CDIO Book PDF

Dennis Sale
The Challenge
of Reframing
Engineering
Education
The Challenge of Reframing Engineering
Education
Dennis Sale
The Challenge of Reframing

Engineering Education
123
Dennis Sale
Singapore Polytechnic
Singapore
Singapore
ISBN 978-981-4560-28-3 ISBN 978-981-4560-29-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-981-4560-29-0
Springer Singapore Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013948857
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must
always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the
Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface
We understand everything in human life through stories.

—Jean-Paul Sartre
This book is a story about improving the quality of the student learning experience
at Singapore Polytechnic (SP), Singapore’s first polytechnic. This was achieved
through reframing a number of engineering diploma courses based on the Con-
ceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) engineering education framework,
originally conceived at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
SP, like many educational institutions globally, must tackle challenges of
maintaining competitive advantage in the educational sphere which involves,
among other things, identifying the most relevant competencies for the twenty-first
century worker and citizen, designing a curriculum that offers meaningful and
enriching experiences for its students and, inevitably, enhancing faculty compe-
tence in all things to do with teaching and learning. Now, we know that defining
the most relevant curriculum outcomes, models and pedagogic arrangements is
long contested and open both to valuations and future societal challenges—much
of which is unknown. However, choices have to be made and SP decided to adopt
the CDIO framework as it offered a robust curriculum development approach as
well as the necessary flexibility for local customization and creative adaptation.
The book draws on the implementation experience from 2004 until the time of
writing, and has the primary purpose of providing a comprehensive resource to
help other institutions in a similar process of, or considering, large-scale curric-
ulum reframing. It stemmed from the essential need to thoughtfully manage the
many activities involved, such as tracking agreed outcomes (e.g. what is to be
done, when and by who), the development and appraisal of curriculum artefacts
(e.g. syllabus documents, learning designs/activities, resources, assessments, etc.)
and not least, providing the range and types of faculty development programmes
and support resources as and when needed. Invariably it dawned on me that our
experience could provide practical value for others engaged in similar projects.
Having completed a 3-year longitudinal evaluation of the student learning expe-
rience, in which students were active co-participants in the research process,
enabling us to collaboratively learn what worked and how, I feel that the story is
now worth telling—hence this published text.
v
vi Preface
In writing this book, I have been especially mindful of the following consid-
erations. First, to make all chapter topics practically focused, enabling the reader to
see clear applications in a range of contexts. Second, to ensure a strong evidence-
base for all the approaches taken, referring to validated research findings and
practitioner experience. Third, I confess to have deliberately woven into the nar-
rative a more informal style than is typical of the genre. Being of Cockney descent,
from East London, it is not surprising I like the quote by John Dewey, To be
playful and serious at the same time is possible, in fact it defines the ideal mental
condition. You can be sure; implementing large-scale curriculum innovation will
be helped through such a mindset.
While the book has its primary focus on reframing engineering education, based
on the CDIO engineering education framework, much of the content, especially an
explicit model for developing good thinking and a comprehensive research-based
pedagogic approach for creative learning design, applies equally well to all
mainstream educational sectors and contexts. After all, it is not just engineers who
need an effective and exciting learning experience.
I hope you find the book an interesting read, apart from being a practical and
useful resource for your curriculum innovation projects.
Acknowledgments
Successful curriculum implementation, by its very nature, requires a high level of

sustained collaborative activity. Hence, without the cooperation and friendship of
many academic faculty from the various schools and departments involved
(Architecture and the Built Environment; Chemical and Life Sciences; Commu-
nication, Arts and Social Sciences; Digital Media and Infocomm Technology;
Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Mathematics and Science; Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering), I would not have produced this book.
Invariably, while many have contributed, certain individuals played key roles in
making the book happen. My initial thanks go to Pee Suat Hoon who introduced
CDIO at Singapore Polytechnic and demonstrated through her everyday teaching
practices how engineering could be a really interesting and meaningful experience
for students. It was her foresight and willingness to take on the challenge of
reframing her curriculum and pedagogic approaches that showed others what
might be possible at institutional level. Cheah Sin Moh provided on-going reas-
surance over the years with his comprehensive and creative re-design of the
Diploma in Chemical Engineering programme. In the process, we researched key
aspects of the student learning experience, co-wrote a number of papers, and
managed to keep enthusiastic over a period of some 5 years—which is a tough call.
Helene Leong, for our many years of working together on all aspects of pro-
gramme implementation, the lively discussions on all things to do with enhancing
student learning and a massive desire to do it all properly. Thanks Helene for going
the distance.
To the many other SP faculty members who have contributed over the years, I
hope I have done some justice to your work in implementing CDIO at Singapore
Polytechnic. In the process of creating, designing, operating and implementing
solutions to our educational challenges, I have learned much about the practices of
engineering. I now see it for the exciting discipline it really is, so I thank you for
that also.
vii
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 CDIO Framework and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Chapters in this Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Producing Curriculum Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Challenges to Higher Education Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Deriving Specific CDIO Curriculum Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Integrating CDIO Skills into Course and Module Curriculum . . . 11
2.5 Using the Concept of Infusion for Integrating CDIO Skills. . . . . 14
2.6 An Explicit Model of Good Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7 The Importance of Identifying Key Underpinning
Knowledge for CDIO Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
2.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
3 Effective and Creative Learning Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 25

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 25
3.2 The Pedagogic Foundation of CDIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 26
3.3 A Science of Learning Framework: Developing
Pedagogic Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3.1 Defining Learning: What are the Important Issues?. . . . . 29
3.3.2 What do we Mean by Pedagogy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.3 Towards a Science of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.4 The Core Principles of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.5 Using Core Principles Thoughtfully:
The Fly Fishing Analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 43
ix
x Contents
3.4 Applying the Pedagogic Framework: Effective

and Creative Learning Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4.1 Learning Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4.2 Instructional/Teaching Strategy/Learning Design. . . . . . . 45
3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4 Assessing Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2 The CDIO Approach to Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2.1 What is Quality Assessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2.2 Strategies to Enhance Assessment Practices . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.3 Develop Effective and Practical
Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 70
4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 78
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 79
5 Using Information-Communication Technologies

to Support Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2 A Design Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.3 Choosing Technology Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3.1 Rapid Development Software Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3.2 Social Networking and Collaboration Tools . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3.3 The Use of the Laptop and Other Mobile
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 94
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 95
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 95
6 Evaluating the CDIO Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.2 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.2.1 Examination of a Range of Curriculum Materials . . . . . . 100
6.2.2 Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2.3 Student Blog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2.4 Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2.5 Observation of Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.3 Data Analysis and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.3.1 Examination of a Range of Curriculum Materials . . . . . . 105
6.3.2 Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.3.3 Student Blog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.3.4 Student Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.5 Staff Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.6 Observation of Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Contents xi
6.4 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

6.4.1 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.5 The Role of the Teacher as the Key Mediator of Experience . . . 110
6.5.1 The Challenge of Teaching Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.6 Summary Frame on Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7 Managaing the Change Process; Approach, Strategies

and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.2 Managing the Change Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.3 Meaning Making and Relationship Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.4 Professional Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Appendix 1: The CDIO Syllabus Customized

for Singapore Polytechnic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Abstract
The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education is the first book to document

the experience of implementing the CDIO Engineering Educational Framework in
a large educational institution in the Asian context. It focuses on how to suc-
cessfully implement and manage the key stages, activities and inevitable chal-
lenges that have to be negotiated in any large scale curriculum innovation. Its main
purpose is to provide a practical resource for curriculum innovators and practi-
tioners on what needs to be done, how and on what basis. It is written in a more
narrative style than is typical of the genre, engaging the reader more intimately
with the actual decision making processes and rationale that underpins curriculum
innovation in the real context of institutional life. The book also encompasses
many innovative practices for supporting student learning which are relevant in all
mainstream educational contexts. These include an evidence-based learning
approach for creative teaching, an explicit model for developing good thinking and
a design framework for producing effective and efficient blended learning.

Keywords Engineering education CDIO approach Curriculum innovation

Creative learning design Blended learning
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Context
This book is based on the experience of Singapore Polytechnic (SP), one of the
world’s largest polytechnics, as it reframed a number of engineering education
programmes based on the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) engi-
neering education framework.
The experience is unique in that SP was the first higher educational institution
in Asia to implement CDIO and inevitably had to do its own reframing of an
educational model conceived in a western university context to the Asian and
polytechnic context of Singapore. Most significantly, in this process of reframing,
SP developed many innovative and practical approaches to curriculum design,
teaching and assessment, which have culminated in enhancing the learning
experience for its students.
The book addresses the various activities and challenges that require careful
negotiation in any large scale curriculum innovation, as well as offering examples
and insight to help guide other educational institutions embarking on similar
curriculum innovation projects. It is deliberately written in a more informal nar-
rative style than is typical of the genre, though emphasizes a strong research base
from which to validate good practice.
1.2 CDIO Framework and Rationale
CDIO is an international initiative, originally conceived at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the late 1990s. In
2000, in collaboration with the Swedish universities of the Wallenberg Founda-
tion, Chalmers University of Technology, Linkoping University and the Royal
Institute of Technology, the CDIO initiative was formed.
The initiative represented a response by engineers in industry, government and
academia to a concern about the present state of engineering education.
D. Sale, The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education, 1

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4560-29-0_1, Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014
2 1 Introduction
Essentially, engineering education was seen as over prioritizing the teaching of

theory, especially mathematics and science, while not paying enough attention to
the real world of engineering practice and the need for skills such as design,
teamwork and communications. As Crawley et al. (2007) summarized:
…we identified an underlying critical need—to educate students who are able to Con-
ceive-Design-Implement-Operate complex, value added engineering products, processes
and systems in a modern, team-based environment. It is from this emphasis on the product,
process, or system lifecycle that the initiative derives its name—CDIO. (p. 1)
The importance of Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate, as an organizing

frame for engineering education is further explained by Crawley et al. (2007):
Modern engineers lead or are involved in all phases of a product, process, or system
lifecycle. That is, they Conceive, Design, Implement, and Operate. (p. 8)
The creation of an educational framework that would encompass this wide

range of competencies, as well as the methodology for enabling the development
of student capability to be able to conceive-design-implement-operate and be
‘‘ready to engineer’’ (Crawley et al. 2007, p. 6) is the basis and rationale of the
CDIO engineering education framework.
All aspects of the CDIO engineering education framework are fully docu-
mented, explained and illustrated in ‘Rethinking Engineering Education’ (Crawley
et al. 2007). The purpose of this book is not to replicate the what and how of CDIO
at the generic level, but focus on the experience of SP in actually putting it into
practice over the past 7 years—what has been learned from this endeavour and
how it may be of practical use for other institutions who may be working towards
similar educational goals. As the old saying goes, let’s not ‘‘re-invent the
wheel’’—so to speak. The book aims to contribute to the learning and development
of the CDIO community, as well as providing an invaluable resource to aid similar
curriculum development activity in vocational and higher education, whether at
university, polytechnic or technical college level contexts.
However, in order to provide context for the reader who may be unfamiliar with
CDIO, certain key aspects of the framework will be briefly identified and
explained in order to ensure easy transition through the main chapters of the book.
Firstly, one of the refreshing aspects of the CDIO approach is the non-
allegiance to any one particular perspective in education or a lock step and highly
prescriptive procedural approach to implementation. As noted by Crawley et al.
(2007):
Nothing in our approach is prescriptive. The CDIO approach must be adapted to each
programme—its goals, university, national, and disciplinary contexts. It is aligned with
many other movements for educational change, but unlike national accreditation and
assessment standards that state objectives, we provide a pallet of potential solutions to the
comprehensive reform of engineering education. (p. 4)
However, within this broad eclectic approach, which will be fully explicated
and illustrated in the various chapters, there is a robust curriculum model and a
sound pedagogic foundation encouraging active and experiential learning in
1.2 CDIO Framework and Rationale 3
solving real world engineering problems. Central to the curriculum approach is the
specified CDIO learning outcomes, derived from extensive stakeholder collabo-
ration and tested by peer review, which form the basis for program design and
assessment. Crawley et al. (2007) summarizes as follows:
A CDIO programme creates a curriculum organized around mutually supporting tech-
nical disciplines with personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process and system
building skills highly interwoven. These programs are rich with student design-imple-
ment experiences conducted in modern workspaces. They feature active and experiential
learning and are continuously improved through a robust, quality assessment process.
(p. 3)
The implementation of a CDIO program is guided by 12 standards, which

define the key features of the approach, establish benchmarks of good practice and
serve as the basis for continual improvement. The 12 CDIO Standards address:
• Program philosophy (Standard 1)
• Curriculum development (Standards 2, 3 and 4)
• Design-implement experiences and workspaces (Standards 5 and 6)
• Methods of teaching and learning (Standards 7 and 8)
• Faculty development (Standards 9 and 10)
• Assessment and Evaluation (Standards 11 and 12)
Table 1.1 summarizes the 12 CDIO Standards (Crawley et al. 2007, p. 35).
Subsequent chapters deal with the various standards in the context of actual cur-
riculum development and implementation.
1.3 Chapters in this Book
Each chapter focuses on particular aspects of implementing curriculum reframing

and innovation based on the CDIO approach. However, while chapters may focus
on specific CDIO standards and how SP has implemented them in practice, there is
incorporated a wider exploration of what constitutes good practice in relation to all
aspects of curriculum development, teaching and assessment. The book, in CDIO
tradition, customizes the approach to the context of the polytechnic environment in
Singapore and seeks to further advance aspects of CDIO pedagogy and assessment
practices based on our experience, research and attempts at programme
improvement.
Chapter 2 ‘Producing Curriculum Outcomes’ documents the challenge of
customizing the general CDIO syllabus to one that was contextualized to the needs
and proficiency level of polytechnic students in the Singapore context. It will
demonstrate and illustrate the necessary processes and strategies that proved
important in arriving at clear and appropriate learning outcomes, which are fun-
damental to the success of any curriculum initiative. The importance of open
collaboration and persistence in ensuring that the resulting learning outcomes are
4 1 Introduction
Table 1.1 Summary of CDIO standards

CDIO standard Summary description
1. The context Adoption of the principle that product, process, and system
lifecycle development and deployment—Conceiving-
Designing-Implementing-Operating—are the context for
engineering education
2. Learning outcomes Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal and
interpersonal skills; and product, process and system
building skills, as well as disciplinary knowledge,
consistent with program goals and validated by program
stakeholders
3. Integrated curriculum A curriculum designed with mutually supporting disciplinary
course, with an explicit plan to integrate personal and
interpersonal skills; and product, process, and system
building skills
4. Introduction An introductory course that provides the framework for
to engineering engineering practice in product, process, and system
building, and introduces essential personal and
interpersonal skills
5. Design-implement A curriculum that includes two or more design-implement
experiences experiences, including one at a basic level and one at an
advanced level
6. Engineering workspaces Engineering workspaces and laboratories that support and
encourage hands-on learning of product, process, and
system building, disciplinary knowledge and social
learning
7. Integrated learning Integrated learning experiences that lead to the acquisition of
experiences disciplinary knowledge, as well as personal and
interpersonal skills; and product, process, and system
building skills
8. Active learning Teaching and learning based on active and experiential
learning methods
9. Enhancement of faculty Actions that enhance faculty competence in personal and
competence interpersonal skills; and product, process, and system
building skills
10. Enhancement of faculty Actions that enhance faculty competence in providing
teaching competence integrated learning experiences, in using active experiential
learning methods, and in assessing student learning
11. Learning assessment Assessment of student learning in personal and interpersonal
skills; and product, process, and system building skills, as
well as disciplinary knowledge
12. Program evaluation A system that evaluates programs against these standards, and
provides feedback to students, faculty, and other
stakeholders for the purposes of continual improvement
most relevant and well constituted in terms of clarity and proficiency level is
emphasized.
Chapter 3 ‘Effective and Creative Learning Design’ builds upon the active and
experiential learning focus advocated by CDIO, but extends the pedagogic
1.3 Chapters in this Book 5
approach into a more comprehensive learning framework, based on the most

relevant knowledge relating to how humans learn. While active and experiential
learning are foundational principles for effective learning, there are other impor-
tant principles of learning that need to be incorporated into a fully science of
learning pedagogic framework.
Chapter 4 ‘Assessing Learning’ fully explores the key principles, procedures
and practices of good assessment. It highlights the need to apply established
principles of good assessment in accordance with assessment standards for the key
stages of the assessment process. Ways to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency
of the assessment process are identified, explained and illustrated in the context of
CDIO.
Chapter 5 ‘Using Information-Communication Technologies to Support Learn-
ing and Teaching’ is not a specific feature of CDIO as such. However, as infor-
mation-communication technologies are now an integral part of teaching and
learning, a consideration of their effective use merits inclusion. This is especially the
case as much of current practice in the area of technology use and e-learning in the
educational context has failed to utilize the affordances that technology can offer in
terms of enhancing teaching and learning. The chapter offers an approach to using
emerging technologies and, in particular, blended learning, to exploit specific
technology affordances underpinned by sound pedagogic design.
Chapter 6 ‘Evaluating the CDIO Experience’ documents our 3 year evaluation
of the implementation of CDIO at SP. The evaluation used a range of data sources
for evaluating key aspects of the CDIO programme from both students and faculty
perspective. A particularly interesting and valuable aspect of the evaluation
methodology was the involvement of student co-participants in the research pro-
gramme. They met every semester for informal panel interviews with the evalu-
ation team, and blogged regularly on their (and their classmates) learning
experiences in specific CDIO infused modules. This enabled us to gain a more
ethnographically based and longitudinal understanding of how our students
experienced various aspects of the curriculum innovation.
Chapter 7 ‘Managing the Change Process: Approach, Strategies and Profes-
sional Development’ summarizes our management of change approach and
strategies as well as the evolvement of our professional development support
activities. It provides a realistic approach to the management of a large scale
curriculum innovation, emphasizing the importance of openness, relationship
building and actually doing things better rather than just quicker.
Reference
Crawley E, Malmqvist J, Ostlund S, Brodeur D (2007) Rethinking engineering education.

Springer, New York
Chapter 2
Producing Curriculum Outcomes
2.1 Introduction
Curriculum can be seen as the battlefield of many competing influences and ideologies.
(Kelly 1989 p. 149)
Defining curriculum outcomes is essentially concerned with addressing the

question of what skills, knowledge and attitudes are most useful to attain and for
what purpose. This is of course a contested issue as it inevitably reflects views
about the ‘good society’ and what are the ‘desirable’ attributes’ of people living in
that society. The problem is illustrated by Wringe (1988), who wrote:
Human beings have potential for developing in many directions and the problem of
educational aims is deciding which kinds of development should be fostered and which
discouraged. (p. 43)
In the specific context of engineering education, the issue of curriculum out-

comes is captured by Crawley et al. (2007):
What is the full set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that engineering students should
possess as they leave the university, and at what level of proficiency? (p. 34)
However, in engineering, as in most curriculum areas, we are being faced with

an increasing major planning dilemma. On the one hand we are experiencing an
exponential growth in subject content knowledge (Neff et al. 1995). They point out
that apart from exponential knowledge growth, engineering is becoming increas-
ingly specialized and changes rapidly. Simply tinkering with the content curric-
ulum, adding, deleting, rationalizing, etc., cannot address this problem, and it can
only get worse. At present, there is great pressure on many lecturers to cover more
content in shorter time frames via compressed modules and the use of information-
technology communication applications, such as online and blended learning
delivery modes. On the other hand, there are expectations that graduates will not
only have deep technical knowledge, but also a range of problem-solving skills,
communication and teamwork competencies, and a disposition for flexible lifelong
learning.

