of resource commitment
that this activity is highly concentrated in 3.2.3 indicated in the CDIO Syllabus stakeholder
Written Communications. There is relatively little survey by the professional respondents, as
teaching of communications strategy and struc- discussed above. In order to make this compar-
ture, or in the other communications media. Not ison, a composite index was constructed, which we
unexpectedly, reporting I,T and U activity of the feel approximately represents the occurrences of
second level topic as the maximum of the activity Introducing a topic, Teaching it and Utilizing it,
of the third level can mask relatively lower levels of from an instructor's standpoint.

Fig. 5. Teaching activity for the four participating universities.

 Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with the CDIO Syllabus 129

Fig. 6. Occurrences of Introduce, Teach and Utilize for 3.2 Communications subtopics in the LiU and Chalmers compulsory courses.

Fig. 7. Introduce, Teach and Utilize comparison for Chalmers.

Fig. 8. Introduce, Teach and Utilize comparison for KTH.

130 J. Bankel et al.

Fig. 9. Introduce, Teach and Utilize comparison for LiU.

The ITU index was defined as: By design, most of this content is supposed to be
covered by the elective courses in the last 1.5 years
X
N X
N X
N
of the program. Topics 2.4 Professional Skills and
0:1 I‡ T ‡ 0:3 U all those in Section 3 Interpersonal Skills are
iˆ1 iˆ1 iˆ1
ITU Index ˆ relatively high compared to resource level. These
…N=10† two sections are supposed to be covered by the
compulsory courses of the program. Improving
where N is the number of benchmarked courses.
instruction organization and efficiency will be
This obviously weights I at 10% and U at 30%
considered in program revisions.
relative to T.
Figures 7 through 10 show the comparison of
KTH Results
the ITU index with the CDIO Syllabus survey
The general trends in the comparison between
resource commitment data for the four programs.
the current teaching activities (represented by the
Note that the index and the survey are plotted on
ITU index) and the average resource levels show
different scales, and the similarity in their absolute
reasonably good agreement (Fig. 8). It is particu-
magnitude is purely reflective of the choice of
larly interesting to note that the major gaps were
scales on the plots. The real information is
associated with the skills and knowledge having
contained in the relative levels of the ITU index
the lowest desired resource levels. A surprisingly
and resource commitment data for each CDIO
good agreement was noticed in the Section 2
Syllabus topic. The results for each of the four
Personal and Professional Skills and Attitudes,
programs are discussed below.
3.1 Teamwork and 3.2. Communications, which
all are rated very high in desired average resource
Chalmers results levels. However, it is believed that these teaching
Figure 7 shows the comparison for Chalmers. activities to some extent represent repetitive intro-
The comparison is reasonably good, with the duction and teaching; that is, presenting the same
actual ITU index being relatively low in Section or similar content, at a relatively low cognitive
4, particularly in 4.2 The Enterprise Context, 4.5 level, in several courses. The largest gaps at KTH
Implementing, and 4.6 Operating. However, recall are observed for categories 2.5 Professional Skills
that this is a representation of the compulsory and Attitudes, 3.3 Communications in Foreign
courses. Languages and the entire Section 4 Conceiving,

Fig. 10. Introduce, Teach and Utilize comparison for MIT.

 Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with the CDIO Syllabus 131

Designing, Implementing and Operating Systems The precision of the results is attributed to the
in the Enterprise and Societal Context. Although carefully crafted definitions of Introduce, Teach
some of these gaps are covered to different degree and Utilize, and the extensive explanation of the
in electives not included in the investigation, they topics contained in the CDIO Syllabus. The accu-
represent clear drawbacks in traditional engineer- racy and completeness were significantly aided by
ing education, and need to be considered in a the person-to-person interview format, conducted
redesign of the curriculum in order to meet the by an education professional.
requirements for the expected proficiency of a Survey limitations included the fact that it
graduating engineer. captured a particular moment in time, and there-
fore reflected the observations of the individual
LiU Results who was teaching a given course in the designated
At LiU the overall data for teaching activities academic year. In principle, the instructors for
(the ITU index) and the desired resource levels several years could be surveyed (if the teaching
show a good overall agreement, considering the assignment rotated). This would significantly
uncertainties in the data (figure 9). For 2.4 Per- increase the survey effort. The survey accuracy
sonal Skills and Attributes, and 3.2 Commun- depended on the willingness of faculty to partici-
ications the ITU index level is relatively higher pate, and the truthfulness of faculty responses.
than suggested by the resource data. In a way, The survey results are indicative of the experi-
these differences may be regarded as positive and ence of students in the programs examined, but
need no change. because of specializations and electives, any given
However, we must not rule out that over-inter- student will take more courses than those
pretation of `personal skills' might have occurred surveyed, which tended to be only the required
for 2.4. The higher level in 2.2 may be expected courses.
because of the nature of the program, which has a Unexpectedly, the survey proved a good instru-
high experimental component. The situation is the ment of faculty education, engaging the faculty,
opposite for 2.5 Professional Skills and Attributes, educating them about the CDIO Syllabus, and
3.1 Teamwork, 4.2 Enterprise and Business exposing them to issues designing a curriculum to
Context, and 4.6 Operating. The difference for meet these objectives.
2.5 and 3.1 should be expected considering the The benchmark survey definitely helped to iden-
present curriculum, but should be addressed in tify the disconnect between the current curricula,
redesign. Items 4.2 and 4.6 are covered in elective and the desired inclusion of the CDIO Syllabus
courses. topics. Knowing the location of the gaps, overlaps
and overabundance of teaching occurrences in the
MIT Results current curricula will provide invaluable informa-
MIT data suggest that there is a good match tion for redesign. The specific results of the survey
between level of desired resource level and amount are quite informative:
of coverage a CDIO skill received (figure 10). . There is clearly a significant fraction of the
Shortfalls are most pronounced in 3.2 Commun-
curriculum time currently devoted to teaching
ications, 4.2 The Enterprise Context, and 4.6
personal, interpersonal, and system building
Operating. The latter two were expected, but the
skills, but the occurrences are not evenly dis-
under commitment of resources in 3.2 Commun-
tributed, and are dominated by personal skill
ications was surprising in view of strong efforts in
instruction.
this area. This will be considered in redesign. . There is strong evidence of inefficiency, with
Interestingly, at MIT it was observed that students
topics including many repeated occurrences of
were asked to Utilize the following skills before, or
Introduce and Teach. There was no evidence
without ever being, taught the skills: 2.4 Personal
apparent in any of the programs of a consistent
Skills & Attitudes, 2.5 Professional Skills & Atti-
plan to teach these skills.
tudes, 3.1 Teamwork, and 4.5 Implementing. . There were a number of cases in which instruc-
tors would Utilize a topic that had been Intro-
duced (sometimes many times) but never
OBSERVATIONS
Taught.
. Despite the absence of deliberate design, there
A process has been developed and demonstrated
were significant similarities in the pattern of
for benchmarking curricula against a set of
teaching of the skills among the four universi-
outcome-based criteria, in this case the CDIO
ties, and also reasonable agreement with the
Syllabus. Observations and conclusions can be
CDIO Syllabus survey results on the desired
made with regard to the process and the results
distribution of teaching resources.
obtained.
The survey process gathered important data on As a whole, these results indicate that a consistent
the occurrences of instruction in personal, inter- and deliberately designed CDIO-based engineering
personal, and system-building knowledge and curriculum could be implemented with existing
skills throughout the curriculum. Data collected resources, yet provide a much more effective
was reasonably complete, accurate and precise. education for the students. The survey provides
132 J. Bankel et al.

useful indications of how and where to begin this extracurricular and extra-campus learning oppor-
process in each program. tunities, development of new teaching materials,
As a final note, it must be emphasized that the and integration of new teaching techniques.
allocation of teaching resources, and the creation The CDIO Syllabus and the benchmarking
of curricular plans in no way ensures that the results guided the transformation of existing
students will attain the desired level of competence programs in the four universities to CDIO-based
in these topics. Rather, it is the combination of a programs. These became the basis for four
well-designed curriculum, effective pedagogy, and enabling implementation activities: reform the
student effort that will allow the attainment of this curriculum structure and content; reform and
goal. improve teaching and learning strategies and
approaches; develop and use the new workshop-
laboratory learning environment; and employ an
CONCLUSIONS assessment process, which measures student and
program progress towards consensus goals, with
This paper focused on an important early step in feedback for process improvement. Future papers
the curricular change aspects of the CDIO Initia- will describe these implementation activities that
tive. In order to reach our goal of educating build upon the benchmarking results.
engineering students in a technical discipline as
AcknowledgementÐThe authors of this paper gratefully
well as in a broad set of personal, interpersonal acknowledge the support of the Knut and Alice Wallenberg
and system building skills, improvements must be Foundation. The Foundation's understanding of the impor-
made to curricula. The challenge is to find tance of this Initiative and its commitment to the unique
innovative ways to make double duty of teaching partnership will greatly benefit engineering education and,
time so that students develop a deeper working thusly, the future of engineering in Sweden and throughout
the world. The authors also acknowledge the editing expertise
knowledge of the technical fundamentals while and advice provided by Mr. William T. G. Litant, commun-
simultaneously learning CDIO skills. This ications director for the MIT Department of Aeronautics and
requires changes in curricular structure, exploiting Astronautics and the CDIO Initiative.

