Search

In September 2017, the English-taught, 3-year Bachelor Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) has changed its curriculum from a linear to a flexible, choice-based modular curriculum, 'Curriculum M'. And with it, one integrated assessment method has been developed for the whole programme, centered around ownership of the students regarding their own learning, and assessing directly and holistically on competency-level. Students decide themselves which six sub-competencies they will prove mastery of, on what level (novice, advanced beginner, or competent), with what proof material from their portfolio library, during which integrated oral assessment (in week 5, 10 or 15 of a semesters). This oral assessment is the only summative method of testing offered throughout the programme. In this paper the first four iterations of the integrated assessment, which are all part of the only mandatory semester 'Basics of IDE' (Boi), are analyzed. Each 'real-time beta-testing' iteration was observed and reflected on, which lead to (minor) changes in the design to be implemented in the next iteration. The expectation was that the assessment redesign in the authentic, integrated project-based, active-learning IDE curriculum leads to an increase of students' ownership for their learning process, improvement of study progress, and more lifelong learning aptitude of students. The results of this study indicate that these goals were achieved. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzannececiliabrink/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/wiandavisser/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/miranda-de-hei-8039012a/

Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovation (IDE) is a 3-year, English taught, VWO entry-level, undergraduate programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). The IDE curriculum focuses on the fuzzy front end of (open) innovation, sustainable development, and impact in the implementation phase of product-service design. The work field of Industrial Design Engineering and Open Innovation, like many other domains, is growing increasingly more complex (Bogers, Zobel, Afuah, Almirall, Brunswicker, Dahlander, Frederiksen, Gawer, & Gruber, 2017). Not only have the roles of designers changed considerably in the last decades, they continue to do so at increasing speed. Therefore, industrial design engineering students need different and perhaps more competencies as young professionals in order to deal with this new complexity. Moreover, in our transitional society, lifelong learning takes a central position (Reekers, 2017). Students need to give their learning path direction autonomously, in accordance with their talents and interests. IDE’s Quality & Curriculum Committee (QCC) realized in 2015 there is too much new knowledge to address in a 3-year programme. Instead, IDE students need to learn how to become temporary experts in an array of topics, depending on the characteristics of each new project they do (see Textbox 1). The QCC also concluded that more than just incremental changes to the current curriculum were needed; thus, the idea for a flexible, choice-based semester approach in the curriculum was born: ‘Curriculum M’ (Modular). A co-creational approach was applied, in which teaching staff, students, alumni, prospective students, industry (including the (international) social profit sector), and educational advisors collaborated to develop a curriculum that would allow students to become not just T-shaped (wide basis, one expertise) professionals, but U- or W-shaped professionals, with strong links to other disciplines.

In a lifelong learning society students need to deal with the responsibility to give their learning path direction, find motivation, and prove what they have learned. What pedagogics and what kind of didactic structure do you need to bring this about in higher education? What does it mean for the professionality of the teaching staff, the organization of the teams, and the needed facilities? A co-creational approach is applied in redesigning the curriculum of the undergraduate programme Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovator, which offers multidisciplinary projects in authentic learning environments, and caters for the professional profiling needs of our future students. Teaching staff, students, alumni, future students, industry (including the social profit sector), and educational scientists collaborate towards the flexible, integrated and choice-based 'Project M(odular) Curriculum'. This paper describes the arguments for the choices made from an educational point of view, taking the twelve CDIO standards and CDIO syllabus as a blue print. In certain standards, project M goes beyond the framework to fulfil the needs of stakeholders, take the newest useful (engineering) educational research outcomes into account, and come to a curriculum design that will be adaptable and versatile enough to hold value for the coming ten years at least. Based on the experiences of Project M, considerations on refining CDIO standards 5, 8, 11 and 12 are presented in the discussion, together with a rationale to add a rubric score to the CDIO self-evaluation, and the discussion of minor gaps in the CDIO syllabus. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellen-sjoer-06506a2/

This paper is a case report of why and how CDIO became a shared framework for Community Service Engineering (CSE) education. CSE can be defined as the engineering of products, product-service combinations or services that fulfill well-being and health needs in the social domain, specifically for vulnerable groups in society. The vulnerable groups in society are growing, while fewer people work in health care. Finding technical, interdisciplinary solutions for their unmet needs is the territory of the Community Service Engineer. These unmet needs arise in local niche markets as well as in the global community, which makes it an interesting area for innovation and collaboration in an international setting. Therefore, five universities from Belgium, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Sweden decided to work together as hubs in local innovation networks to create international innovation power. The aim of the project is to develop education on undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate levels. The partners are not aiming at a joined degree or diploma, but offer a shared short track blended course (3EC), which each partner can supplement with their own courses or projects (up to 30EC). The blended curriculum in CSE is based on design thinking principles. Resources are shared and collaboration between students and staff is organized at different levels. CDIO was chosen as the common framework and the syllabus 2.0 was used as a blueprint for the CSE learning goals in each university. CSE projects are characterized by an interdisciplinary, human centered approach leading to inter-faculty collaboration. At the university of Porto, EUR-ACE was already used as the engineering education framework, so a translation table was used to facilitate common development. Even though Thomas More and KU Leuven are no CDIO partner, their choice for design thinking as the leading method in the post-Masters pilot course insured a good fit with the CDIO syllabus. At this point University West is applying for CDIO and they are yet to discover what the adaptation means for their programs and their emerging CSE initiatives. CDIO proved to fit well to in the authentic open innovation network context in which engineering students actively do CSE projects. CDIO became the common language and means to continuously improve the quality of the CSE curriculum.

Since March 2015 the Faculty of Technology, Innovation and Society (TIS) of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) is a CDIO member with all its twelve programs: Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Management, Mechatronics, Electrical Engineering, Building Engineering, Civil Engineering, Climate and Management, Industrial Design Engineering, Industrial Design Engineering [Open Innovator], Engineering Physics, Mathematics & Applications, and Process & Food Technology. This paper describes the implementation of CDIO at TIS and discusses methods, opportunities and challenges of such a large endeavor. The CDIO standards have been coupled to the faculty and program policy plans, based on a comparison of CDIO and the Dutch/Flemish compulsory NVAO accreditation standards. The self-evaluation process has exposed differences between the programs, which has lead to grouping them in a fast track (already working with CDIO), a drawing board track (implementing CDIO in a future new curriculum design) and a quality track (using CDIO to improve the quality of the current program). Each track has its own needs and challenges, and thus requires a different approach and will show a different speed of adaptation. Other factors also plea for a more customized implementation process. Challenges discussed are the varying level of understanding of CDIO, combining CDIO with educational blueprints such as 4C/ID or design thinking, technical bachelor of applied sciences programs versus engineering ones and the motivational drivers for change on faculty staff member level. Working in a professional CDIO learning community leads to ownership of CDIO. Despite being a top-down decision, the adoption of CDIO in the twelve programs takes place bottom-up, ensuring continuous education improvement. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzannececiliabrink/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/oda-kok-007590b/