8 2 Producing Curriculum Outcomes
In the present societal context of rapid change, unpredictability and a volatile

work context, we are swamped with knowledge possibilities and confusion about
what are the most important human qualities and attributes to foster, both for the
world of work and for effective citizenship. Quite simply, we cannot fully know
what abilities or competencies will be most useful for future society. Curriculum
planning must, therefore, recognize the systemic and accelerating nature of change
and build the necessary flexibility into the curriculum format and learning process.
Educational systems, philosophy and practices inevitably reflect the societal
context in which they prevail. They are also likely to incorporate the interests and
concerns of dominant decision-making groups in that society. In Singapore, where
this innovation is taking place, there is heavy reliance on the continuous devel-
opment of its human resource in order to sustain and enhance competitive
advantage. Such advantage will only be possible in future with a workforce
capable of responding to the enormity and complexity of economic and techno-
logical change with both a high level of productiveness and creativity. Mr. Goh
Chok Tong (1997), the former prime minister of Singapore once stated:
The old formulae for success are unlikely to prepare our young for the new circumstances
and new problems they will face. We do not even know what these problems will be,
let alone be able to provide the answers and solutions to them. But we must ensure that our
young can think for themselves, so that the next generation can find their own solutions to
whatever new problems they may face. (p. 3)
The strong commitment to education in Singapore, a nation state renowned for

systematic planning and efficiency is, therefore, hardly surprising. Again to quote
Mr. Goh (1997) in this context:
A nation’s wealth in the Twenty-first century will depend on the capacity of its people to
learn. Their imagination, their ability to seek out new technologies and ideas, and to apply
them in everything they do will be the key source of economic growth. Their collective
capacity to learn will determine the well-being of a nation. (p. 1)
However, while the context of Singapore has been highlighted here, such issues
and concerns relating to educational aims and curriculum outcomes are generic to
an increasing number of countries. Indeed, the scenario in the global context was
perfectly captured by Reich (1992):
In the emerging global economy, even the most impressive of positions in the most pres-
tigious of organizations is vulnerable to worldwide competition…The only true competitive
advantage lies in skill in solving, identifying and brokering new problems. (p. 148)
2.2 Challenges to Higher Education Institutions
As outlined in Chap. 1, the CDIO initiative was in large part a response to per-
ceptions by stakeholders that present engineering courses are too theoretical and
do little to generate interest let alone passion for engineering among students.
2.2 Challenges to Higher Education Institutions 9
Furthermore, there are other widespread concerns raised concerning institutions of

higher education, which further highlight the need for significant curriculum
change. Diamond (1998), from a wide range of sources, argues that:
A serious problem that institutions of higher education face is the perception by business
leaders, governmental leaders, and the public at large that they have enthusiastically
avoided stating clearly what competencies graduates should have and that as a result they
have provided little evidence that they are successful at what they are expected to do. (p. 4)
In an increasingly competitive educational landscape, institutions of higher

education must be seen as relevant by key stakeholders if they are to stay viable
and thrive. It is not surprising that many are conducting major reviews and
adopting what is referred to as ‘Outcomes-Based Education’ (OBE). OBE
emphasizes that:
• The starting point for any curriculum offering is the identification of clear
student learning outcomes, which describe the result of learning for that
curriculum.
• The learning environment and instructional system is designed to promote the
desired outcomes.
• Assessment supports the learning process (formative) and is more performance
based (authentic assessment). Teaching, learning and assessment are systemat-
ically interlocked.
The CDIO approach has much in common with OBE and is consistent with a
broad curriculum shift from ‘content-based’ to a ‘competency’ and ‘process-
based’ focus. In basic terms, in the context of engineering education, there are
increasing expectations that graduates will leave universities and colleges with
both relevant practical competences as well as a thorough understanding of the
role of an engineer in the present and future work context, and what this entails.
2.3 Deriving Specific CDIO Curriculum Outcomes
This section documents our approach to customizing the generic CDIO syllabus to
the context of SP. It specifically focuses on addressing Standard 2: Learning
Outcomes:
Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal and interpersonal skills; and product,
process, and system building skills, as well as disciplinary knowledge, consistent with
program goals and validated by program stakeholders.
This was a major challenge as we needed to produce a customized programme

of curriculum outcomes that were authentic to the original CDIO skills framework
but tailored to realistic range and proficiency levels for students in a polytechnic
context. We were well aware that the result of this part of the curriculum reframing
would largely determine the subsequent success (or otherwise) of developing and
aligning the assessment approaches and instructional strategies.
The original CDIO Skills framework was the product of a comprehensive
stakeholder focus group exercise comprised of engineering faculty, students,
industry representatives, university review committees, alumni, and senior aca-
demicians. From this stakeholder exercise, it was agreed that every graduating
engineer should be able to:
Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate complex value-added engineering products, pro-
cesses, and systems in a modern, team-based environment. (Crawley et al. p. 13)
To meet this aim a framework of learning outcomes was derived, which now
constitutes the CDIO Syllabus. The syllabus classifies learning outcomes into four
high-level categories:
1. Technical knowledge and reasoning.
2. Personal and professional skills and attributes.
3. Interpersonal skills: teamwork and communication.
4. Conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating systems in the enterprise
and societal context.
These high level categories are further subdivided and organized into four
discrete rational levels. While levels 1 and 2 are generic and specified, the
selection of level 3 and 4 learning outcomes and the level of proficiency is within
the framing of individual educational institutions, customized to the course context
and stakeholder needs. The recommended process for establishing proficiency
levels and learning outcomes is as follows:
• Review the generic CDIO Syllabus and make modifications or additions to
customize it for a specific course of study within the technical and national
context of the program.
• Identify and survey the important stakeholders of the program—both internal
and external to the university—and validate their coverage and proficiency level
to the local context.
• Write specific learning outcomes that guide the design of learning and define the
assessment requirements.
This is a critical process for the success of the curriculum innovation. Limi-
tations in the appropriateness, clarity and currency of the outcomes inevitably run
through the instructional and assessment systems. There’s limited value in
teaching and assessing a knowledge or skill area in effective and efficient ways if it
has little relevance to stakeholder interests. Furthermore, if the outcomes are not
seen as clear and appropriate by faculty, there will be little buy in and the initiative
will be bound for failure at an early stage. Diamond (1998) clearly recognized this
when he argued that:
…it is a major mistake to take any published list of basic skills or competencies and accept
it for use on another campus without revision. Not only will the specific items on such a list
vary from institution to institution but the definition of each item will vary as well. The final
2.3 Deriving Specific CDIO Curriculum Outcomes 11
list of competencies, their definitions, and how they should be assessed must evolve on each
campus. Faculty ownership in the process is an essential element for success. (p. 53)
In order to ensure that the CDIO skills at levels 3 and 4 were most appropriate
to the context of students at SP a working group of representatives from the
various engineering schools was established to systematically work through all the
CDIO Skills, with a remit to:
• Identify which skills were most appropriate in the SP context.
• Decide a viable proficiency level.
• Write specific learning objectives that are measurable at level 4.
In practice this was a time-consuming process as faculty have different frames
about what skills should be included, the level of proficiency deemed viable and
the actual statements of specific learning outcomes. Our approach was to spend the
necessary time and persevere in order to get the best possible consensus. While
this resulted in a large number of meetings and iterations, in the longer run it was
time well spent. The present SP customized syllabus is contained in Appendix 1.
2.4 Integrating CDIO Skills into Course and Module

Curriculum
This specifically focuses on CDIO Standard 3: Integrated Curriculum:

A curriculum designed with mutually supporting disciplinary courses, with an explicit
plan to integrate personal and interpersonal skills; and product, process, and system
building skills.
Having produced the customized CDIO syllabus, the next challenge was to
naturally integrate specific skills within the curriculum programme and to ensure
the best vertical and horizontal articulation possible (e.g., logical structuring and
sequencing within and between modules in a course programme, etc.).
The notion and rationale for an integrated curriculum is not new. The nature of
knowledge and its relationship to the development of mind has long been debated
in the academic literature. The more traditional structuring of knowledge into
disciplines and subjects, for example, is based on certain assumptions about the
nature of knowledge, its relation to the development of mind and what it means to
become educated. For example, Hirst (1974) argued that there is a close rela-
tionship between the acquisition of knowledge and the growth of the mind. Such
an approach makes the following psychological assumptions about the nature of
mind:
• Knowledge is a quality of mind. Failure to receive certain forms of knowledge is
a failure to achieve rational ways of thinking in those areas
• The mind does not develop in a rational way—it needs organised forms of
knowledge.
In contrast, Young (1971) argued that knowledge is less delineated at the

experience level and is best learned in a more integrated and holistic context. In
basic terms, a well-integrated curriculum is more consistent with how we learn, the
nature of knowledge in the real world, as well as making learning more interesting
for students (Fogarty 2009).
However, it is important to note that integrated approaches to curriculum do not
negate the importance of subject domains and the importance of learning a core
structure of knowledge that is foundational to understanding the discipline. The
concern is that discipline knowledge is often overemphasized at the expense of
knowledge connectedness. In the CDIO context, an integrated curriculum has the
following important attributes:
• It is organized around the disciplines. However, the curriculum is re-tasked so
that the disciplines are shown to be more connected and more supporting, in
contrast to being separate and isolated.
• The personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building
skills are highly interwoven into mutually supporting courses, relieving the
potential tension between technical disciplines and these skills.
• Every course or learning experience sets specific learning outcomes in disci-
plinary knowledge, in personal and interpersonal skills, and in product, process,
and system building skills, to ensure that students acquire the appropriate
foundation for their futures as engineers (Crawley et al. 2007, p. 78).
The decision was taken to focus initially on Personal and Professional Skills
and Attributes, and Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork and Communication for sys-
tematic integration into course curriculum. Firstly, it was felt that this would be
more manageable and not lead to confusion and unrealistic workloads for faculty.
Secondly, these specific skills were chosen for their relative familiarity with
faculty and high leverage potential in the learning process. While many staff had
not consciously thought about teaching thinking skills explicitly, the notion of
integrating types of thinking with subject content knowledge was not a difficult
selling point from a learning point of view. This was also the case for teamwork
and communication. Good thinking, teamwork and communication are well
established generic skills for effective learning and performance in real work
contexts, whether in engineering or otherwise.
Each of the schools involved conducted a gap analysis of the courses selected
for the integration of CDIO skills. From this, it was possible to:
• Identify where such skills were already apparent in the curriculum, whether
explicitly stated or otherwise.
• Identify where there were naturally occurring opportunities to integrate selected
CDIO skills.
• Map the integration of the CDIO skills throughout the course programme.
The mapping exercise, which required sustained collaboration and effort from
the course team members, enabled the selected CDIO skills to be systematically
2.4 Integrating CDIO Skills into Course and Module Curriculum 13
infused, at the level of specific learning outcomes, into appropriate modules over
the course duration.
Individual schools were encouraged to be creative in the way they integrated
aspects of their course curriculum. For example, in the School of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering’s Introduction to Engineering, knowledge and skills
learned in two separate modules were integrated to conceive, design, and build a
model racing car. Students machined the chassis from a given set of blueprints and
applied creative thinking to conceive, design, and model the car’s body. They then
assembled and raced their cars. Teamwork and communication skills, as well as
basic Conceive, Design, and Implement skills were introduced and woven into the
activity. In year two, knowledge and skills taught in two existing modules,
Engineering Design (ED) and Computer-Aided Design (CAD) were integrated to
conceive, design and build a working industrial machine in the design-build
module, illustrated in Fig. 2.1: Integrated Design Build Module. The integrated
design-build module exposed students to the various stages of machine design
such as conceptualization of design specifications, drawing, designing, fabrication,
assembly, and commissioning of the machine.
Finally, it was recognized that while certain modules would focus on teaching
and/or assessing specific skill components, all faculty would take responsibility for
reinforcing such skills at teachable moments in their modules. In this way, we were
seeking both a clear structure to the teaching and assessing of the skills, as well as
encouraging an overall holistic and flexible approach to teaching beyond the
mainstream technical content curriculum.
Fig. 2.1 Integrated Design Build Module

2.5 Using the Concept of Infusion for Integrating

CDIO Skills
It is important that the CDIO skills are not simply ‘put into’ parts of the existing
curriculum. Good integration is a bit like doing a jig-saw puzzle: the pieces all
need to fit in their correct place to get the full intended picture. In reality, we may
never complete the jig-saw puzzle, but it remains the operational goal—so to
speak. Furthermore, in this context, there are decisions about how much content
and process should be included in a curriculum programme. For example, on the
one hand, there is virtual agreement among cognitive psychologists that effective
thinking, however defined, needs an extensive and well organized knowledge base.
As Resnick (1989) summarized:
Study after study shows that people who know more about a topic reason more
profoundly about that topic than people who know little about it. (p. 4)
Equally, on the other hand, while thinking is developed through the acquisition
and mental engagement with knowledge, knowledge is only made meaningful
through thought. As Paul (1993) strongly argued:
Thought is the key to knowledge. Knowledge is discovered by thinking, analyzed by
thinking, organized by thinking, transformed by thinking, assessed by thinking, and, most
importantly, acquired by thinking. (p. vii)
In working towards the best integration of the selected CDIO Skills into the
technical content we modelled the infusion approach advocated by Swartz (1987)
and the nested and threaded approaches documented by Fogarty (2009). The
infusion approach argues that generic process skills such as thinking are best
learned through ‘‘conceptual infusion’’ with the subject content. This involves
identifying the ingredients of good thinking—‘‘the skills, competencies, attitudes,
dispositions, and activities of the good thinker’’—and designing these into the
structure of the lesson content (p. 125). The essential point is that good application
of the thinking process and skills mutually develop the meaningful acquisition of
knowledge to form understanding. Furthermore, specific types of thinking can be
systematically developed in terms of level of proficiency and range of context
application over the course duration.
Our approach, therefore, was to recognize the range of important components of
effective learning and derive a pedagogically sound and viable structure for the
infusion of CDIO Skills. In the specific case of Sect 2.4 ‘Personal Skills and Atti-
tudes’, for example, this has involved identifying where in the subject content exist
the richest opportunities to infuse the desired thinking and learning-to-learn skills.
To do this in the most authentic way, we created partnerships in which engi-
neering subject specialists worked with Education Advisors from the Department
of Educational Development (EDU) and collaboratively unpacked the content of
module syllabi. This process was invaluable in many positive ways for enhancing
the curriculum. Firstly, in some modules, it was noticed that there existed
redundant content, or areas that were only of tertiary value to the intended learning
2.5 Using the Concept of Infusion for Integrating CDIO Skills 15
outcomes. This led to content reduction, rationalization, and updating in many

modules. Secondly, in working through the learning outcomes for the module
topics, it was apparent that many contained a preponderance of ‘knowledge’ and
‘comprehension’ based learning outcomes—based on Blooms Taxonomy (1956),
which is used as the basis for writing learning outcomes in SP. Also, a number of
learning outcomes were not clearly written (e.g., discuss, develop, etc.). In
response, we re-focused the key learning more towards real world engineering
application and subsequently wrote specific learning outcomes in clear perfor-
mance terms. Thirdly, it helped faculty to develop what Schulman (1991) referred
to as ‘Pedagogic Content Knowledge’. Essentially, this involves a deep under-
standing of the structure of specific topic areas in a domain, and how they are best
taught.
Once modules became more real world focused, it is then possible to use
cognitive modelling of the key activities involved in order to identify the types of
thinking that underpin highly effective performance. This is typically achieved by
firstly asking the subject specialists (e.g., academic faculty) to make explicit their
thinking in relation to the following question:
How would a highly competent person think in the effective execution of this activity?
A useful technique to facilitate this is to visualize the activity and try to sys-
tematically describe the stages and types of thinking involved in conducting it
effectively. For many lecturers this took some time initially and is most profitably
done in a small group of similar subject specialists. The difficulty is that experts, in
any field, usually take for granted much of what is involved as this becomes tacit
and unconscious over time. It requires some skill in cognitive modelling, as well as
persistence, to make such knowledge and thinking processes explicit and
transferable.
However, once knowledge and the thinking processes are made explicit, it is
then possible to identify the specific types of thinking that underpins competence
in the performance/activity under review. For example, in one module a significant
topic area is ‘Managing Pollution’. From this process the following types of
thinking were identified as important in competent task performance and written as
contextualized specific learning outcomes:
• Compare and contrast pollution in a range of contexts.
• Analyse the basis of pollutants.
• Make inferences and interpretations concerning the causes of pollution in dif-
ferent situations.
• Generate possibilities in terms of managing/reducing pollutants.
• Evaluate pollution policies.
Having identified the main types of thinking within the specific subject
domains, it seemed particularly useful to establish a framework for the explicit
teaching of good thinking, which could be used by faculty as a basis from which
they could integrate types of thinking into their content curriculum in a more
systematic manner. One of the most striking and consistent findings from the
evaluation (documented in Chap. 6 : Evaluating the CDIO Experience) was that

faculty, in the main, were not explicitly teaching thinking skills, as evidenced by
both student and faculty feedback, leading to confusion among many students as to
what constitutes ‘good thinking’.
Indeed, simply recognizing that certain internal cognitive processes—
‘thinking’—are particularly important in developing understanding, and the
subsequent application of acquired knowledge, does little in itself to aid systematic
development of such capability in our students. Without valid and practical defi-
nition of what constitutes such terms as ‘critical thinking’, ‘creative thinking’—
indeed, ‘good thinking’—teaching faculty will find difficulty in teaching and
assessing these desirable cognitive skills. Indeed, according to Wagner (2010), a
lack of clarity concerning such skills is still prevalent globally:
In schools, critical thinking has long been a buzz phrase. Educators pay lip service to its
importance, but few can tell me what they mean by the phrase or how they teach and test
it… (p. 16)
For the most part, teachers haven’t been trained to teach students how to think. (p. xxiv)
There is no shortage of models of thinking or lists of thinking skills, processes

and dispositions (e.g., Marzano et al. 1988; Swartz and Parks 1994; Perkins 1994).
Similarly, there seems to be a reasonable agreement that competence in ‘thinking’
can be developed through appropriate pedagogic strategies. How we have learned
to think will determine in large part how we think, much the same as for any kind
of learned activity. As Perkins (1995) points out ‘‘People can learn to think and act
intelligently’’ (p. 18). Paul (1993) provides an interesting analogy between the
development of mind and physical fitness. He points out that the mind, like the
body, ‘‘has its own form of fitness or excellence’’ which is ‘‘caused by and
reflected in activities done in accordance with standards (critically)’’ (p. 103). He
goes on to argue that:
A fit mind can successfully engage in the designing, fashioning, formulating, originating,
or producing of intellectual products worthy of its challenging ends… Minds indifferent to
standards and disciplined judgment tend to judge inexactly, inaccurately, inappropriately,
prejudicially. (pp. 103–4)
2.6 An Explicit Model of Good Thinking
The model of thinking outlined here (Sale 2011) does not profess to capture all
aspects of this elusive cognitive capability. Accurate conceptualization of internal
cognitive processes is inherently problematic and invariably unreliable, especially
across subject domains. However, we feel that it is sufficiently valid in terms of
classifying the main types of thinking and the cognitive heuristics involved, thus
enabling practical curriculum planning, teaching and assessment of good thinking.
Furthermore, research suggests that while there is variation in how humans
2.6 An Explicit Model of Good Thinking 17
experience phenomena in the world—based on prior experience and selective

perception, etc.—our common human apparatus and need orientation typically
results in shared ways of experiencing the world. Indeed, without this common-
ality, the inter-subjectivity of everyday life would be even more problematic than
it is already. For example, Marton (1981) pointed out that:
…we have repeatedly found that phenomena, aspects of reality, are experienced (or
conceptualized) in a relatively limited number of qualitatively different ways. (p. 181)
What this means is that while psychologists may solve problems is some
qualitatively differently ways from engineers, both at the individual and collective
level, there is much of similarity in the types of cognitive activity involved. For
example, both will analyse situations (cases) looking for causation and areas of
possible relatedness, make comparisons and contrast with similar cases, build up
inferences and interpretations from ongoing perceptions and data accumulation,
generate possible solutions and decide action based on chosen criteria. Around this
swirl of cognitive activity, there will be an overall monitoring of what is going
on—typically referred to as metacognition. Metacognition refers to the distinc-
tively human capability of having awareness of, and the ability to monitor and
control one’s cognitive processing, as well as emotional states, in order to enhance
learning and performance. It operates at both conscious and sub/unconscious
levels.
The explicit model of thinking used in our CDIO implementation depicts six
main types of thinking as shown in Fig. 2.2.
Table 2.1 summarizes the key heuristics that underlie these broad classification
frames on different types of thinking.
In this model, analysis, compare and contrast, inference and interpretation and
evaluation are typically employed during critical thinking; whereas generating
possibilities, as the term implies, is predominantly in creative thinking.
Fig. 2.2 Sale Model of