REFERENCES
1. L. Wilkerson and W. H.Gijselaers (eds), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education:
theory and practice, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 1996, San Francisco, Jossey-
Bass.
2. D. Boud and G. I. Feletti (eds), The Challenge of ProblemBased Learning, 2nd ed., London, Kogan
Page (1997).
3. M. SavinBaden, Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories, Open University
Press (2000).
4. D. R. Brodeur, E. F. Crawley, I. Ingmarsson, J. Malmqvist and S. O È stlund, International
collaboration in the reform of engineering education, Proc. 2002 ASEE Conference and Exposition,
Montreal, Canada, June 2002. www.asae.org/conferences/proceedings/search.cfm
5. T. E. Sutherland and C. C. Bonwell (eds), Using active learning in college classes: a range of
options for faculty, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 1996, San Francisco, JosseyBass.
6. S. R. Hall, I. Waitz, D. R. Brodeur, D. H. Soderholm and R. Nasr, Adoption of active learning in a
lecture-based engineering class, 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf., November 2002,
Boston, Massachusetts.
7. E. F. Crawley, The CDIO SyllabusÐa statement of goals for engineering education, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
USA (2001).
8. ASEE Engineering Deans Council Corporate Roundtable: Engineering Education for a Changing
World, American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC (1994).
9. E. F. Crawley, Creating the CDIO Syllabus: a universal template for engineering education, ASEE/
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November 2002, Boston, USA,.
10. ABET, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective for Evaluations During the 2000±
2001 Accreditation Cycle, Revised March 2000, Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technol-
ogy. (http://www.abet.org)
11. The Boeing Company, Desired Attributes of an Engineer: Participation with Universities (1996).
(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/pwu/attributes/attributes.html)
12. ASME, Integrating the Product Realization Process into the Undergraduate Curriculum, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1995).
13. N. R. Augustine, Socioengineering (and Augustine's Second Law thereof), The Bridge, Fall 1994.
14. B. M. Gordon, What is an Engineer? Invited keynote presentation, Conf. European Society for
Engineering, University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, 1984.
15. R. E. Kelley, How to be a star engineer, IEEE Spectrum, October 1999.
16. W. J. King, The unwritten laws of engineering, Mechanical Engineering, May/June/July 1944.
17. J. D., Lang et al., Industry expectations of new engineers: a survey to assist curriculum designers,
J. Eng. Educ., January 1999.
18. MIT, Committee on Engineering Undergraduate Education, Eight Goals of an Undergraduate
Education, Massachusetts Institute of Technology School of Engineering, Cambridge, M: (1988).
19. MIT, Task Force on Student Life and Learning, Task Force Report, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (1998). (http://web.mit.edu/committees/sll)
 Benchmarking Engineering Curricula with the CDIO Syllabus 133

Johan Bankel is a coordinator for the Mechanical Engineering program at Chalmers

University of Technology in GoÈteborg, Sweden. He has a M.Sc. in Naval Architecture, a
Lic. Tech. in Fluid Dynamics and a Teacher Certificate in Natural Science.

Karl-Fredrik Berggren is a professor of theoretical physics in the Department of Physics and

Measurement Technology at LinkoÈping University, in Sweden. He has a Ph.D. in Quantum
Chemistry.

Edward F. Crawley is a professor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department

of Aeronautics and Astronautics in the USA. He has S.B. and S.M. degrees in Aeronautics
and Astronautics, and an Sc.D. in Structural Dynamics. He is the program director for the
CDIO Initiative at MIT.

Madelaine EngstroÈm is a student counselor for the Applied Physics and Electrical
Engineering program at LinkoÈping University in Sweden. She has a Bachelor of Behavioral
Science.

Khalid El Gaidi is a pedagogical consultant at Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)

Learning Lab. He is a KTH doctoral student in skill and technology.

Ingela Wiklund is director of studies for the M.Sc. program in Applied Physics and
Electrical Engineering at LinkoÈping University, in Sweden. She has an M.Sc. degree in
Applied Physics and Electrical Engineering, branch Biomedical Engineering.

È stlund is professor of packaging technology and chairman of the Vehicle Engineer-

SoÈren O
ing Program at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm. He has an M.Sc. in
Aeronautical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Solid Mechanics. He is the program director for
the CDIO Initiative at KTH.

Diane Hauer Soderholm is the instructional designer for the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in the USA. She received her
Ph.D. in Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation from Syracuse University.