Types of Thinking Compare & Inference &
Contrast Interpretation
Analysis Meta-
Cognition Evaluation
Generating
Possibilities
Table 2.1 Summary of key heuristics of types of thinking

Generating Possibilities
• Generate many possibilities
• Generate different types of possibilities
• Generate novel possibilities
Compare and Contrast
• Identify what is similar between things—objects/options/ideas, etc.
• Identify what is different between things
• Identify and consider what is important about both the similarities and differences
• Identify a range of situations when the different features are applicable
Analysis
• Identify relationship of the parts to a whole in system/structure/model
• Identify functions of each part
• Identify consequences to the whole, if a part was missing
• Identify what collections of parts form important sub-systems of the whole
• Identify if and how certain parts have a synergetic effect (in an open system)
Inference and Interpretation
• Identify intentions and assumptions in data
• Separate fact from opinion in data
• Identify key points, connections, and contradictions in data
• Make meaning of the data/information available
• Establish a best picture to make predictions
Evaluation
• Decide on what is to be evaluated
• Identify appropriate criteria from which evaluation can be made
• Prioritize the importance of the criteria
• Apply the criteria and make decision
Meta-Cognition
• Recognize the ability to think in an organized manner
• Identify barriers (and limitations) to effective thinking
• Evaluate the effectiveness of thinking
• Identify strategies to enhance the quality of the thinking process
Metacognition, as outlined above, is the monitoring and evaluation of the overall

thinking process (e.g. our execution of types of thinking), as well as other psy-
chological aspects of our person that effect self-regulation (e.g. emotions, beliefs,
etc.). In practice, these types of thinking run as overlapping and interdependent
programmes, moving from foreground to background as the focus of a problem
changes and certain questions emerge. Certainly, when creativity is sought, gen-
erating possibilities is at the mind’s forefront, though other types of thinking will
weave in and out of consciousness and, probably run continuously in the sub-
conscious mind.
It is important to fully recognize that thinking processes do not exist in an
‘uncontaminated’ system of rational cognitions, but within the wider system of the
human mind, composed of many interacting and conflicting parts or mental
modules. As Pinker (2002), from extensive research, summarizes:
2.6 An Explicit Model of Good Thinking 19
Behaviour…comes from an internal struggle among mental modules with differing

agendas and goals. (p. 40)
Marcus (2009), from a cognitive neuroscience perspective, fully highlights the

challenge of achieving good critical thinking when he asserts that:
Our beliefs are contaminated by the tricks of memory, by emotion, and by the vagaries of a
perceptual system that really ought to be fully separate—not to mention a logic and infer-
ence system that is as yet, in the early twenty-first century, far from fully hatched. (p. 67)
Good thinking then is the ability to navigate this ‘‘perpetual swirl’’, and be able
to employ the various heuristics of these types of thinking in a fluid, efficient and
highly synergetic manner. This is perhaps the reason that good thinking is quite
rare in many situations, and why we really need to teach it to our students.
It is in this context that some writers in the field see critical thinking not just in
terms of cognitive processes and heuristics but also in terms of the development of
intellectual traits and standards. For example, Paul et al. (2006) identify the fol-
lowing traits as central to acquiring a high level of expertise in critical thinking:
• Intellectual humility—sensitivity to owns own biases and the limitations of
knowing.
• Intellectual courage—prepared to question own beliefs and those of others, even
if unpopular with dominant perspectives and people.
• Intellectual empathy—awareness of need to actively entertain different views
from one’s own.
• Intellectual integrity—holding oneself to the same intellectual standards of
others (no double standards).
• Intellectual perseverance—working through intellectual complexities despite
frustration.
• Confidence in reason—recognizing that humankind’s interests are best served
by giving free play to reason.
• Intellectual autonomy—thinking for oneself in relation to standards of ratio-
nality and not uncritically accepting the judgements of others.
• Fair-mindedness—conscious of the need to treat all viewpoints alike and not be
influenced by vested interests.
Such dispositions are certainly desirable, but the extent to which some are more
integral to deep seated personality traits is open to question, as is their successful
development in a pedagogic context. However, they remain a regulatory ideal and
as educationalists we do our best to encourage productive outcomes for our
students.
In summary, our approach to identifying good thinking started from the initial
cognitive modelling of what highly competent professionals do when they solve
real world problems, in order to derive domain contextualized thinking skills. This
became the basis for identifying the types of thinking skills that naturally sup-
ported proficiency in the subject knowledge and skill areas. From this process we
were able to provide systematic guidance in helping faculty to:
1. Review existing module aims and learning objectives to identify real world
activities that students would be expected to do as a result of successfully
completing the module.
2. Identify the types of thinking essential for highly competent performance in
these real world activities.
3. Write learning outcomes that specifically cued the types of thinking in relation
to knowledge acquisition.
The generic model of good thinking outlined in this chapter is helping to create a
common language relating to thinking. It was very apparent from evaluation that both
students and staff have wide variation in terms of their perception on what thinking
entails and the cognitive heuristics involved. The model is already providing a more
systematic approach to promoting good thinking in the curriculum, both in terms of
the explicit teaching of thinking to students and staff development in this area.
Care was taken to ensure development of the skill components over time and
ensuring sufficient practice for the attainment of understanding and competence as
defined by the proficiency level. For example, as critical thinking was to be
developed over the duration of the course programme, it is essential to have the
structured development of such sub-skills as analysis, comparison and contrast,
inference and interpretation, evaluation, over the duration of the course pro-
gramme. As Marzano et al. (1988) pointed out:
… we can improve students’ ability to perform the various processes by increasing their
awareness of the component skills and by increasing their skill proficiency through con-
scious practice. (p. 65)
This approach also proved useful for integrating other CDIO skills. We wanted
to ensure that CDIO skills were not only appropriately integrated but actually
supported and added value to the learning of subject content knowledge in the
modules. As individual schools were at liberty to customize objectives at level 4 to
the specific engineering context where appropriate, providing there is no change in
the knowledge domain covered, cognitive activity involved and proficiency level,
they could fully contextualize the CDIO skills. For example, in one of the engi-
neering modules, specific learning outcomes for communication and teamwork
were customized to the module content in the following ways:
• Apply team ground-rules and display teamwork (including leadership) in a
range of team role situations when conducting experiments.
• Design appropriate communication strategies for presenting experimental
findings.
• Demonstrate effective oral communication in presenting experimental findings.
The process of curriculum review for the implementation of CDIO led to a critical
holistic re-framing of aspects of existing course structures and module integration,
especially the re-writing and rationalization of specific learning outcomes. This is
illustrated in Table 2.2 which shows a sample of learning outcomes before and after
the curriculum review for a Chemical Reaction Engineering module.
2.7 The Importance of Identifying Key Underpinning Knowledge for CDIO Skills 21
Table 2.2 Sample learning outcomes before and after curriculum review in a chemical reaction
engineering module
Before
• Distinguish between elementary and non-elementary reactions
• Explain the rate law and rate constant for elementary reactions
• Describe the temperature dependence of the rate constant using Arrhenius Equation
• Explain the molecularity and order of reaction
• Discuss the factors affecting the rate of reaction
• Determine the frequency factor and activation energy of a reaction
• Describe the steps involved for determining the rate law parameters
After
• Use Arrhenius Law to determine the effect of temperature on the rate of chemical reactions
• Infer and interpret experimental data on the effect of temperature on the rate of chemical
reactions
• Compare and contrast the integral and differential methods of analysis in rate law determination
• Use integral and differentiated methods of analysis to determine the rate law for a liquid
reaction
• Calculate and interpret the results for the integral and differential methods of analysis using
graphical solution and linear regression
• Identify the components of an effective team
• Identify team roles and their impact on team performance
• Deliver effective oral communication to a given audience
2.7 The Importance of Identifying Key Underpinning

Knowledge for CDIO Skills
We were well aware that teaching and assessing certain CDIO skills may pose
significant challenges for some engineering faculty. Firstly, they may question the
rationale for teaching such skills as contained within Personal and Professional
Skills and Attributes, as well as Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork and Communi-
cation. Most significantly, is it our responsibility to teach these skills anyway? After
all, we already have certain institutional modules and electives that cover many of
these skill areas. Furthermore, are we not already overburdened with the demands
of the technical engineering curriculum—not to mention the increasing plethora of
administrative work that is becoming the norm in many educational institutions?
Secondly, and equally important, are faculty fully equipped to teach these skills
effectively and efficiently? Many CDIO skills involve key knowledge from the
fields of psychology, economics and, some would say, philosophy. The issue of
whether all engineering faculty should be capable of teaching all CDIO Skills is
significant. Similarly, a related issue concerns whether these are best taught by
engineering faculty or more specialized faculty from the respective fields. For
example, in the case of ‘communication and teamwork’, is it preferable and more
viable for a specialist servicing department to take the main responsibility for
teaching these skills rather than for engineering faculty?
However, what has proved helpful is the identification and delineation of the
key underpinning knowledge for each of the CDIO skills. Underpinning knowl-
edge refers to the key concepts, principles and procedures that are essential for
developing understanding of the CDIO skill areas. This provides a conceptual

basis for the practical applications to develop necessary competence, as illustrated
in Table 2.3.
The production of clear and concise underpinning knowledge was important to
facilitating ‘buy in’ from faculty. Once they fully understand what is involved and
the importance of these skills for student learning, they were less resistant to the
idea that they might need to teach such skills within the engineering context. Most
significantly, they quickly appreciate that much of the underpinning knowledge—
especially in the area of teamwork and communication—is, in fact, quite familiar
to them. This is not surprising, as we would expect experienced engineering
professionals to possess such knowledge and related competence. However, such
knowledge is typically tacit (Polanyi 1967) rather than explicit. Through the
provision of key underpinning knowledge for CDIO Skills, it is possible to bring
such tacit knowledge to a more explicit and practical focus. Faculty can then see
that they actually possess such knowledge and competence. It is then much easier
for them to make direct connections to where and when in the curriculum such
skills can be naturally and effectively integrated.
Key underpinning knowledge provided part of the solution to the question of
whether certain CDIO skills were to be taught by engineering faculty or servicing
departments who had specialist staff in these areas. At present, for communication
Table 2.3 CDIO skill and underpinning knowledge for managing learning
CDIO skill: Managing Learning
• Identify one’s own learning approach
• Identify approaches for self-improvement (e.g., lifelong learning, creating positive beliefs and
psychological states)
• Display key dispositions (e.g., initiative, perseverance, flexibility in work projects)
• Use a range of learning strategies and skills (e.g., goal setting, learning plans, organizing/
summarizing information, receiving feedback)
• Managing time and resources
Underpinning knowledge for Managing Learning
• What is a learning approach and how does it impact on personal learning? Typical differences in
the way people approach their learning (e.g., visual, auditory, kinaesthetic; holistic, serialist)
• Different ways in which self-improvement can be achieved (e.g., lifelong learning, creating
positive beliefs and psychological states)
• The challenges that lifelong learning entails and its implications (continual re-skilling, job
changes, professional and personal flexibility)
• What are positive beliefs and psychological states? How these can be developed and maintained
(e.g., reframing, visualizing, self-motivation)
• What is meant by dispositions and how they impact on human behaviour? How certain
dispositions (e.g., initiative, perseverance, flexibility) contribute to high performance and
success in work projects, and in life goals
• What is meant by ‘learning strategies and skills’ and how they can help to make learning more
effective and efficient? Different types of learning strategies and skills and how they
contribute to improved learning (e.g., goal setting, learning plans, monitoring learning,
organizing/summarizing information, receiving feedback)
2.7 The Importance of Identifying Key Underpinning Knowledge for CDIO Skills 23
and teamwork, a specialist module has been developed to cover the full range of
skills as defined by the contextualized proficiency level. In terms of the actual
teaching this is presently conducted by specialist faculty from the school of
Communication, Arts and Social Sciences, working collaboratively with engi-
neering faculty. Some engineering faculty are already sufficiently comfortable to
integrate these skills into the module content curriculum and teach them as part of
the mainstream engineering curriculum. Increasing faculty competence in taking
on the challenges of teaching CDIO skills has been the result of the thorough
preparatory work in writing clear and customized learning outcomes and famil-
iarization with the supporting underpinning knowledge.
2.8 Summary
This chapter has documented and illustrated the process of customizing curriculum
outcomes to a particular educational and institutional context. In conducting the
range of activities involved, a number of related curriculum issues emerged which,
in turn, required thoughtful consideration and action.
Firstly, while the process of customizing the curriculum outcomes was a time-
consuming process, it was time well spent. It secured faculty ownership of the
completed SP customized CDIO syllabus and ensured clarity and agreement on the
range and proficiency of the curriculum outcomes. This was central to the suc-
cessful implementation of the initiative.
Secondly, the process of integrating CDIO skills led to a more critical review of
other aspects of course and module structure. As faculty had to review their
module documents, it became apparent in a number of cases, that there was a need
to modify the content organization as well as write clearer and more appropriate
learning outcomes generally. Clear outcomes are central to curriculum alignment.
Lack of clarity for this curriculum component typically creates confusion when it
comes to the design of learning and assessment systems.
Finally, the decision taken to focus on a limited number of CDIO skills for
initial integration proved a wise one as did the choice of the initial skills of
Personal and Professional Skills and Attributes, and Interpersonal Skills: Team-
work and Communication. This reduced both the cognitive and work loads of
academic faculty.
References
Bloom B (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, London

Springer, New York
Diamond RM (1998) Designing & assessing courses & curricula: A Practical Guide. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco
Fogarty R (2009) How to integrate the curricula. Sage, London

Goh CT (1997) Ministry of Education Press Release No: 015/97 (28 April)
Goh CT (1997) Speech by prime minister Goh Chook Tong at the opening of The 7th
international conference on thinking on Monday, 2 June at the Suntec City Convention
Centre, Singapore
Hirst P (1974) Knowledge and the curriculum. Routeledge & Kegan Paul, London
Kelly AV (1989) The curriculum: theory and practice. Paul Chapman, London
Marcus G (2009) Kluge: the haphazard construction of the human mind. Faber & Faber, London
Marton F (1981) Phenomenography: describing conceptions of the world around us. Instr Sci
10:177–200.
Marzano RJ et al (1988) Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction.
ASCD, Alexandria, VA
Neff G et al (1995) Transforming engineering education from a product to a process. A paper
presented at the 4th world conference on engineering education, 15–20 October, vol 1. Saint
Paul, MN, pp 5–9
Paul RW (1993) Critical thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa, CA
Paul R, Niewoehner R, Elder L (2006) The thinker’s guide to engineering reasoning. Foundation
for Critical Thinking, Tomales, CA
Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Routeledge & Kegan Paul, London
Reich R (1992) The work of nations. Vintage Books, New York
Resnick LB (1989) Assessing the thinking curriculum: new tools for educational reform.
In: Gifford BR, O’Connor MC (eds) Future Assessments: Changing views of aptitude,
achievement, and instruction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Perkins DN (1994) What Creative Thinking Is: Excerpt from Perkins, D. N. creativity by design.
Educ Leadersh vol 42(1):18–22
Perkins DN (1995) Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. The Free
Press, London
Sale D (2011) Writing learning outcomes for specific types of thinking. Paper presentation at
international symposium on advances in technology education (ISATE) conference. 27–29
September 2011
Schulman L (1991) Pedagogic ways of knowing. Institute of Education, London
Swartz R J (1987) Teaching for thinking: a developmental model for the infusion of thinking
skills into mainstream instruction. In: Baron JB and Sternberg RJ (eds) Teaching thinking
skills: theory and practice. Freeman, New York
Swartz RJ, Parks S (1994) Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction. Critical
Thinking Press & Software, Pacific Grove, CA
Wagner T (2010) The global achievement gap. Basic Books, London
Wringe C (1988) Understanding educational aims. Allen and Unwin, London
Young MFD et al (1971) Knowledge and control. Collier-Macmillan, London
Chapter 3
Effective and Creative Learning Design
3.1 Introduction
…the central problem of curriculum study is the gap between our ideals
and our attempt to operationalize them. (Stenhouse 1989, p. 3)
The process of developing learning objectives appropriately calibrated to CDIO

Standard 2: Learning Outcomes and customized to the context of Singapore
Polytechnic was documented in the previous chapter. This chapter presents our
approaches to teaching and learning and how we seek to address the essential
question raised by Edstrom et al. (2007):
How can we do better at ensuring that students learn these skills? (p. 130)
We were particularly diligent in the process of customizing the learning out-

comes to the polytechnic context to ensure clarity and relevance. However, we
fully appreciate that a nicely produced curriculum document does not guarantee
quality student learning outcomes. Quality of education is, at the end of the day,
predominantly a teaching quality issue. As Izumi and Evers (2002), from
reviewing extensive research, concluded:
…nothing is as important to learning as the quality of a student’s teacher. The difference
between a good teacher and a bad teacher is so great that fifth-grade students who have
poor teachers in grades three to five score roughly 50 percentile points below similar
groups of students who are fortunate enough to have effective teachers. (ix)
Similarly, Rivers and Sanders (2002) point out:

The effect of the teacher far overshadows classroom variables, such as previous
achievement level of students, class size as it is currently operationalized, heterogeneity of
students, and the ethnic and socioeconomic makeup of the classroom. (p. 17)
However, while we can certainly identify teaching quality as fundamental to the

quality of student learning outcomes—and this would largely hold true irrespective
of context (e.g., university, polytechnic, mainstream compulsory sectors, etc.)

26 3 Effective and Creative Learning Design
—what constitutes highly effective teaching or ‘good pedagogy’ have long been
contested questions in the educational literature (Tuckman 1995; Ornstein 1995;
Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005).
This chapter presents a pedagogic framework from which teaching and learning
strategies can be effectively and creatively designed and delivered. It relates
particularly to CDIO Standards 5: Design Implement Experiences; 6: Engineering
Workplaces; 7: Integrated Learning experiences; and 8: Active Learning. Also, the
chapter introduces a comprehensive science of learning approach that transcends
the earlier CDIO constructivist perspective outlined by Crawley et al. (2007). It
provides a pedagogic framework from which faculty can develop the range of
learning design skills and practical teaching strategies that result in more engaging
and effective student learning experiences, irrespective of delivery mode (e.g.,
face-to-face, online, blended).
3.2 The Pedagogic Foundation of CDIO
In broad terms this has been documented elsewhere. For example Crawley et al.
(2007) stated:
…we recommend improvement in two basic areas: (1) an increase in active and experi-
ential learning, and (2) the creation of integrated learning experiences that lead to the
acquisition of both disciplinary knowledge, personal and interpersonal skills; and product,
process and system building skills. (p. 29)
Active and experiential learning are not new pedagogic approaches. They have
been extensively and successfully employed in a wide range of teaching and
training contexts for many years. Essentially, active learning happens when stu-
dents are given the opportunity to take a more interactive relationship with the
subject matter of a course, encouraging them to generate rather than simply to
receive knowledge. As Chickering and Gamson (1987) pointed out:
Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in class
listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers.
They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences,
apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves. (p. 3)
Active learning methods, when used effectively, engage students directly in the
learning process, making possible the use of good thinking in relation to the key
concepts, principles and procedures of subject disciplines. These are the very
cognitive processes that enable learners to make meaning of their learning and
build understanding, which makes possible the transfer of learning. The transfer of
learning is as McTighe and Wiggins (2000) point out:
…our great and difficult mission because we need to put students in a position to learn far
more, on their own, than they can ever learn from us. (p. 44)
3.2 The Pedagogic Foundation of CDIO 27
Experiential learning is by its very nature is active, but emphasizes activities

that more directly connect to the real world phenomenon being learned. For
example, discussing the stages of effective team-formation is active learning, but is
limited experientially. In contrast, actually participating in groups over time and
experiencing the team processes first hand is both active and highly experiential.
However, it needs to be noted that experience is not a sufficient condition for
effective learning. While we have long recognized that expertise in any field, and
teaching is no exception, involves experience, we often fail to ask the question of
what constitutes experience and what is its impact on learning and performance?
Similarly, why is it that some people, who have many years of experience, still
display limited competence, whereas relative newcomers achieve good compe-
tence in a comparatively short time? The conclusion of Berliner (1987) offers
insight into such questions:
…experience will probably only instruct those who have the motivation to excel in what
they do and the metacognitive skills to learn from their experience…we believe that
individuals with that kind of motivation to learn and in possession of a set of strategies for
learning from experience are literally transformed by their experience. (p. 61)
There are some important points to emphasize in this context. Firstly, for
experience to translate into meaningful learning there must be motivation on the
part of the learner to critically unpack the experience and make the significant
inferences and interpretations from it. This may prove a challenge to faculty who
see their role primarily in terms of transmitting knowledge and conducting engi-
neering based research. There needs to be a clear recognition that good teaching
requires an increasing professional knowledge base in its own right as well as a
range of integrated skill sets. Also, most importantly, there must be the motivation
on the part of faculty to acquire such knowledge and apply it thoughtfully through
a range of pedagogic practices.
Secondly, and equally important, the learner must have the requisite skills to
negotiate this process effectively. For this reason, experiential learning methods
are not simply concerned with the creation of experience per se, but the systematic
assessment of such experience so that learners have the opportunity to assign
meaning in relation to personal goals and expectations. This has implications both
for faculty as they develop their own competence as teaching professionals, as well
as their use of such methods with the students they teach.
The range and specific use of active and experiential methods are extensively
documented in the literature and will not be reviewed here (Silberman 2005;
Bonwell and Eison 1991). What is most important is how faculty, particularly
those versed in more traditional didactic methods, approach requests to adopt more
active and experiential methods of teaching and learning. Typically, some may
feel initially daunted, which is a natural reaction to change, especially if the
change is little understood and poorly supported. Supporting this change process is
essential and will be discussed in some detail in Chap. 7.
The important point, however, is to recognize that there are many active and
experiential learning methods, which involve varying types and levels of skill sets
to utilize effectively. Using a more limited and comfortable range of such methods
initially helps to build both competence and confidence for faculty. For example,
posing good questions and using basic cooperative learning structures (e.g.,
Johnson et al. 1994) are not particularly difficult active learning methods, but are
powerful when used appropriately and effectively. The highly effective use of
Problem-Based Learning and Case-Based Learning involve a wider repertoire of
skills—but again can be readily acquired by the enthusiastic teaching professional.
After all, we are in the learning business and should be able to do this stuff—right?
There is little need to emphasize the point that the very nature of engineering is
ideal for active and experiential learning methods. In basic terms, engineers solve
problems—irrespective of who defines the problems for whatever purposes, etc.
Active and experiential methods help to engage students in real world problem-
solving.
The concept of integrated learning was outlined in Chap. 2 in relation to cur-
riculum design, whereby connectivity is recognized both within and between
disciplines. The concept of infusion was suggested as an approach to developing
technical content knowledge and skills along with other skill sets such as types of
thinking and communication. Such an approach fosters the kind of learning
experience identified by Edstrom et al. (2007) when they argue that:
Technical knowledge and the learning outcomes related to the CDIO Syllabus are inter-
dependent and developed together… communication skills are deeply embedded in
technical knowledge. (p. 134)
The infusion approach allows for the integration of diverse skill sets, providing
they are naturally mutually supporting in the real world context. For example, it is
more authentic to develop significant learning of ethical reasoning in the context
of dealing with value-laden engineering scenarios. Einstein’s dilemma in the
Manhattan Project was an exemplar at the global level, but similar locally situated
ethical issues face engineers on a regular basis, and their consequences are equally
real to the folk affected.
3.3 A Science of Learning Framework: Developing

Pedagogic Literacy
In the previous section, the pedagogic foundation to CDIO was identified and
certain important aspects explored and contextualized. A key focus on incorpo-
rating more active and experiential methods into the teaching and learning
approach was established as well constituted and necessary. However, recognizing
that learning can be better fostered through these broad approaches does not
address the full range of pedagogic considerations that underpin highly effective
teaching, within the CDIO framework or in other curriculum contexts.
For example, while active learning can be highly effective in the ways docu-
mented, many teaching professionals often fall into the trap of providing ‘activity
3.3 A Science of Learning Framework: Developing Pedagogic Literacy 29
for activity sake’. Unless the learning activities are clearly related to facilitating
knowledge and skills contained in the learning outcomes, meaningful and appro-
priate to the particular learning group, sufficiently challenging but achievable, they
are unlikely to get the desired results.
To design and deliver highly effective learning experiences across a range of
learning contexts involves a much wider understanding of human learning and
how this can be effectively applied to meet these ends. In the following sections
the key considerations and knowledge bases will be outlined and illustrated. It will
become apparent that the pedagogic framework presented aligns both to the CDIO
approach, which aims to make engineering education more interesting and relevant
to real world contexts, as well as other curriculum offerings with similar goals.
Quite simply, good pedagogy applies across subject fields and educational sectors.
3.3.1 Defining Learning: What are the Important Issues?
There are many definitions of human learning in the literature. A popular enduring
definition is that of Kimble (1961), who defined learning as:
A relatively permanent change in behavioural potentialities that occurs as a result of
reinforced practice. (p. 6)
Subsequent definitions, recognizing the multifaceted context in which learning

occurs, highlight that learning is not adequately captured in such narrow psy-
chological or behavioural terms. For example, Kolb (1995) suggests that:
To learn is not the special province of a single specialized realm of human functioning
such as cognition or perception. It involves the integrated functioning of the total
organism—thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving. (p. 148)
Similarly, Lave and Wenger (1993) argue that:

…psychological theories of learning that conceive of learning as a special mental process,
ultimately impoverish and misrecognize it. (p. 9)
However, from the standpoint of teaching, it is not so much the defining of

learning that is important; rather an appreciation of the essential processes
involved, how they work and the range of structural and situational factors that
may promote or inhibit effective learning. From such understanding, teaching
professionals can design and manage the range of learning environments and
activities they offer learners in a more effective and efficient manner.
Furthermore, while learning is ultimately an individual act of personal con-
struction and meaning making—as constructivists point out—there is real danger
in ‘over-individualizing’ the learning process. The assertion by Schank (1997) is
very pertinent:
Contrary to common belief, people don’t have different learning styles. They do, however,
have different personalities. The distinction is important, because we need to be clear that
everybody learns in the same way. (p. 48)
Coffield et al. (2004), in a comprehensive review, highlights the lack of reliable

evidence that stable learning styles exist independently of the context in which
they are expressed, and the lack of consensus about how teaching ought to be
organized in light of these apparent differences. Similarly, Hattie (2009) from
extensive meta-analysis of research correlating teaching approaches to student
achievement concluded that ‘‘Emphasizing learning styles… are noted for their
lack of impact (p. 199).
Indeed, the present vogue of highlighting differences in learners is potentially
mitigating the more central issue of developing a strong body of empirical
knowledge from which teaching and learning practices can be more validly and
reliably enacted. Stone (2000) makes this point strongly when he comments:
What teachers are told… is that student differences are important and if their teaching is
truly creative, energetic and engaging, they will succeed in individualizing and bringing
forth the best from all students. In effect teachers are being taught to make diagnoses that
heighten their awareness of differences without advancing their ability to teach. (p. 43)
3.3.2 What do we Mean by Pedagogy?
Pedagogy, as with learning, has evoked much debate in terms of adequate defi-
nition. Approaches to pedagogy have gone through various phases, focusing on
such aspects as ‘teaching styles’, ‘paradigms of learning’, ‘models and methods of
teaching’ and the ‘context of teaching’. As Mortimore (1999) points out
Pedagogy has been seen by many within and outside the teaching profession as a some-
what vague concept. (p. 228)
Traditionally the term has been most used in relation to the teaching of children
and has been contrasted with ‘andragogy’ (Knowles 1984), which argues that there
are significant differences in the learning orientation of adults as compared to
children, which necessitate different approaches to teaching and learning. More
recent research and thinking relating to the pedagogy and andragogy debate
suggest that while adults have certain different motivational bases to learning, as
compared to children, and have different expectations about how their learning
will be organized and managed, there are underpinning universal principles of
learning, which have sufficient applicability across both learning groups.
Pedagogy then is not specifically focused on child or adult learning, or other
factors such as gender, cultural or ethnic differences. It recognizes that how
individuals orientate themselves to learning may differ in many ways, including
the situated here and now context. To adopt an all encompassing and prescriptive
pedagogic approach would be both limiting and potentially damaging. The
approach considered most relevant for our purposes is captured by Mortimore
(1999) who suggests that pedagogy is most usefully conceived as:
…any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another. (p. 3)
This conception of pedagogy also draws support from the work of Bain (2004)
who documented how ‘best teachers’ were not constrained by particular approa-
ches, methods or paradigms of learning. Instead they thought of teaching as:
…anything they might do to help and encourage students to learn. Teaching is engaging
students, engineering an environment in which they learn. (p. 49)
3.3.3 Towards a Science of Learning
Sallis and Hingley (1991) made the observation that ‘‘education is a creature of
fashion’’ (p. 9), which can influence the whole basis of curriculum orientation and
teaching in particular. Furthermore, such fashion is largely driven by dominant
paradigms in psychology or pedagogy. For example, the modern vogue is con-
structivism, which has gained favour over more behaviourist and transmission
approaches. As a consequence, the emphasis is now on being student-centred and
the role of the teacher has supposedly changed from being the ‘sage on the stage’
to the ‘guide on the side’.
However, paradigms, by containing both premises and methodologies relat-
ing to particular domains of reality, limit both the effective and creative
capability of working within that particular domain. The potential consequence
of limiting practice largely to one dominant paradigm is well captured by Pratt
(2002):
Perspectives are neither good or bad. They are simply philosophical orientations to
knowledge, learning and the role and responsibility of being a teacher. Therefore, it is
important to remember that each of these perspectives represents a legitimate view of
teaching when enacted appropriately. Conversely, each holds the potential for poor
teaching. (p. 14)
In this context then, while the present constructivist approach and ‘active and
experiential learning’ focus for CDIO pedagogy represents an appropriate ‘initial
prototype’ for framing teaching and learning, it is now important to enhance the
design and subsequent implementation and operation of a more comprehensive,
empirically validated and practically defined pedagogic framework—hence the
contribution of this chapter.
Certainly, if we are ever to see pedagogic knowledge as anything akin to that of
other professional disciplines, we must transcend paradigmatic allegiance and
consolidate a knowledge base that is firmly grounded in research and professional
practice. Anderson et al. (1998) capture this sentiment when they argue:
What is needed more than a philosophy of education is a science of education. Modern
attempts at educational improvement point back to theorists (Piaget, Vygotsky, and
Dewey) whose theories are vague by current psychological standards and lack the strong
connection to empirical evidence that has become standard in the field. (p. 237)
Similarly, Stigler and Hiebert (1999) made the observation that:

The teaching profession does not have enough knowledge about what constitutes effective
teaching, and teachers don’t have a means of successfully sharing such knowledge with
one another. (p. 12)
Perhaps the most striking quote in this context is from Peter Drucker (1999)
who argued that teaching is:
…the only major occupation of man for which we have not yet developed tools that make
an average person capable of competence and performance. In teaching we rely on the
‘‘naturals,’’ the ones who somehow know how to teach.
However, within this context of apparent confusion about what constitutes

‘effective teaching’ or ‘good pedagogy’, there is increasing recognition of a sub-
stantive and validated research base that is beginning to constitute a ‘science of
learning’. Marzano (1992) argued that:
…over the past 3 decades, we have amassed enough research and theory about learning to
derive a truly research based-model of instruction. (p. 2)
More recently, Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005), from surveying the

research findings, concluded that:
There are systematic and principled aspects of effective teaching, and there is a base of
verifiable evidence of knowledge that supports that work in the sense that it is like
engineering or medicine. (p. 12)
The paradox of contested paradigms on the one hand, and substantive knowl-
edge bases on the other hand relating to teaching, provides little comfort to busy
teaching professionals who seek practical guidance in this increasingly difficult
endeavour we call teaching. An interesting analogy is to be found in Martin’s
(2009) conception of the ‘‘knowledge funnel’’ (Fig. 3.1: Martin’s Knowledge
Funnel) in which he depicts a process in which phenomena in the world can move
from being a ‘mystery’ (experienced in some way but not understood) to a
‘heuristic’ (understandable in good part) and finally to ‘algorithmic’ (fully
understood, predictable and controllable). For example, before the identification of
HIV, the death of many people from AIDS was a mystery. Once identified, sub-
sequent understanding of the aetiology and behaviour of the virus, as well as
research, has led to significant improvements in controlling HIV in terms of
development to full blown AIDS. However, as there is no cure, our knowledge is
still far from algorithmic—so to speak. Martin’s conception of heuristic is par-
ticularly important in this context for understanding effective teaching:
Heuristics represent an incomplete yet distinctly advanced understanding of what was pre-
viously a mystery. But that understanding is unequally distributed. Some people remain
stuck in the world of mystery, while others master its heuristics. The beauty of heuristics is
that they guide us toward a solution by way of organized exploration of possibilities. (p. 12)
Fig. 3.1 Martin’s knowledge

funnel
From a science of learning position it can now be confidently argued that

teaching can be seen more in terms of heuristics than a mystery. Unfortunately the
paradigm debate still perpetuates a situation in which many (both within and
outside the teaching profession) are still rooted in various ‘genres of mystery’. The
real challenge now is to critically derive these heuristics and validate and refine
them through empirical study and critical reflective professional practice. This is
the basis of the science of learning approach presented here. The emergent framing
is depicted in the following section of this chapter.
3.3.4 The Core Principles of Learning
The core principles of learning offered in this section have been derived from an
extensive review of the literature on human learning, as well as comprehensive
studies on effective teaching professionals in a range of educational contexts. They
are not meant to be exhaustive or summative, and they are always mediated by the
situated context in which learning occurs. It will be apparent that some are explicit
in CDIO standards relating to teaching, learning and assessment.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that while each principle focuses
attention on a key area relating to effective pedagogy, they are not discrete or
separate in that they should be considered independently of each other. In fact,
they are mutually supporting, interdependent and potentially highly synergetic. As
Stigler and Hiebert (1999) highlight:
Teaching is a system. It is not a loose mixture of individual features thrown together by the
teacher. It works more like a machine, with the parts operating together and reinforcing
one another, driving the vehicle forward. (p.75)
From this standpoint, the question is not so much which strategies and methods
are most appropriate to facilitating desired learning (e.g., lecture, demonstration,
problem-based learning, technology-based learning) or the paradigm or model of
learning (e.g., constructivism, behaviourism, andragogy). Rather, the essential
question is: ‘what core set of learning principles can usefully inform lecturers as
they design learning strategies that are most effective in the context in which they
conduct their practices (e.g., desired learning outcomes, student group, environ-
mental and resource constraints)?’
It is important that faculty are fully conversant with the principles as this
constitutes the foundational base of a solid Pedagogic Literacy, which is funda-
mental to the good design of learning in any context. As faculty develop com-
petence in applying the principles in their practices, this will support continual
professional development towards becoming effective and creative designers of
learning. From practice over time, given motivation and commitment, they will
develop a level of Pedagogic Competence consistent with a truly professional
model of teaching. This represents our best present understanding and application
of the heuristics of effective teaching and learning. Will teaching ever be open to
conceptualization at the algorithmic level? That’s very unlikely as teaching has a
fundamentally situated and creative thematic, but the notion of moving down -
albeit with caution - a knowledge funnel that leads to more valide and reliable
practices has much of merit.
The following is a summary of each of the 10 core principles. Ten was never an
intention, nor a tablet of stone. Some summaries are more extensive as they are
less self-explanatory and involve more conceptual understanding regarding their
range of impact on specific aspects of the learning process.
3.3.4.1 Core Principle 1: Learning Goals, Objectives and Expectations

are Clearly Communicated
The importance of clear goals and objectives, as well as clear explanations of what
is involved in meeting them is well documented. Ramsden (1992) brings home
their importance when he stated:
It is indisputable that, from the students’ perspective, clear standards and goals are a
vitally important element of an effective educational experience. Lack of clarity on these
points is almost always associated with negative evaluations, learning difficulties and poor
performance. (p.127)
To be able to provide students with clear learning goals and criteria for suc-
cess—making the learning visible—teachers themselves must firstly model the
intended learning that are to be the goals for student achievement. As Hattie (2009)
argues:
Teachers need to know the learning intentions and success criteria of their lessons, know
how well they are attaining these criteria for all students, and know where to go next in
light of the gap between current students’ knowledge and understanding and the success
criteria. (p. 36–37)
Guidance on what is to be learned, the performance standards required, and

how to go about this learning provides students with a clear structure from which
to plan and monitor their learning. This may seem as obvious as not passing the
ball across one’s defensive line in football, but it’s surprising how many top
professional footballers still fall foul of this—not to mention local amateur park
players.
3.3.4.2 Core Principle 2: Learners’ Prior Knowledge is Activated

and Connected to New Learning
Students come to the learning situation (whether it be the classroom or else-

where) with preconceptions about how the world works, based on their life
experiences, beliefs and values. This may involve specific understandings and
misconceptions, motivational dispositions as well as levels of competence in
particular related skills (e.g., reading, thinking). However, as Shulman (1991)
rightly points out:
All new knowledge gains its form and meaning through its connection with pre-existing
knowledge and its influence on the organization and reorganization of prior knowledge.
(p. 10)
Prior knowledge then is the lens through which students will perceive and react
to new information provided in a learning event. If prior learning is inaccurate,
incongruent or limited, it is likely to interfere with the meaningful integration of
the new knowledge presented. Ausubel (1978) went as far as arguing that:
If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: the
most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.
Ascertain this and teach him (sic) accordingly. (p. 163)
Making students’ prior knowledge explicit helps not only to deal with mis-
conceptions, facilitate better linking of new knowledge to existing knowledge
structures, but also saves an enormous waste of time in terms of duplicated
learning (Nuthall 2005) and boredom for students, as well as frustration for
teachers.
3.3.4.3 Core Principle 3: Motivational and Attentional Strategies are

Incorporated into Learning Designs
Motivation initiates, directs and maintains learning behaviour. According to

research from cognitive neuroscience, motivation is governed by three broad
principles—pleasure seeking, pain avoidance and novelty (e.g., Cloniger 1997).

Students who perceive classroom learning as painful and boring are unlikely to
contribute much, except to absenteeism rates and disruptive behaviour.
Similarly, getting good attention from students is essential for learning.
As Sylwester (1998) points out:
It’s biologically impossible to learn anything that you’re not paying attention to; the
attentional mechanism drives the whole learning and memory process. (p. 6)
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) has argued:

The shape and content of life depends on how attention has been used….Attention is the
most important tool in the task of improving the quality of experience. (p. 33)
Motivation and attention are very much connected in the world of the class-
room. When learners are motivated, they are much more likely to give a higher
level of attention than in situations when motivation is poor. They are also more
likely to put effort into the learning process—especially when difficulties are
encountered.
Motivation is influenced by a wide range of interacting factors, such as personal
beliefs, perceived usefulness and interest in the learning or what it will lead to.
Students who believe that the learning experience may result in satisfying some
aspect of personal need are more likely to participate meaningfully in the learning
process.
The implication of this core principle is that the design of learning experiences
must involve not only the actual subject knowledge involved, but also ways to
generate and sustain learner motivation and attention. As Wlodkowski (1999)
argues,
…if something can be learned, it can be learned in a motivating manner. (p. 24)
In today’s teaching context, where we now are competing for student attention
with an increasing number of potentially greater motivating distracters both inside
and outside the classroom, the need for greater creativity in the ways in which we
are able to create more interesting and motivating learning experiences is
becoming more salient. The days of stand and deliver content from the standard
text is truly another form of educational Jurassic Park. The need for more highly
effective and creative teaching will no longer be a ‘nice to have’ for the few who
can, but a necessity for the mainstream teaching force.
3.3.4.4 Core Principle 4: Content is Organized Around Key Concepts

and Principles that are Fundamental to Understanding
the Structure of a Subject
Understanding is about making personal meaning of knowledge and seeing how it

is used in real world application and problem-solving. When students have
developed a good understanding of a topic, they will have acquired accurate
representation of the concepts, principles and procedures involved, which will

facilitate effective and efficient retrieval and application of knowledge. Berliner’s
(1987) description of the benefits of good understanding in a particular field or
domain is particularly informative in this context:
Individuals possessing rich, relatively complete schemas about certain phenomena need
very little personal experience to learn easily, quickly, and retain well information per-
taining to those phenomena. A well-developed schemata allows very efficient learning
from verbal and written discourse on a topic about which much is known. (p. 61)
Similarly, as Pugh and Bergin (2006) point out:

…for students to access and apply their learning, they need to possess deep-level, con-
nected knowledge structures. That is their knowledge needs to be conceptually deep,
cohesive, and connected to other key ideas, relevant prior knowledge, multiple repre-
sentations, and everyday experiences. (p. 148)
Teaching faculty therefore need to identify and teach the key concepts, prin-
ciples and procedures that are fundamental to understanding in the topics they
teach, what McTighe and Wiggins (2000) refer to as the ‘big ideas’ and ‘essential
questions’. This is increasingly important in the context of exponentially
increasing knowledge in most domain fields.
Furthermore, it has long been recognized that different subject areas, by their
very nature, lend themselves to different teaching and learning approaches in terms
of effective student learning. For example, Shulman (1991) argues that teachers
require pedagogic content knowledge, the ability to understand how their partic-
ular disciplines are most effectively taught. To quote Shulman in this context:
When was the last time you saw a problem set in the study of Hamlet? Or in Asian
History? Can you have guided practice in a poem? Or for evolutionary theory? I would
argue that we have, reflected in the differences among the disciples, different ways of
knowing that are tied to different ways of teaching. (p. 5)
3.3.4.5 Core Principle 5: Self-Directed Learning is Promoted Through

Developing Good Thinking
This core principle highlights the important cognitive processes of thinking, which
underpin our ability for self-regulation. The important role of thinking, its key
components, working, and relationship to knowledge have been documented in
Chap. 2. The summary by Jensen (1996) reinforces its importance in this context:
The best thing we can do, from the point of view of the brain, is to teach our learners how
to think. (p. 163)
Of particular significance is the role of metacognition, which acts as the reg-

ulatory component of the cognitive apparatus. Extensive research fully supports
the use of a metacognitive approach to instruction (e.g., where learners are
encouraged to monitor and evaluate the quality of their thinking, and use a range
of learning-to-learn strategies to meet personal goals), as a means to significantly

enhance learning effectiveness and efficiency (Bransford et al 1999; Hattie 2009).
Furthermore, we are also very aware of the impact of beliefs and emotions as
potential inhibitors or facilitators of good thinking and learning attainment. For
example, Dweck (2006) found that students who believed that their learning, even
intelligence, improved through personal effort, achieved higher levels of attain-
ment than those who have more fixed, innate, views of learning and intelligence.
Similarly, Bandura (1997) observed that students who believed they were capable
of meeting desired goals (self-efficacy) were much more likely to take on the
required learning tasks, put in the necessary effort and achieve success, than those
who lacked self-efficacy. Given the necessity of managing such ‘non- cognitive’
human characteristics that impact our thinking, performance and attainment,
metacognition becomes the central overarching cognitive capability in self-
regulation. Without effective metacognition, internal mental activity is likely
to be chaotic and may indeed reflect Apter’s (2001) description of human
consciousness:
…everyday life, as it is experienced, is a tangled web of changing desires, perceptions,
feelings, and emotions that filter in and out of awareness in a perceptual swirl. (p. 33)
In this context, the development of good thinking, with particular emphasis on

metacognition, must be a priority in the development of human capability. Stu-
dents need to understand how the mind works and what can be systematically done
and how to improve the capability for better self-regulation, both for academic
success and personal effectiveness in other areas of life.
We are being naive in making an assumption that effective thinking and self-
regulation will naturally occur for most of our students, simply by encouraging or
telling them to do so. Without sufficient foundational knowledge and skill in good
thinking, as well as an understanding on how emotions, beliefs and other vagaries
of the human mind influence such capability, many will lack the necessary
understanding and competence to self-regulate effectively. Students who are put
into situations of autonomy without preparation, may self-regulate their activities
to the local canteen to play pool rather than go through the necessary thinking
processes, self-management activities and appropriate use of learning strategies.
3.3.4.6 Core Principle 6: Instructional Methods and Presentation

Mediums Engage the Range of Human Senses
Mental activity is stimulated through our five senses, with the visual sense being
the most powerful. As the old saying goes, ‘‘a picture paints a thousand words’’.
Research shows that the greater the combination of our senses that are stimu-
lated in learning, the more successful the learning is likely to be. For example, it is
estimated that when we see and hear something, this doubles the sensory impact
compared to just hearing it. Direct experience will increase the impact further, and,
teaching it, further still. Actually assessing something has probably even greater
Fig. 3.2 Edgar Dales ‘cone of learning’
impact than teaching it. Edgar Dales ‘Cone of Learning’ (Fig. 3.2 above) is a
famous illustration of how different senses and activities affect the learning pro-
cess. The percentages are, of course, only arbitrary.
Also, a number of researchers (e.g., Dunn and Griggs 2000; Kolb 1984) have
argued that individual learners have sensory preferences (e.g., visual, auditory,
kinaesthetic) in terms of how they best acquire information. Certainly, people have
preferences for the ways in which they learn, though whether these can be seen to
reflect different learning styles as such is contested, as noted earlier.
In today’s multi-media and internet rich resource pool, finding resources to
engage the range of senses becomes an easier task for the creative teacher.
However, we must bear in mind that today’s learners, so familiar with the internet,
will not simply give attention to ‘bells and whistles’ multi-media. Chapter 5
explores the affordances that information communication technologies can offer
for enhancing student learning, when employed from a solid pedagogic
framework.
3.3.4.7 Core Principle 7: Learning Design Takes into Account

the Working of Memory Systems
As knowledge is increasing almost exponentially and society is changing more

rapidly, educationalists are facing an ever difficult paradox. In basic terms, there is
more and more to learn within disciplines, as well as the diversity of knowledge
areas and skills required for working and living in the twenty-first century. There is
a call for both depth and breadth of knowledge and skills.
However, while human brains have potentially unlimited storage capacity by
means of long term memory, all new learning has to firstly pass through working
memory with its limited capacity of 7 plus or minus two bits. As Clark and Lyons
(2005) point out:
…it is in working memory that active mental work, including learning, takes place.
Working memory is the site of conscious thought and processing. (p. 48)
Equally, understanding of the importance of long term memory is crucial for

learning and the development of expertise. For example, Kircher et al. (2006) point
out:
…long term memory is now viewed as the central dominant structure of human cognition.
Everything we see, hear and think about is critically dependent on and influenced by our
long-term memory. (pp. 3–4)
Indeed, a major factor that differentiates experts from novices is that expert
problem-solvers are able to draw on the vast knowledge bases in their long-term
memory and quickly select the best approach and procedures for solving a given
problem. As Kircher explains:
We are skillful in an area because our long-term memory contains huge amounts of
information concerning that area. That information permits us to quickly recognize the
characteristics of a situation and indicates to us, often unconsciously, what to do and how
to do it. (p. 4)
Expertise, then, enables a better and quicker understanding of a situation—

perceiving what is relevant and useful for the task in hand. This enables the expert
to do many things quickly and automatically, releasing time to be more situa-
tionally responsive and creative. In the context of teaching Turner-Bisset (2001)
noted:
Expert teachers are able to read and process the complex mass of information which any
classroom provides, much more rapidly and meaningfully. (p. 69)
The design and delivery of instruction (in whatever form) must negotiate the
working of memory systems and ensure practices work in consonance and not at
variance with such systems. For example, information needs to be presented in
manageable chunks and learners are given the necessary time to organize and
make meaning of it in working memory, therefore enabling effective transfer to
long term memory. Equally important is the systematic periodic review from long-
term back into working memory in order to firmly establish and maintain its
retention in long term memory.
3.3.4.8 Core Principle 8: Learner Competence is Promoted Through

Active and Experiential Learning
The development of competence involves more than memory and understanding,

but the critical synthesis of related knowledge areas, skill sets and attitudes ori-
entated to a specific performance area. McTighe and Wiggins (2000) point out that
there are fundamental tasks—‘‘core tasks’’ that relate to the most important
performance demands in any field. For example, a core task in science is to design
and debug a controlled experiment from scratch. They go as far as to argue that:
Core tasks with authentic challenges embody our educational aims. (p. 78)
Such activities provide an essential experiential context to learning in which

students can form understandings, test out their learning in real situations, observe
and reflect, further learn, etc. This needs no more illustration as it is foundational
to CDIO pedagogy and has been sufficiently illustrated and contextualized earlier
in the chapter.
3.3.4.9 Core Principle 9: A Psychological Climate is Created Which is

Both Success Orientated and Fun
Learning is as much a social and emotional process as a cognitive one. Significant

aspects of the learning environment, especially interactions with tutors and peers
can play a significant part in how learners feel psychologically and in their ori-
entation to learning. As Ornstein and Behar (1995), from research, conclude that:
. …the most effective teachers endow their students with a ‘‘you can do it’’ attitude, with
good feelings about themselves, which are indirectly and eventually related to cognitive
achievement. (p. 86)
Bain (2004), from an extensive study of ‘‘best college teachers’’, noted that
such teachers set and expected high standards from their students and communi-
cated a strong trust in their ability to meet them.
Fun or humour, were certainly not significant features of my school experience;
well not in classroom time. It seemed that learning was a very serious business and
anything resembling a joke was akin to classroom disruption. As a Cockney from
East London, I have always felt that humour was one of the most important aspects
of human experience. Now, such face- validity is being supported by a wide range
of research (e.g., Garner 2006; Lei et al. 2010). Far from limiting the learning
experience, humour is now seen to have many positive impacts, such as:
• Refreshing the brain
• Creating mental images that retain learning
• Reinforcing desired behaviour and makes classroom management easier
• Developing positive attitudes
• Promoting creativity
• Contributing to the enjoyment of teaching.
The importance of fostering the social and emotional aspects of learning which
shape the psychological climate has also been documented by Jensen (1996):
Learners in positive, joyful environments are likely to experience better learning, memory
and feelings of self-esteem. (p. 98)
John Dewey (1988) captures this core principle most definitively when he wrote:
It is possible to be playful and serious at the same time, and it defines the ideal mental
condition.
In the context of post compulsory education, especially where some faculty

may see themselves primarily as subject experts and actual teaching as the more
tertiary rather than the core professional activity, these social and emotional fea-
tures of the learning experience are sometimes neglected. In reality, they are
central to the learning process.
3.3.4.10 Core Principle 10: Assessment Practices are Integrated

into the Learning Design to Provide Quality Feedback
for Learners
This is very much in line with CDIO Standard 11: Learning Assessment. It is now
clearly recognized that assessment is not simply a means to measure learning that
has already occurred, but is a major facilitator in the learning process itself. As
Boud (1988) illustrates:
There have been a number of notable studies over the years which have demonstrated that
assessment methods and requirements probably have a greater influence on how and what
students learn than any other single factor. This influence may well be of greater signif-
icance than the impact of teaching or learning materials. (p. 35)
Well used assessment methods and processes significantly influence learning in

a number of related ways. Firstly, they direct learning towards the desired learning
outcomes and provide clear guides to performance criteria and standards.
Secondly, when used to support the learning process (formative assessment), it
provides the essential feedback to, as Hattie (2009) notes, ‘‘…reduce discrepancies
between current understandings and performance and a learning intention or goal’’
(p. 175).
Winnie and Butler (1994) capture the power of effective feedback in terms of:
information with which a learner can confirm, add to, overwrite, tune, or restructure
information in memory, whether that information is domain knowledge, metacognitive
knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks, or cognitive tactics and strategies. (p. 5740)
In summary, there is much of merit in the learning stakes for clear, concise and
timely feedback:
• clarifying what good performance is (e.g. goals, criteria, standards)
• identifying gaps in performance and specific learning needs
• closing the gap between current and desired performance
• positive beliefs and self-esteem
• the development of self-assessment in learning
• appropriate modification of instructional strategies.
3.3.5 Using Core Principles Thoughtfully: The Fly Fishing

Analogy
For the uninitiated, fly fishing involves a fairly sophisticated fishing technique in
which an artificial fly is cast to catch trout. However, whether or not the fisher-
person catches trout, involves much more than this. The types of fly, the envi-
ronmental conditions, species of trout, and how deep to let the fly sink and at what
pace, are some of the critical considerations in catching trout. The expert fisher-
person negotiates these almost intuitively and catches fish regularly. Suffice to say,
as a novice fly-fisherman, I caught few trout and never reached any great heights of
expertise.
Fly fishing is a useful analogy for modelling the design of effective teaching, in
that both are based on solid knowledge bases relating to the design and conduct of
the respective activities. Similarly, they are also mediated by the situated context
in which they are enacted in that both the fly fisherperson and the teacher have to
deal with the here and now situation as it is framed, select methods and resources,
and create strategies to try to produce good results—whether defined in terms of
‘trout caught’ or ‘students taught’.
It is important to understand, then, that the core principles of learning require a
thoughtful application to relevant situated factors in the construction of effective
teaching and learning strategies. These situated factors include such considerations
as:
a. Learning Outcomes
Different types of learning outcomes require different learning designs. For
example, outcomes that require primarily the acquisition of factual content
knowledge for procedural use will require a design quite different from that
which seeks to promote a range of types of thinking.
b. Learner Characteristics
Learners can differ in many ways, most noticeably in terms of motivations and
competence levels. They may also have differing orientations and preferences
in terms of how they learn. Certainly learners with little intrinsic motivation
and limited underpinning knowledge in a specific area will pose different
pedagogic challenges than highly motivated and competent learners.
c. Learning Context and Resource Availability
A good design on paper will not work if the learning context cannot accom-
modate it (e.g., equipment/resources necessary are unavailable). In short,
whether or not to use a strategy for meeting certain learning outcomes may be
as much a resource availability issue as it is a pedagogic one.
What this all means in practice is that the effective and creative design of
learning involves a thoughtful consideration of both core principles of learning
as well as the relevant situated factors involved. As Darling-Hammond and
Bransford (2005) point out:
…teachers not only need to understand basic principles of learning but must also know
how to use them judiciously to meet diverse learning goals in contexts where students
differ in their needs. (p. 78)
3.4 Applying the Pedagogic Framework: Effective

and Creative Learning Design
In the previous section the core principles of learning were outlined and illustrated.
They represent important heuristics that provide frames—or ‘rules of thumb’—in
the design of teaching and learning strategies. It is important to emphasize that
they are not algorithmic—absolute and fixed procedures to apply in all teaching
contexts. However, when used thoughtfully—‘the fly fishing analogy’—they
provide the essential design principles for creating effective and efficient student
learning experiences, irrespective of the mode of delivery (e.g., face-to-face,
online, blended).
In this section, examples of how the pedagogic framework translates into
specific teaching and learning strategies will be outlined and illustrated. However,
firstly, let’s be clear about key terminology used in relation to teaching and
learning. Terms like ‘learning experience’, ‘instructional/teaching methods’,
‘learning activities’ and ‘instructional/teaching strategy’ are often used, and also
often misused.
3.4.1 Learning Experience
What our students derive from their interactions with us as teaching faculty is their
own ‘socially constructed reality’, mediated by their views of the world as much as
the here and now situated context (Berger and Luckman 1967). As humans our
lives constitute a continuous stream of experience (even when sleeping) and, given
choices, we actively seek experiences that are personally pleasurable, novel and
pain reducing (as noted earlier). In the context of teaching, if students perceive our
lessons as uninteresting and not useful for their perceived needs, they are unlikely
to participate meaningfully in the experience. That’s why many students skip
classes, don’t connect with the lesson content and seek more interesting activities
on their notebooks.
Essentially, as faculty we are active agents in the structuring of experiences for
our students, and this takes much skill and creativity for it to be optimally
effective. While we can argue about what makes the experience optimally effec-
tive, for who, in what context, etc., most of us would concur that there are features
of the way teachers teach that make for interest and engagement; and there are
3.4 Applying the Pedagogic Framework: Effective and Creative Learning Design 45
features that make for boredom and disengagement. The use of interesting stories,
humour, meaningful activities (as perceived by students), presentational style (and
this includes enthusiasm) and illustrative examples are all related to better student
attention, engagement and learning. The converse is also true—dull presentation
and monotony quickly leads students into the ‘world of bla’. While we have
individualized maps of the world, there appears to be an underlying syntax in the
ways people structure subjective experience (Bandler and Grinder 1990), and the
range of variation in that structuring (Marton 1981), enabling us to model features
in the environment that are more or less likely to impact it pleasurably, painlessly
or as novel.
The science of learning approach advocated in this chapter, while recognizing
differences in learning preferences, argues that there is greater merit in focusing on
the empirically validated similarities in human learning. The search for useful
heuristics in understanding teaching and learning (e.g., core principles of learning)
are a significant part of this endeavour. From my own experiences, as a trainer and
facilitator in many countries, it is readily apparent that effective pedagogical
practices transcend cultural contexts. For example, Sale and Mukerji (2006) wrote:
In our experiences of co-facilitation over several years, we were initially surprised but
ultimately delighted to find that there appears to be a number of generic principles and
practices that facilitate rapport and effective learning irrespective of cultural and ethnic
contexts. (p. 1)
3.4.2 Instructional/Teaching Strategy/Learning Design
Instructional/teaching strategy or learning design refers to the overall plan for

creating the student learning experience to promote the desired outcomes for a
learning event. It typically involves a combination of instructional methods,
learning activities and resources.
Instructional methods are, in the broadest sense, teacher directed planned
structures for creating a particular type of learning experience, directed towards
meeting certain learning outcomes. The traditional core methods used by teachers
are explanation (often referred to as ‘chalk and talk’ or the lecture method) and
demonstration. Other supporting methods include questioning, group work, dis-
cussion, role-plays, debates. The main feature of any method is that it provides the
‘how to’ for achieving the acquisition of certain knowledge or skills.
Learning activities are specific performance-based tasks used to engage stu-
dents actively in the learning process, again with the intention of contributing to
the attainment of desired learning outcomes. Activities are usually used in unison
with methods, and can sometimes refer to the same thing. For example, cases are
considered a method of instruction, but the actual case is an activity in itself.
Resources are essentially anything else beyond specific methods and activities
that are used to support the learning process. At a more macro level, this will
involve all the facilities and equipment available for supporting learning, e.g.,
classrooms, laboratories, online facilities as well as everyday teaching and learning
aids such as presentation slides, multimedia and hand-outs. In the CDIO context,
the development and use of customized learning environments—CDIO Standard
6: Engineering Workspaces—is an important part of the overall design of the
learning experience. For example, we are all aware that having students sit in rows
in the traditional classroom setting is not conducive for active learning and student
discussion, etc. Being able to create learning spaces that model real world work
contexts, simulating the key activities done by professionals in their everyday
work and problem solving, is central to providing a conducive learning environ-
ment that facilitates active and experiential learning. The basic idea is that the
designed learning spaces will not only provide the necessary physical resources
used in real work contexts, but also foster the kinds of interactions necessary for
developing the range of skills documented in Chap. 2. In SP a number of inno-
vative learning spaces have been developed across all the participating schools.
One that is particularly innovative is the War Zone (Fig. 3.3) in which internet
security protection skills are developed through a learning space that simulates
cyber-attack and defence.
The notion of strategy applies both across a large unit of study (e.g., a module)
or a smaller unit such as a lesson. Invariably, the range of methods, activities and
resources that can be strategically employed is significantly greater across longer
learning events, but it should always be a key feature in planning the learning
experience for students.
The design of effective instructional strategies requires a sound pedagogic lit-
eracy which has been the major focus of this chapter. I am often intrigued to hear
experienced teachers pose question such as:
• Are lectures a poor way to teach?
• Is cooperative learning effective?
• Will a blog help my students to learn?
The very asking of such questions often reveals a lack of pedagogic literacy.
They can only be usefully answered once subjected to sound pedagogic thinking,
which might go something like this in relation to whether or not to use a lecture:
• What learning outcomes do I want my students to meet?
• Are these best achieved through what I can do in a lecture?
Fig. 3.3 War Zone Learning Space at School of Digital Media & Infocomm Technology
• How might this particular group of students respond to a lecture in terms of

interest and desired learning outcomes?
• What are alternative methods, activities and resources—are they likely to get
better results, on what basis, etc.?
If after such deliberations, a lecture appears to be an effective method in this

context, it’s then a question of how best to design it for the student group involved.
In other words, simply choosing an appropriate method is far from job done. By
applying the core principles of learning, it should be apparent that many are very
applicable to making a lecture a more engaging and meaningful experience for
students (e.g., ‘ incorporate motivational and attentional strategies’, ‘connect to
prior knowledge’ ‘engage a range of senses’, ‘organize content around key concept
and principles’, ‘create a positive psychological climate’). Failure to leverage on
some of these in the lecture design and delivery will mitigate its effectiveness.
However, when a lecture meets many of the core principles outlined, and the
method is not over used, it is a powerful way to present key new information,
provide structure to large bodies of content, separate the ‘wood from the trees’,
simplify and motivate. In this situation the ‘sage on the stage’ is far better than the
‘guide on the side’, as the analogy by Bransford et al. (1999) quite aptly illustrates:
Asking which teaching method/technique is best is analogous to asking what tool is best—
a hammer, a screwdriver, a knife, or pliers. In teaching, as in carpentry, the selection of
tools depends on the task at hand and the materials one is working with. (p. 22)
In summary, then, there are a lot of planning considerations to bear in mind

when designing and creating the actual learning experience for students. The core
principles of learning provide the means to conduct this processes in effective,
efficient and creative ways. They are essential for the design of the overall strategy
(at whatever level), which involves the selection of methods, activities, and
resources, and how they are integrated and used in the situated context. How well
this process is conducted determines in large part the impact of the experience in
terms of student attention, engagement and learning.
3.4.2.1 The Design of Learning Activities
A key aspect of the CDIO pedagogic approach involves the use of real world
learning activities or performance tasks, often in the form of integrated capstone
and design-build projects (Standard 5: Design Implement Experiences and Stan-
dard 7: Integrated Learning Experiences). Performance-based learning tasks have
become increasingly popular across a whole range of educational sectors as they
can provide:
• authentic learning opportunities that mirror real world activities and make
learning more meaningful
• integrated learning activities that naturally combines subject knowledge, types
of thinking and other process skills
• a more authentic assessment of actual competencies than traditional pencil and

paper tests
• a means of developing intrinsic motivation by offering students more autonomy
and control in their learning
• a framework for both a collaborative and active learning approach, whereby
students have to solve problems through information resourcing, good thinking
and practical application.
However, the use of such activities, whether in the form of projects, cases or
simulations, need to be designed, implemented and managed from a sound ped-
agogic base, as described in this chapter. Furthermore, as with any experience in
life, too much of one thing tends to create habituation and eventual boredom.
While meaningful and interesting project activities can result in enhanced student
learning, as identified above, too many projects over time may soon lead students
to perceive these activities as just another part of the ‘daily grind’.
A major skill area of CDIO is Personal Skills and Attitudes, which subsume
skill sets relating to good thinking and managing learning. It is important there-
fore, to ensure that specific types of thinking (e.g., analysis, comparison and
contrast, inference and interpretation, generating possibilities, and metacognition)
are clearly and appropriately infused into stages of performance-based learning
activities. As emphasized in Chap. 2, students need to clearly understand what
good thinking actually entails (the cognitive heuristics involved), have opportu-
nities for active and experiential application in real world contexts, as well as
receive clear and useful feedback from expert professionals. Sheppard et al. (2009)
are correct when they argue that:
…teachers have to make their own intellectual processes (their performances) visible. This
means that the teacher-expert has to make visible to learners the otherwise invisible
processes of thinking that underlie complex cognitive operations at the heart of engi-
neering thinking. Teachers have to articulate and demonstrate rather than assume the
thought processes they want students to learn.
…Then student’s efforts to replicate these thought processes need to be made visible so
that the teacher can see where the learner is on and off track, in order to provide appro-
priate coaching and feedback. (p. 188)
Similarly, Ritchhart et al. (2011) point out:

Making students’ thinking visible serves a broader educational goal as well. When we
demystify the thinking and learning process, we provide models for students of what it
means to engage with ideas, to think, and to learn. In doing so, we dispel the myth that
learning is just a matter of committing the information in the textbook to one’s memory.
(p. 28)
In the SP context, the following broad design model has been used across
schools in the design of real-world performance-based learning activities that seek
to foster the integration of thinking and other process skills with technical subject
content:
Step 1: Identify the key technical content areas, types of thinking and other
process skills to be incorporated in the learning activity
For this step it is important to:
• select specific topic areas in the curriculum that contain key knowledge essential
for building understanding of the subject. For example, central concepts, prin-
ciples and procedures
• identify the types of thinking that are important for promoting student under-
standing and subsequent competence in these topic areas (analysis, comparison
and contrast, inference and interpretation, evaluation, generating possibilities,
metacognition)
• identify other process skills that are important for promoting learning in the
identified areas (communication, teamwork, learning, etc.)
An example of framing the main knowledge and skill components for an

electrical and electronic engineering project is presented in Table 3.1.
Step 2: Produce the learning task activities
This stage involves constructing the project task itself. It is essential to ensure that:
• the task incorporates the application of knowledge, skills and processes specified
in Step 1.
• the activities mirror, as far as possible, real world applications
• it is sufficiently challenging, but realistically achievable in terms of student’s
prior competence, access to resources, and time frames allocated
• successful completion involves more than one correct answer or more than one
correct way of achieving the correct answer
• clear notes of guidance are provided which:
– identify the products of the project task and what formats of presentation are
acceptable (e.g. written report, oral presentation, portfolio)
– specify the parameters and scope of the activity (e.g., time, length, areas to
incorporate, individual/collaborative, choice is permitted, resource access,
support provided, etc.)
Table 3.1 Main knowledge and skills components for an electronic engineering project
Project components
Subject knowledge Types of thinking Other process skills
– Circuit design and – Generating possibilities relating to circuit – Oral and written
integration design communication
principles – Analysis—part-whole relationships of sensors – Teamwork
– Circuit building in an integrated circuit
– Use of sensors – Compare and contrast—previous options and
new options generated
– Making inferences and interpretations from
data relating to the behavior of sensors in an
integrated circuit
– Evaluation of interesting options in relation to
derived criteria
– cue the types of thinking and other desired process skills

– spell out key aspects of the assessment process and criteria.
Box 3.1 is an example of a project task used in a mechanical engineering

module based on the learning outcomes example identified in Step 1.
Box 3.1
Project #2—Moving Car Transit
Notes of Guidance
Objective:
This project requires you to design, build and test electronic circuits
necessary to control a range of movements in a model car (e.g., mode
forward, reverse and stop).
The project is to be done in groups of 3–4 and will be completed by xxxx.
Scope:
To meet the project requirements you will need to:
• Form a work team and organize the necessary activities you will need to
do in order to complete the technical requirement specified below. (Note:
it is important that your team identifies clear roles and responsibilities,
distributing and coordinating various tasks appropriately, and is able to
operate as a high performing team).
• Build and test the following circuits:
1. Light Dependent Sensor Circuit—to detect the station.
2. Counter and Display Circuit—to display the Station number on the 7—
segment LED display.
3. Motion Control Circuit—to activate the motor and move the car in
forward or reverse direction.
4. Voltage Regulator Circuit—to provide 5V dc supply.
• Design a Counter Limiting Circuit that is able to integrate the above
circuits, enabling the car to move forward to any Station, reverse auto-
matically and stop after hitting an emergency switch (micro switch) in
both forward and reverse directions.
• Incorporate additional specific performance and/or aesthetic features which
may differentiate your car from the rest (e.g., can do extra movements,
perform faster in certain movements, has novel/attractive appearance).
This ICA project comprises 50 % of the marks weighting for this module.
The distribution of marks for the various project components is contained

in Table 1
Table 1
Assessment components Mark weighting
in percentage (%)
Plan, Build and Test Circuits 1–4 40
Counter Limiting Circuit Design 20
Creativity (e.g., enhanced functionality, aesthetics) 20
Teamwork (e.g., goal setting, management of team-roles and 10
responsibilities, dealing with conflict/challenges)
Communication (e.g., clarity and cohesiveness of explanation) 10
Totals 100
In developing the project task brief and preparing the necessary logistic
requirements, faculty must decide if the problem and the level of constraints
are appropriate for the particular student cohort. In making this decision, it is
important to refer to Step 1, where the desired skills and knowledge have
been identified. More structured projects with clearly identified constraints
are most useful initially where students lack experience in doing real world
projects. Furthermore, another advantage of such projects is that they are
easier to align more precisely to module syllabus learning outcomes, hence
making the assessment process more reliable and resource effective. Finally,
in terms of administrative demands, this type of project is likely to be less
problematic as all necessary logistics and preparation can be made ready
before the project commences.
However, the limitations of a more structured project brief is that it reduces
opportunities for students to find and frame problems which are fundamental to
the overall CDIO approach, especially conceiving and designing engineering
systems. Also, such projects may reduce student’s motivation as school
assigned projects may not be perceived as meaningful and interesting.
Invariably, a different set of challenges arise if students have little constraints
in their choices of projects. Students may decide to work on projects of interest
that are out of the knowledge domain and not related to the course and module
objectives. Also, the scope of projects may be too wide that they have difficulty
completing significant and assessable outcomes.
Essentially, decisions relating to project types, structure and complexity
must be thoughtfully negotiated by faculty over the duration of the course
programme. In broad terms, the movement from high structure and con-
straints to more open ended ill-defined problems represents the general
norm, but must always be contextualized to the learning outcomes, the
student groups and resource availability.
From our experience in SP, one recommended approach is for faculty to

supervise projects that guide students in finding problems. In this situation,
the constraints could be broadly framed using project themes or they may be
bounded by certain knowledge domains taught in the class. Faculty setting
the projects must carefully negotiate a project brief that utilizes student
knowledge and competences and connects to problems that are realistic for
their present learning context. For example, in a Design and Innovation
Project, students have been required to develop a technical artifact to harvest
renewable energy using the knowledge acquired in the classroom. For this
purpose, students chose to build a sun tracking solar panel that is used to
collect solar energy. Guided problem finding satisfies the need for students to
find personally relevant problems and at the same time allows them to work
within the specified knowledge domains of module syllabi. Invariably, in
this situation, the challenge becomes one of aligning the project deliverables
with the module(s) designed learning outcomes.
Additionally, faculty will need to manage the additional logistic
requirements as such projects typically require more hardware resources and
flexibility. For example, this requires an agile purchasing system as a project
may be severely compromised if the necessary parts do not get delivered on
time, especially when the project only runs for a few weeks. A possible way
to minimize this logistic inconvenience is to ensure that the project design
has a fixed major component that may be purchased prior to the start of
project and a smaller set of flexible parts that need to be purchased when the
project specifications are ready.
Another facet to designing project assignments is the level of complexity
of problems. Should the students work on existent, emergent or potential
problems? Again, this question may only be answered in relation to the
learning objectives for a specific curriculum. Existent problems are evident
and there is little need to engage in problem finding. Students only need to
redefine the problems in some instances, though may still display good
thinking skills in coming up with creative and innovative solutions to them.
In contrast, emergent problems must be discovered before they can be
solved. Students need to find and probe data for a hidden, unclear or, what in
the language of design thinking is referred to as, ‘latent needs’. As Brown
(2009) points out, in discussing why people are often not able to make
explicit what they would like from an experience:
The basic problem is that people are so ingenious at adapting to inconvenient
situations that they are not even aware of what they are doing. (p.40)
SP is presently implementing a ‘design thinking’ approach (e.g., Brown

2009; Rowe 1991), particularly in relation to the ‘conceive’ and ‘design’
aspects of third year integrated and multidisciplinary projects. A design
thinking approach attempts to apply good thinking-conceptualized in terms
of marrying good analytical thinking with more intuitive creative thinking-to
meet human needs in ways that are technically feasible and viable in terms
of sustainable business. Indeed, design is fundamental to the practice of
engineering, as Dym et al. (2005) point out:
Design is what engineers do, and the intellectual and thoughtful design of the
engineering curriculum should be the community’s first allegiance. (p. 114)
Furthermore, as Dym et al. argue, ‘‘Design is both a mechanism for

learning and in itself a learning process’’ (p. 112). The systematic infusion of
the skills and practices of design thinking enhance the ‘science of learning’
approach to pedagogy that has been developed in this chapter. Design
involves, as Beetham and Sharpe (2007) illustrate:
…a systematic approach with rules based on evidence, and a set of contextualized
practices that are constantly adapting to circumstances. It is a skilful, creative
activity that can be improved on with reflection and scholarship. (p. 6)
The incorporation of design thinking into the CDIO curriculum approach

provides a structure in which students can learn a set of core skills and
practices that build a foundation for more innovative design. For example,
apart from recognizing the strategic use of both critical and creative thinking
skills, design thinking moves away from quantitative approaches to framing
human experience in more qualitative understandings of what people actu-
ally do in the real world contexts of their personal experience. As a result
greater emphasis is placed on more ethnographic or participant observation
approaches to understanding people’s expressed needs and, perhaps more
significantly, their latent needs in relation to potential products and services.
In terms of pedagogic approach, students will spend more time thinking
about what data to collect, where and how, verifying the date in more
qualitative experiential terms, before moving to more traditional modes of
quantitative data analysis and subsequent framing of problems.
Since 2009, a multi-disciplinary project programme has been piloted in
which students from various schools work on a range of multi-disciplinary
projects. The programme aims to:
• expose students to design thinking and related methodologies
• encourage multi-disciplinary collaboration in working on real-world
projects
• develop a humanistic dimension in user research
• enable the prototyping of ideas and concepts into potentially innovative
solutions.
At present, this learning experience is not offered to all students. As it is a
pilot project, a key emphasis has been on ascertaining the most viable
arrangements, both pedagogically and in terms of resource arrangements.
However, a number of challenges have surfaced in terms of actual
implementation, both in relation to pedagogic issues and organizational
arrangements. For example, what level and type of expertise is needed for an
academic faculty to effectively facilitate such projects? Is it sufficient to have
one project facilitator or is it necessary to have a ‘pool’ of various subject
specialists available? Furthermore, how are the most ‘desirable conditions’
viably and efficiently arranged? Similarly, such projects provide challenges
for timetabling and a wide range of other resource provision arrangements.
For example, in some projects, much time has been spent on achieving a
deep understanding and ideation, leaving insufficient time for prototyping
and ‘proof of concept’. Also, as some projects tended to become focused
predominantly in one domain field more than others, some students felt
uncomfortable as they lacked the knowledge to fully participate.
The present plans are to leverage on an already established project
management platform, which is used for Final Year Projects on most SP
courses. This will provide much of the resource structuring arrangements
and facilities. The challenge will be to ensure sufficient quality project
concepts for students to develop the range of skills that multi-disciplinary
projects could potentially yield.
3.5 Summary
This chapter has outlined the pedagogic approach of CDIO and the implication for
teaching and learning practices. While the essential approach documented by
Crawley et al. (2007) established the active and experiential learning base for
CDIO pedagogy, it has hopefully extended the pedagogy in more substantive and
specific ways. A ‘science of learning’ approach has been advocated, which tran-
scends previous paradigmatic alliances to constructivism, and aligns CDIO ped-
agogy to the thoughtful application of an increasing body of validated knowledge
relating to human learning. The core principles outlined in the chapter are illus-
trative of how we can design student learning experiences from a sounder peda-
gogic base, enhancing the potential for both greater effectiveness and efficiency in
desired learning. Furthermore, student induction into the various skills and prac-
tices of design thinking provides an active and experiential context to integrate a
wide range of CDIO skills in solving real world problems. The intended height-
ened pedagogic competence in staff capability for creative learning design is
consistent with teaching as ‘professional activity’, and meriting similar profes-
sional development to field knowledge upgrading.
References 55
References
Anderson JR et al (1998) Radical constructivism and cognitive psychology. In Ravitch D (ed.)

Brookings papers on education policy 1998, pp. 227–255. D.C. Brookings Institution,
Washington
Apter MJ (ed) (2001) Motivational styles in everyday life: a guide to reversal theory. American
Psychological Association, Washington
Ausubel DP et al (1978) Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston,
New York
Bain K (2004) What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Bandler R, Grinder J (1990) Frogs into Princes: the introduction to neuro-linguistic programming.
Eden Grove Editions, Middlesex
Bandura A (1997) Self efficacy: the exercise of control. Worth Publishers, New York
Berliner DC (1987) Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less
experienced teachers. In: Calderhead J (ed) Exploring teachers’ thinking. Cassell, London
Beetham H, Sharpe R (2007) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and delivering e-
learning. Routledge, London
Bransford J et al (1999) Brain, mind, experience & school. National Academy Press, Washington
Berger PL, Luckmann T (1967) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. Anchor Books, New York
Bonwell C, Eison J (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 1
Brown T (2009) Change by design. HarperCollins, New York
Boud D (ed) (1988) Developing student autonomy in learning. Kogan Page, London
Chickering AW, Gamson ZF (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, pp 3–7
Clark RC, Lyons C (2005) Graphics for learning: proven guidelines for planning, designing, and
evaluating visuals in training materials. Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Cloniger CR (1997) A psychobiological model of personality and psychopathology. Jpn J
Psychosom Med 37:91–102
Coffield F, Mosley D, Hall E, Eccleston K (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16
learning: a systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Development Agency
Springer, New York
Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Row, New York
Darling-Hammond L, Bransford J (2005) Preparing teachers for a changing World: what teachers
should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco
Dewey J (1998) Quote. http://libertygroup.tripod.com/quotes.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2012
Drucker P (1999) Quote. (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/peter_f._drucker/2.html. Accessed 18 Aug
2010
Dunn R, Griggs SA eds (2000) Practical Approaches to using Learning Styles in Higher
Education. Bergin and Garvey, Connecticut
Dweck CS (2006) Mindset: the new psychology of success. Ballantine, New York
Dym CL et al (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ
94(1):103–120
Edstrom D et al (2007) Teaching and learning. In: Crawley EF (ed) Rethinking engineering
education: the CDIO approach. Springer, New York
Garner LA (2006) Humor in pedagogy: how haha can lead to aha!. Coll Teach 54:177–179
(Accessed 25 Sept 2011)
Hattie J (2009) Visible learning. Routledge, New York
Izumi TL, Evers WM (2002) Teacher quality. Hoover Institutional Press, San Francisco
Jensen E (1996) Brain based learning. Turning Point Publishing, Del Mar
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Johnson-Holubec E (1994) Cooperative learning in the classroom.
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
Kircher PA et al (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of
the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based
teaching. Educ. Psychol. 41(2):75–86
Kimble GA (1961) Conditioning and learning. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs
Knowles M (1984) Andragogy in action. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Kolb DA (1995) The process of experiential learning. In: Thorpe et al. Culture and processes of
adult learning. The Open University, Milton Keynes
Lave J, Wenger E (1993) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral engagement. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Lei SA, Cohen JL, Russler KM (2010) Humor on learning in the college classroom: evaluating
benefits and drawbacks from instructor’s perspectives. J Instr Psychol (Accessed 25 Sept
2011)
Littlejohn A, Pegler C (2007) Preparing for blended e-learning. Routledge, London
Martin R (2009) The design of business. Harvard Business Press, Massachusetts
Marton F (1981) Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us. Instr Sci
10:177–200 (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam)
Marzano RJ (1992) A different kind of classroom. ASCD, Alexandria
McTighe J, Wiggins G (2000) Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development
Mortimore P (ed) (1999) Understanding pedagogy & its impact on learning. Paul Chapman,
London
Nuthall GA (2005) The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: a
personal journey. Teach Coll Rec 107(5):895–934
Ornstein AC (1995) Teaching: theory into practice. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights
Ornstein AC, Behar LS (1995) Contemporary issues in curriculum. Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Heights
Paul RW (1993) Critical thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa
Pratt DD (2002) Good teaching: one size fits all? (pp. 5–15). In: Ross-Gordon JM (ed)
Contemporary viewpoints on teaching adults effectively, No. 93 Spring 2002. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco
Pugh KJ, Bergin DA (2006) Motivational influences on transfer. Educ Psychol 41(3):147–160
Ramsden P (1992) Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge, London
Rivers CJ, Sanders WL (2002) Teacher quality and equity in educational opportunity: findings
and policy implications. In: Izumi TL, Evers WM (eds) Teacher quality. Hoover Institution
Press, San Francisco
Ritchhart R, Church M, Morrison K (2011) Making thinking visible. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Rowe PG (1991) Design thinking. MIT Press, Massachusetts
Sale D, Mukerji S (2006) Establishing rapport in facilitating workshops in different cultural and
ethnic contexts: key principles of effective human conduct and engagement. Paper presented
at ERAS conference, Singapore
Sallis E, Hingley P (1991) College quality assurance systems in Mendip Paper D20. Coombe
Lodge, Bristol
Schank R (1997) Virtual learning. McGraw-Hill, London
Sheppard SD et al (2009) Educating engineers: designing for the future of the field. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco
Shulman L (1991) Pedagogic ways of knowing. Institute of Education, London
Silberman M (2005) 101 ways to make training active. Wiley, New Jersey
Stenhouse L (1989) An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinmann
Educational Books, Oxford
Stigler JW, Hiebert J (1999) The teaching gap. Free Press, New York
References 57
Stone JE (2000) Teacher training and pedagogical methods. Hoover Institution/Pacific Research
Institute Teacher Quality Conference, May 12
Sylwester R (ed) (1998) Student brains school issues. Skylight Training and Publishing Inc,
Arlington Heights
Tuckman B (1995) The competent teacher (pp 57–72). In Ornstein AC (1995) Teaching: theory
into practice. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights
Turner-Bisset R (2001) Expert teaching: knowledge and pedagogy to head the profession. David
Fulton, London
Winnie PH, Butler DL (1994) Student cognition in learning from teaching. In Husen T,
Postlethwaite T (eds) International encyclopaedia of education, 2nd edn, pp 5738–5745.
Pergamon, Oxford
Wlodkowski RJ (1999) Enhancing adult motivation to learn: a comprehensive guide for teaching
all adults. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Chapter 4
Assessing Learning
4.1 Introduction
From our student’s point of view, assessment always defines the actual curricu-
lum…Assessment sends messages about the standard and amount of work required, and
what aspects of the syllabus are most important.
(Ramsden 1992, pp. 187–188)
One of the most significant developments in education over recent years has
been an increasing focus on the importance of assessment, and the need to ensure
quality in assessment practice. Two main factors have contributed to this
development.
Firstly, greater pressure on educational institutions to be accountable for their
products has made assessment high profile. We need to be able to justify public
expenditure in terms of value for money outputs. The quality of teaching and the
cost-effective use of resources are rightly important issues in this context. How-
ever, it is assessment that largely defines the value of accredited educational
programmes. If assessment practices are lacking in quality, what value can be
placed on the qualifications accredited? Furthermore, as Bloxham and Boyd (2007)
highlight:
Assessment is now expected to assess subject knowledge and a wide range of intellectual,
professional and generic skills in a quality assurance climate that stresses reliability with
robust marking and moderation methods. (p. 4)
Secondly, and most significantly for the purpose of this chapter, there is an
increasing recognition of the important role that assessment plays in the learning
process (e.g., Boud 1995 ; Ramsden 1992). Assessment is not simply a means to
measure learning that has already occurred, it is a major facilitator in the learning
process itself. As Boud (1988) illustrates:
There have been a number of notable studies over the years which have demonstrated that
assessment methods and requirements probably have a greater influence on how and what
students learn than any other single factor. This influence may well be of greater signif-
icance than the impact of teaching or learning materials. (p. 35)

60 4 Assessing Learning
Furthermore, much research supports the view that students choose their
approaches to learning rather than these being the result of innate characteristics or
dispositions. For example, Prosser and Trigwell (1998) argue:
…approaches to learning are not stable characteristics of students. Student’s approaches
to learning do change with changes in perception of their learning situation and their
perception of it can be changed by…teachers. (p. 83)
This is particularly significant if we accept the view that some approaches to

learning are qualitatively better than others. Again to quote Prosser and Trigwell
(1998) in this context:
…there are better and worse ways for students to approach their learning—a deep
approach being better than a surface approach. (p. 7)
What this means in practice is that how we design and conduct our assessment
must incorporate a range of quality assurance issues both in terms of quality of the
learning developed as well as the validity and reliability of the assessments made.
This chapter documents and illustrates our approach to providing quality of
assessment practice within the CDIO Framework.
4.2 The CDIO Approach to Assessment
The CDIO approach is documented in Standard 11: Learning Assessment:

Assessment of student learning in personal and interpersonal skills; and product,
process, and system building skills, as well as disciplinary knowledge.
Most significantly, assessment is seen as an integral and integrated part of the
overall instructional and learning process. There is a strong emphasis on formative
assessment in which learning can be collaboratively monitored and evaluated by
both faculty and students. The effective employment of a systematic formative
assessment approach-which provides quick feedback on student learning perfor-
mance, identifies learning gaps and problems, and provides essential feedback to
faculty on the effectiveness of the teaching and learning strategies used-will
strongly support the learning process. Such an approach is captured by Knight
(1995):
The key to the use of assessment as an engine for learning is to allow the formative
function to be pre-eminent. This is achieved by ensuring that each assignment contains
plenty of opportunities for learners to receive detailed, positive and timely feedback, with
lots of advice on how to improve. (p. 81)
From this perspective, teaching and assessment are simply two sides of the
same coin or as Perkins (1992) suggests, ‘‘Teaching, learning, and assessment
merge into one seamless enterprise’’ (p. 176). Indeed, through collaborative for-
mative assessment we can get to know our students and their learning preferences.
We can then forge the essential communication links that foster a supportive
learning relationship and build trust.
4.2 The CDIO Approach to Assessment 61
However, assessment is not an exact science and the assessment of complex

real world performance, which involves the integration of a range of knowledge
and skill bases, provides real challenges in terms of achieving a sufficient level of
validity and reliability of assessment in a realistic efficiency context. As Gray
(2007) points out:
Finding or creating reliable, valid and appropriate assessment methods and tools matched
to all learning outcomes remains a challenge. (p. 165)
Furthermore, assessment is a time consuming process, and it is unlikely that

additional resources will be available in the present context of cost consciousness
and already heavy workloads. As Boud (2000) warns:
One of the traps in arguing for a shift in assessment practice is to propose an unrealistic
ideal that can never be attained. (p. 159)
The reality, therefore, will be one of working smarter with existing resources.
To achieve this, faculty will need to have a clear frame on what constitutes good
assessment, the assessment formats, methods and strategies available, as well as
the compromises that may need to be made and their impact on assessment quality.
The following sections consider three essential questions which are central to
achieving quality of assessment practice:
1. What is quality assessment?
2. What specific strategies can be used to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency
of assessment practices?
3. How can valid and practical assessment instruments be developed?
4.2.1 What is Quality Assessment?
Firstly, it is important to recognize that there are many different purposes for
assessing student learning, and these reflect different stakeholder interests. For
example, as Rowntree (1987) points out, assessment may serve any of the fol-
lowing purposes:
• Selection and grading
• Maintaining standards
• Diagnosing learning difficulties
• Proving feedback to support the learning process
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching/learning strategy.
Furthermore, these purposes are not necessarily complimentary, and may

conflict in practice. For example, while grades and standards may be of prime
interest to employers, grading may do little to help students learn more effectively
in the qualitative sense. In the context of CDIO, it is important that the assessment
approach effectively and efficiently addresses these stakeholder interests in a

balanced manner. CDIO course assessment must enable validity of the summative
outcome standards as well as support the learning process through formative
assessment.
4.2.1.1 Principles of Good Assessment
In terms of quality of the assessment approach, there are certain generic principles
of good assessment that need to be appropriately applied in the design and conduct
of assessment practices, these are:
• Validity
• Reliability
• Fairness
• Flexibility
• Sufficiency
• Authenticity.
The principles of good assessment are well documented in the literature (e.g.,
Haladyna 1997; Osterlind 1989; Rowntree 1987), hence only a summary reference
will be made here.
Validity
This refers to a test’s capability in measuring accurately what it is we intend to
measure, whether this be recall of factual knowledge, understanding of con-
cepts, competence in performance, or combinations of these learning outcomes.
A major consideration in determining the validity of a test is the extent to
which the evidence generated by the assessment items supports an accurate
interpretation of the test score in relation to desired learning outcomes. This is
typically unproblematic in the assessment of factual knowledge, but becomes
more challenging in the case of assessing more complex performances
involving the integration of a range of knowledge bases, skills and attitudinal
components.
Reliability
This refers to the capability of a test to produce the same scores with different
examiners, resulting in consistent and stable scoring of students over time. Fixed
response items are typically reliable as the answers are factual and scoring is a
relatively simple process. However, in more complex assessments, reliability
becomes problematic, as Banta et al. (2009) note:
As faculty members increasingly rely on applying rubrics to student work, interrater
reliability becomes another matter to address. Although multiple raters may use the same
rubric to asses student work, assessment leaders should carefully determine how consis-
tently individual assessors are judging student work. (p. 23)
Fairness
Fairness relates to a number of considerations in assessment. However, they are all
concerned with ensuring that learners, when being assessed, are provided with
appropriate access to the assessment activities and are not unfairly discriminated
against in the assessment process. Unfair discrimination typically means dis-
crimination based on criteria unrelated to the assessment activity itself, for
example, gender or racial characteristics. Fairness is a general concern throughout
assessment, relating as much to providing learners with sufficient knowledge and
time for assessment, to non-discriminatory processes in marking their work.
Flexibility
Flexibility is concerned with the process of assessment, not the standard of the
assessment. Learners can display their learning in a range of ways (e.g., orally,
written, demonstration, etc.), provided the evidence is validly demonstrated.
Flexibility typically becomes a consideration for learners with special needs (e.g.,
visual/auditory impairment, second language, etc.) or untypical situations (e.g.,
sickness on exam day, etc.). The arrangements for flexibility are usually specified
by exam boards.
Sufficiency
Sufficiency is one of the most challenging of the principles of good assessment. In
most basic terms, it refers to the question of how much assessment evidence is
needed in order to feel confident that a student is competent in an assessment
context. This can refer to both the range of evidence and the extent to which the
evidence needs to be generated. For example, how many times would a student
need to demonstrate mastery of a complex and critical procedure, and in what
range of contexts, before we would deem him/her competent? There are no
absolute answers here, but good professional judgement and collaboration with
other professionals in the field is essential for establishing realistic benchmarks.
Authenticity
Quite simply this refers to how sure we are that the work produced has been done
by the student. In an examination, we can be more confident of authenticity.
However, with assignments done by students in their own time, authenticity
becomes a concern.
4.2.1.2 Assessment Standards
For a practical quality assurance framework to the assessment approach, assess-

ment standards offer a useful guide for developing, monitoring and evaluating
assessment practices. It is to be noted that while such standards are generic to the
overall processes, methods and procedures of assessment practices, there is always
a need to contextualize them to the particular assessment context. The following

exemplar standards developed in the SP context relate to the 3 main interrelated
stages of the typical assessment process:
(a) Producing and reviewing an assessment plan
(b) Judging evidence and making assessment decisions
(c) Providing feedback on assessment decisions
(a) Producing and reviewing an assessment plan

Essentially an assessment plan identifies the why, what, when, where and how
of the assessment process for a module or unit of study. When well-constructed
it provides a concise guide of the assessment process and components to both
assessing faculty and students involved. In congruence with the CDIO aligned
curriculum framework (Biggs 1996), it should result in assessment methods,
instruments and procedures that both effectively develop student learning
(formative assessment) and measure (summative assessment) the defined
learning outcomes for the specified programme. The following criteria, which
incorporate the principles of good assessment identified earlier, identify the key
considerations that need to be addressed in producing a well constituted
assessment plan:
• The assessment plan specifies the assessment methods to be used, their purpose,
the marks to be allocated, and the timing of assessments.
• The selected assessment methods are valid for assessing the knowledge, skills
and attitudinal components specified, and at the appropriate levels.
• The assessment methods are well constructed and sufficiently varied to enable
learners to display understanding/competence through different mediums.
• The assessment methods are planned to make effective use of time and resources
in producing sufficiency of evidence.
• The assessment methods provide fair and reliable assessment opportunities.
• The key aspects of the assessment plan are explained to learners.
• Opportunities are provided for learners to seek clarification on assessment
requirements.
• Ways to ensure the authenticity of assessment evidence are identified.
• The assessment plan is reviewed at agreed times and up-dated as necessary.
Of note, it is important to recognize that in practice there is often a trade-off in

terms of meeting the various principles of good assessment. For example, suffi-
ciency is typically problematic in that what constitutes a sufficient range of
assessment evidence (derived from a variety of methods) and how much evidence
is sufficient is open to judgement. Indeed, Knight (2006) has pointed out that
reliable judgements can only be made where there have been several observations
from multiple observers in a range of contexts, which is not very practical in terms
of resources.
(b) Judging evidence and making assessment decisions

Being an assessor is in many ways akin to being a ‘caring’ detective. The assessor
is responsible for ensuring the quality of assessment (e.g., checking that assess-
ment practices are based on principles of good assessment, as identified above).
Part of this quality relates to principles of fairness and flexibility, which are to
ensure that students are not discriminated against and the assessment process and
expectations are clearly communicated and transparent. Also, where appropriate
(without compromising the standard), flexibility can be used to accommodate
individual student’s special needs.
However, the most significant challenge in making valid assessment decisions
revolves around considerations of appropriate standard or level of proficiency.
While we would all like to have clear standards from which to base assessment
decisions, this is often difficult to achieve in practice. Certainly, the explicit and
valid identification of performance criteria is important here. Failure to appro-
priately make explicit the key constructs/elements that underpin the performance
areas will seriously undermine the validity of assessment. Unfortunately, even
when criteria are well derived and delineated, actual judgment in terms of how
well a particular student performs requires interpretation, and this can vary across
markers. Much of the problem is identified by Knight (2006) who argues that
complex learning cannot be reduced to something simple enough to measure
reliably: the more complex the learning, the more we draw on connoisseurship
(Eisner 1985) rather than measurement to make our judgment (p. 38).
Indeed, attempting to break down standards into highly detailed and specific
criteria actually results in a level of reductionism that both fails to capture the
holistic contextualized performance as well as encouraging students to focus on
these more atomistic components, mitigating the development of understanding
and transfer.
However, despite the problems outlined above, there are ways to mitigate their
impact and we have a responsibility to address these as best we can. Apart from
accountability concerns, we are making decisions about our students that can have
profound influence on their life opportunities, not least in the field of future
educational access and employability.
A final important consideration in this context relates to the authenticity of
assessment evidence provided by students, especially with the availability of
resources on the internet and more assessment being conducted outside of the
traditional exam format. In the traditional exam format, we could be reasonably
sure that what was produced by individual students was their own work. However,
in today’s globally wired world, plagiarism is a serious assessment concern.
Bearing in mind the considerations identified above, the following criteria
identify the key areas of practice for making the best judgments we can:
• Learners are provided with clear access to assessment.
• The assessment evidence is judged accurately against the agreed assessment
criteria.
• Only the criteria specified for the assessment are used to judge assessment
evidence.
• The assessment decisions are based on all relevant assessment evidence
available.
• Inconsistencies in assessment evidence are clarified and resolved.
• The requirements to ensure authenticity are maintained.
(C) Providing feedback on assessment decisions

The importance of feedback is fundamental to the learning process as documented
earlier—especially for formative assessment. As Gibbs (2008) highlights:
Research in schools has identified that the way that teachers provide and use feedback, and
engage students with feedback, makes more difference to student performance than
anything else that they can do in the classroom. (p. 6)
It is also important to ensure sound recording, collation and security procedures

in conducting assessment. The following criteria identify the key areas of practice
for providing feedback and securing assessment outcomes:
• The assessment decisions are promptly communicated to learners.
• Feedback to learners is clear, constructive and seeks to promote future learning.
• Learners are encouraged to seek clarification and advice.
• The assessment decisions are appropriately recorded to meet verification
requirements.
• Records are legible, accurate, stored securely and promptly passed to the next
stage of the recording/certification process.
4.2.2 Strategies to Enhance Assessment Practices
Firstly, it is important to be clear that whatever strategies are employed, the actual
design of assessment items and conduct of assessment activities must be congruent
with the principles and standards documented earlier. Secondly, the CDIO standard
is not prescriptive about the use of specific assessment methods; rather it advocates
an eclectic approach in which methods should be closely calibrated to the types of
learning outcomes being assessed. However, the emphasis on real world engineering
projects and tasks, as well as the integration of skills across subject and domain fields,
requires the refocusing of assessment towards a more performance-based rather than
pencil and paper tests. While students will need to demonstrate key knowledge bases
and understanding of conceptual knowledge in written and other ‘paper and pencil’
tests, this needs to be sufficiently augmented by integrated real world projects and
learning experiences (e.g., Capstone Projects, Design Implement Experiences).
All assessment methods have strengths and limitations in terms of the types of
assessment evidence they can generate and their usefulness will be largely
dependent on the learning outcomes being assessed. For example, while multiple-
choice items can be very effective and efficient for assessing knowledge and
understanding (e.g., specific types of thinking such as analysis, comparison and

contrast, evaluation, inference and interpretation), they have little validity for
assessing integrated skills in complex problem solving activities. Similarly, per-
formance-based items, which are perhaps the most valid for assessing the more
complex real-world performances emphasized by the CDIO curriculum, are much
more time and resource consuming and provide significant challenges to reli-
ability. How to develop assessment systems for performance tasks will be con-
sidered in some detail later in the chapter.
Within this context, it is suggested that combinations of the following strategies
can contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of assessment practices in given
assessment situations. The strategies are not meant to be exhaustive or summative,
but represent practical frames from which assessment decisions can be thought-
fully made and practically customized to the particular situated assessment
context:
(a) Produce assessment activities that are interesting and challenging
(b) Integrate a range of learning outcomes in assessment activities
(c) Provide as much transparency as possible in the assessment process
(d) Utilize student collaboration in formative assessment.
(a) Produce assessment activities that are interesting and challenging

One of the central themes of CDIO is to make engineering more real world,
practice-based and interesting for students. In Chap. 3 a pedagogic framework was
outlined and illustrated as foundational to the CDIO approach. However, a well
constituted syllabus is of limited value in the hands of faculty who lack compe-
tence in pedagogic practices and the ability to create interesting and engaging
learning experiences. Similarly, if our assessment activities lack interest for stu-
dents and encourage rote learning, we should not be surprised to see them adopt
the kind of ‘surface approaches’ to learning as documented by Marton (1984). In
these situations students will learn what is necessary for the purposes of assess-
ment, but are unlikely to derive both a real understanding of the subject or a
genuine interest in it. Once the assessment process is finished, much of what was
learned will soon be forgotten. In contrast, where students find the assessment
activities interesting and sufficiently challenging, they are more likely to develop a
genuine interest in the learning involved (Struyven et al. 2002). It is motivation for
mastering the tasks set that leads to a desire for understanding the important
concepts and principles of a subject and makes possible the transfer of learning
(McTighe and Wiggins 2000).
(b) Integrate a range of learning outcomes in assessment activities
There is an old English saying, ‘‘kill two birds with one stone’’. In the context of
assessment, this means getting the best efficiency from assessment activities and
situations. The more assessment activities enable coverage of a range of learning
outcomes, especially if they integrate topic and domain areas, the greater the
potential benefit in terms of both student learning and assessment efficiency.
Furthermore, for CDIO skills such as Personal and Professional Skills and
Attitudes, integration is important for effective learning. As documented in Chap. 2,
the development of good thinking most effectively occurs within the context of
domain specific knowledge. Similarly, where issues of a value-laden and ethical
nature are involved, there is a need for both learning and assessment to be contex-
tualized to the subject domain. Teaching ethics and values separate from real life
contexts is similar to teaching thinking without reference to a knowledge domain.
De-contextualized knowledge is difficult to transfer and may not even be perceived
as meaningful by learners. Nucci’s (2001) observation, in relation to the teaching of
values, is relevant in this context:
The greatest challenge for a teacher wishing to engage in domain appropriate practice is to
identify issues within the regular academic curriculum that will generate discussion and
reflection around a particular value. (pp. 178–79)
Students are firstly more likely to understand and internalize learning in the
affective domain where it is contextualized to specific engineering contexts and
issues. Secondly, in terms of assessment, there is more likely to be authentic
assessment opportunities and greater validity in the assessment of such knowledge
and skills. For example, in the world of engineering practices, as in any profes-
sional domain, there are ample opportunities to naturally infuse the full range of
types of thinking as well as areas of ethical concern—both in terms of personal
values and wider societal issues that involve professional ethics.
(c) Provide as much transparency as possible in the assessment process
Assessment should not be designed to mystify students about what they should be
learning and to what standard. It is about developing the range of competences and
proficiency levels that are deemed appropriate for the curriculum in question.
When one goes for a driving test, there is full transparency as to what constitutes
competent driving performance. It is also equally clear as to what gaps in
knowledge and competence will lead to failing the test. Other things being con-
stant, such as assessor reliability and fairness, etc., passing or failing will depend
on the performances exhibited in the test situation.
Smart students have long worked out that the secret to success in assessment
boils down to a basic logic: ‘‘know what needs to be learned, learn it and know that
you have learned it’’. However, simply knowing this does not mean success either
in learning or assessment outcomes. Within this simple maxim is an implicit added
element called effort. Learning, at a high proficiency level typically involves
considerable effort and time on task, which many students may not be prepared to
do. Students who make such effort and develop such competences deserved to be
successful—do they not?
It makes sense, therefore, for the reasons outlined above, to be transparent in the
assessment process. This is consistent with the principle of fairness and provides
students with a clear guide on what constitutes the standard for the course being
studied. It is then their responsibility to develop personal autonomy in learning and
make the necessary effort. Providing transparency in the assessment process can be
achieved in the following two main ways:
• A syllabus in which the learning outcomes are clearly written and communi-
cated to students
• Assessment criteria, calibrated to specific learning outcomes, which identifies
the performance areas being assessed, the performance evidence that needs to be
generated, and the performance criteria upon which this is based.
Bloxham and Boyd (2007) summarize this in terms of a module context:

A number of researchers are now concluding that preparing students for assessment is not
a distinct stage in a module but should be part of an integrated cycle of guidance and
feedback, involving students in active ways at all stages. (p. 71)
Another useful means for promoting transparency is through the use of well
constituted assessment rubrics, especially for performance-tasks. These provide
both students and assessing faculty with clear descriptions of performance at
various levels. The use of assessment rubrics will be outlined further in the
chapter.
(d) Utilize student collaboration in formative assessment
As assessment is fundamentally linked to learning and teaching, it makes sense to
utilize the main stakeholders (faculty and students) to collaboratively make this
‘system’ work to the best advantages of both. For example, from a student’s
perspective, the ideal would be to use assessment to optimally support the learning
process through the various processes of formative assessment. Similarly, from a
faculty perspective, we would like to be able to identify student learning concerns/
problems quickly and be able to effectively and efficiently deal with them—
whether through instructional design or other learning support means. How then,
might we create the kind of symbiosis that makes possible the best collaboration
between faculty and students, without compromising the quality and credibility of
final summative assessments?
The first and most fundamental way to utilize this collaboration is to help
students to develop their own self-assessment capability. Students who are able, in
large part, to identify what they know and don’t know are already a long way to
becoming independent learners and taking a significant load off faculty in terms of
instructional and remediation time. Time spent in developing student’s capability
to self-assess will result in better learning for students as well as making the
instructional process more efficient.
Secondly, having students involved in peer assessment further supports student
learning of the subject content, assessment skills, and facilitating collaborative
learning as they act as tutors and mentors for each other. While this needs to be
carefully monitored and supported by faculty it will, over time, take considerable
resource pressure off them.
4.2.3 Develop Effective and Practical Assessment

Instruments
Firstly, good design is fundamental to all assessment items, whether fixed

response, essay type or performance-tests. This is well documented in the literature
(Haladyna 1997; Osterlind 1989). However, different assessment items, apart from
offering different assessment evidence on students’ learning, also provide different
challenges in terms of making assessment decisions. For example, while multiple-
choice items require skill in design, and the production of a large bank of useful
items is time consuming, marking is easy and efficient. Open response (essay-type)
and performance-based items, in contrast, require a more elaborate marking sys-
tem and are prone to subjectivity.
However, performance based assessments are potentially the most valid forms
of assessment as they provide assessment opportunities where students can display
key competences in real world or simulated activities. Also, as Tombari and
Borich (1999) explain:
A performance assessment is a test that tries to determine if a learner ‘‘really knows’’
about something, or has deep understanding. It does this by challenging learners with tasks
that ask them not simply to recall knowledge but to construct or organize it, not just to
solve problems but to demonstrate a disciplined approach requiring strategic thinking and
metacognition. (p. 148)
Performance-based assessment is most akin to the CDIO assessment approach

and offers the following assessment advantages over more traditional ‘pencil and
paper’ based approaches:
• Offers greater validity as the focus is on real life performance.
• Measures a range of complex skills and processes in real world or authentically
simulated contexts.
• Links clearly with learning and instruction in a planned developmental manner.
• Motivates students through meaningful and challenging activities.
Invariably, performance-based assessment poses challenges for faculty in terms

of:
• More time consuming than ‘paper and pencil’ type assessment.
• Where courses focus on underpinning knowledge, there is less opportunity for
performance-based assessment.
• As these items often involve professional judgement, there is always the
problem of subjectivity in marking.
The issue of subjectivity in marking is indeed a serious one, especially in

project activities that integrate a range of competency areas across modules and
subject domains. Bloxham and Boyd’s (2007) observation captures this problem
precisely:
…the research suggests that providing fairness, consistency and reliability in marking is a
significant challenge caused by the inherent difficulty of reliably marking complex and
subjective material combined with our own marking dispositions. (p. 87)
The actual design process for performance-based learning tasks was outlined
and illustrated in Chap. 3. Such tasks can encompass a wide range of activities, for
example:
• Real work projects and tasks
• Simulations
• Problem solving through case studies
• Presentations
• Any activity that essentially models what would be done by professionals in the
world of work.
While CDIO is not prescriptive in terms of specifying what marking systems

are to be employed, the development of marking systems for performance-based
learning tasks should carefully address the following assessment considerations:
• Assessment areas
• Performance criteria
• Assessment evidence
• Assessment rubrics.
Assessment Areas
Assessment areas constitute the main performances that are to be assessed in
any performance-based activity, and typically a number of assessment areas can
be validly assessed. For example, in a project-based activity, there are usually
opportunities to assess critical and creative thinking, teamwork and communi-
cation, ethical issues, as well as the technical engineering content areas.
However, just because a performance test offers such opportunities for assess-
ment, this does not automatically mean that all possible performance areas must
be assessed, especially in summative terms. What is assessed from such an
activity should be considered in relation to other assessment components for the
module or unit of study. For example, if an area has been sufficiently assessed
elsewhere, it may be more practical to assess other important areas that have
not so far been assessed. However, it is of course useful, whenever feasible, to
provide appropriate formative assessment in all the significant performance
areas.
Once the summative assessment areas have been identified for the learning
activity, it is then necessary to identify the marks allocation or weighting for each
of the designated areas. This should reflect the learning outcomes and their relative
importance within the module or unit context, as well in relation to other com-
ponents of the assessment plan. An example for a design-implement project is
identified in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Assessment components for a Design-Implement Project

Assessment components Mark weighting
in ( %)
Production of car chassis components (based on practical work done in the 30
workshop)
Assembly of car chassis components (based on practical work done in the 10
workshop)
Performance of the model F1 car in the racing Challenge (speed and stability 20
under test conditions)
Teamwork (e.g., goal setting, management of team-roles and responsibilities, 30
dealing with conflict/challenges, etc.)
Oral presentation (e.g., organization, clarity, and effectiveness of oral 10
communication)
Total 100
Performance Criteria
Performance criteria are the more specific and measurable elements/behaviours
that underpin the wider performance to be assessed in an assessment area. For
example, in assessing ‘Demonstrate Effective Written Communication’ (a com-
ponent of Interpersonal Skills, Communication) the performance criteria may
include ‘write with logical organization and clear language flow’, ‘use concise and
precise language’, ‘use correct grammar, spelling and punctuation’, etc.
In the case of SP, the customized syllabus, written to include specific learning
outcomes for each of the CDIO Skills, has provided the necessary guidance for
enabling alignment between the learning outcomes and the performance criteria
for assessment. The important point is to look carefully at the learning outcomes in
each of the chosen CDIO skill areas and ask the question:
Will this performance task offer the student a realistic opportunity to demonstrate that he/
she can meet this learning outcome?
For example, Table 4.2 shows how one school chose to organize their marking
system for a third-year capstone project. From an analysis of the range of activities
that the students were going to engage in over the course of the project, and in
relation to the customized SP syllabus, they derived the following performance
criteria that would form the key focus for the assessment areas.
Assessment Evidence
Assessment Evidence refers to the range of performances and products that can be
validly and efficiently considered in making an assessment decision. In making
assessment decisions, it is firstly necessary to consider the range of evidence that
can be generated by the various activities in relation to the performance areas and
criteria. For example, in assessing teamwork, a wide range of evidence sources can
Table 4.2 Raw mark form—projects with physical deliverables
PROJECT NO. _________________________ NAME & ADM NUMBER
OF STUDENTS
ASSESSMENT AREAS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
1. Conceiving 1.1 Eliciting market needs and opportunities
(Default 15 %) 1.2 Defining functions and concepts of the system
[Range:10 – 25 %] 1.3 Modelling system to verify goals
Selected Weightage: ____ 1.4 Development of project plan
2. Designing 2.1 Formulation of design plan
(Default 25 %) 2.2 Selection of final design
[Range:15 –35 %] 2.3 Consideration of project costs
Selected Weightage: ____ 2.4 Evaluation of selected design
3. Implementing 3.1 Designing the implementation process
4.2 The CDIO Approach to Assessment
(Default 15 %) 3.2 Planning for hardware (or software) realisation

[Range:5 – 25 %] 3.3 Testing, verifying, validating and certifying
Selected Weightage: ____
4. Operating 4.1 Planning training and operating procedures
(Default 5 %) 4.2 Suggesting improvements to project
[Range:5 – 10 %] 4.3 Planning for project disposal
Selected Weightage: ____
5. Teamwork (10 %) 5.1 Identification of goals and work agendas
5.2 Utilisation of team strengths
5.3 Application of ground rules and management of conflict
6. Effective Communication (15 %) 6.1 Logical organisation of content and language flow in the project
report
6.2 Using correct language and grammar in the project report
6.3 Producing engineering drawings
6.4 Using effective oral communication
(continued)
73
Table 4.2 (continued)
74
PROJECT NO. _________________________ NAME & ADM NUMBER

OF STUDENTS
ASSESSMENT AREAS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
7. Personal and Professional Skills & Attributes 7.1 Using a range of critical and creative thinking skills
(15 %) 7.2 Monitoring and reviewing quality of own thinking
7.3 Managing learning
7.4 Acting in a manner consistent with professional codes and ethics
CDIO skills 80 % (For the above raw marks, items 1–4 = 60 %, items 5–7 = 40 %) Score 5 to 1 in the boxes
Exhibition 10 % (Duty/Exhibited = 5, Bronze = 6, Silver = 8, Gold = 10) above.
Deadline 10 % (Project Deadline —as per page 6 of logbook) Key: 5 = Consistently met
Marks ratio between supervisor and co-examiner = 2:1 to a very high standard
4 = Mainly met to a high
standard
3 = Mainly met to an
acceptable standard
2 = Partially met to an
acceptable standard
1 = Very poor performance
4 Assessing Learning
be generated and used to make a valid assessment decision. These could include
the following:
• Feedback from students (e.g., peer assessment)
• Lecturer observation of student interactions
• Questioning
• Meeting deadlines and objectives
• Student logs/journals
For SP projects, the following generic types of assessment evidence are typi-
cally produced:
• Reports
• Progress reviews
• Logbook
• Scheduling documentation
• Engineering drawings
• Artifacts (e.g., models, prototypes, programmes, operating manuals)
• Presentations
• Responses to questions (oral, written)
Invariably, the greater the range of evidence sources that can be accessed
(providing they are sufficiently valid and reliable), the more likely it is that we can
make accurate assessments of performance.
Assessment Rubrics
Assessment Rubrics are rating scales in which a prepared scoring system is
used for assessing learner performance for a particular task or assessment area
across a number of levels of that performance (usually 1–5, in which 1 denotes
a very poor performance and 5 denotes a very good performance). Assessment
rubrics are most useful when assessing more complex activities where assess-
ment of a performance is often one of variation of performance, involving a
high level of inference. For example, in assessing teamwork, it is often not a
clear case of being either effective or ineffective in this performance area, but
rather variation along a continuum from very effective to very ineffective.
Furthermore, as there are many aspects and potentially different interpretations
of what constitutes effective teamwork, it is open to different inferences by
different assessors. The extent to which assessors are likely to differ in terms of
an assessment decisions relating to an area of performance determines the level
of inference.
In performances in which all assessors, assuming expertise in the area, would
largely agree on the level of performance, we can say that assessment is low
inference. This would be the case in most procedural aspects of a performance in
which there are clear and established, almost algorithmic, standards relating to
effective performance. In these assessment situations a checklist is a more

appropriate tool and easier to use marking system. However, in areas such as
creativity and aesthetics, while there are a number of features that can be identified
as criteria of quality, there is still a high level of subjectivity in terms of personal
interpretation of what this looks like overall. This would represent a high inference
assessment, where assessors may have quite diverse perceptions of what is good
and poor performance. For assessing these areas, the descriptors of different levels
of performance are useful in mitigating the variation of assessment decisions and
enhancing reliability.
In using rubrics, decisions need to be made on whether to assess more
holistically or analytically in relation to performance areas and criteria. Essen-
tially this relates to whether to assess the performance area overall, e.g., oral
communication and give a score; or break it down into key components/con-
structs, score these individually, then derive the overall score. There are merits
in both approaches (Biggs 2003; Gosling and Moon 2003). Holistic rubrics
enable a focus on the overall performance and are more economical in terms of
assessment time. They are typically used for summative assessment and where
some variation in reliability in parts of the assessment components can be
accepted, provided the overall assessment decision has good validity and reli-
ability. In contrast, analytical rubrics enable a much greater focus on the specific
elements of the areas of learning involved and make possible a much better
utilization of formative assessment in the assessment process. One type of rubric
is not inherently better than another (Montgomery 2001); it really depends on the
assessment purpose and context in which rubrics are used. In SP, it is not
mandated that staff use rubrics, but they are encouraged to do some in cases of
moderate to high inference assessment.
It is also important to remember that the rubric does not make the assessment
decision; this is the responsibility of the assessing lecturer(s). Rubrics provides a
guiding frame for focusing attention on the key elements/constructs (perfor-
mance criteria) of the assessment area and summary descriptors of a range of
performances. Designing effective and efficient rubrics can be a difficult and
frustrating activity for faculty not familiar with such assessment tools. It is
essential that training and support is provided by experienced educational
development faculty well versed in rubric design. In our experience, educational
development faculty working collaboratively with school-based faculty has
proved most productive in terms of acceptance and ownership of the scoring
systems developed.
There are a number of established texts on how to construct various rubrics
(Butler and McMunn 2006; Stiggins et al 2006). Some of the more salient con-
siderations are summarized in Table 4.3.
In scoring student performance, it is often the case that some students do not
nicely ‘fit’ all the behavioural indicators in any one description of performance
Table 4.3 Key considerations in rubrics design

Rubric design
Identifying and writing criteria Writing descriptions of Guide to scoring performance:
performance:
– Criteria identify the most – Descriptors clear and concise – Performance areas and
Important constructs/ – Descriptors use language that criteria are differentiated in
elements of the is familiar and the weighting of marks
performance being assessed understandable by assessors allocated where
and students being assessed appropriate (e.g.,
– Criteria are clearly aligned to – Descriptors provide accurate importance, complexity,
the designated learning descriptions of the etc.)
outcomes for the performance at the – The scoring system makes
performance area designated level clear how rubric scores are
– Qualitative terms (e.g., translated into grades
Many, some, few, etc.)
need to be clarified and
understood by assessors and
students
– Criteria are explicitly stated
and measurable based on
the evidence that can be
generated by the
assessment method(s)
employed
(e.g., they may fit most indicators quite well but are better or worse on the others).
In this situation, it is practical to choose the description that you feel is the most
appropriate in terms of the score to be given for that performance area. This can be
moderated and/or adjusted holistically at the end of the assessment process for the
task (especially in borderline cases). Our experience clearly informs us that there is
little point in having highly detailed marking systems that are burdensome in
practice. As a consequence, for purposes of summative assessment, we have used a
holistic rubric format, as illustrated in Table 4.4, which shows a typical rubric
design that has been used in a range of contexts for scoring performance in Oral
Presentation Skills.
This is a fairly standard rubric design in which a performance area (in this
case oral communication) is broken down into key behavioural indicators
relating to the SP customized syllabus. These become the basis for the five levels
of descriptive performance. Marks can then be allocated to these broad band
descriptors in terms of wider assessment weightings and grading formats.
Converting rubric scores into grades is more a question of logic than any par-
ticular mathematical formula. What is essential is that the marks allocation
calibrate to what has been decided in the overall assessment plan for the module
or unit of study.
Table 4.4 Rubric Template for Oral Presentation Skills

Scoring rubric for oral presentation skills
The scoring rubric provides descriptions of five levels of student performance relating to Oral
Presentation (where a score of 5 represents very good performance and a score of 1 represents
very poor performance).
The rubric is underpinned by specific behavioural indicators of oral presentation, these are:
• Clarity of voice, tone and modularity
• Appropriateness of presentation structure and style to specific audience
• Calibration of non-verbal communication to the spoken words (e.g., posture, eye contact and
gestures)
• Answering questions in a clear, concise and focused manner.
In scoring student performance, it is often the case that some students do not nicely relate to all
the behavioural indicators in any one description of performance (e.g., they may fit most
indicators quite well but are better or worse on the others). However, choose the description
that you feel is the most appropriate in terms of the score to be given for the individual
student.
Score Description of performance
5 Voice is consistently clear and effectiveness in terms of tone and modularity
Presentation structure and style fully relates to audience
Non-verbal communication is highly calibrated to spoken word
All questions answered in a clear, concise and focused manner
4 Voice is generally clear and effectiveness in terms of tone and modularity
Presentation structure and style mainly relates to audience
Non-verbal communication is calibrated to spoken word
Most questions answered in a clear,concise and focused manner
3 Voice is occasionally clear and effectiveness in terms of tone and modularity
Presentation structure and style relates to audience in part
Non-verbal communication is sometimes calibrated to spoken word
Some questions answered in a clear, concise and focused manner
2 Voice has limited clarity and effectiveness in terms of tone and modularity
Presentation structure and style rarely relates to audience
Non -verbal communication is mainly not calibrated to spoken word
Few questions answered in a clear, concise and focused manner
1 A very poor performance in this area of competence
4.3 Summary
This chapter has outlined the CDIO framework for assessment, and documented
how we have customized it in practical ways to the SP context. Most significantly,
we have attempted to continue in the vein of the ‘science of learning’ approach
outlined in the previous chapter. While assessment is not an exact science, much is
known about good assessment practices in terms of the principles and standards
documented in this chapter. Furthermore, the CDIO focus on ‘Learning Assess-
ment’ is well validated in the literature and is part of good assessment practice.
The main challenge is to encourage and support faculty in the design of robust
assessment systems and items that are valid and reliable, in the context described,
4.3 Summary 79
as well as feasible in the real world of assessment practice. We recognize the

importance of professional judgement and we must trust staff to use it in making
assessment decisions.
References
Banta TW, Jones EA, and Black KE (2009) Designing effective assessment: principles and
profiles of good practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Biggs JB (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 32(3):347–364
Biggs JB (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press/Society for
Research into Higher Education, Buckingham
Bloxham S, Boyd P (2007) Developing effective assessment in higher education. Open University
Press, Maidenhead
Boud D (1995) Ensuring assessment fosters learning: meeting the challenges of more students
with diverse backgrounds. In: Armstrong J, Conrad L (eds) Subject evaluation. Griffith
Institute for Higher Education, Queensland
Boud D (ed) (1988) Developing student autonomy in learning. Kogan Page, London
Boud D (2000) Sustainable assessment; rethinking assessment for the learning society. Stud
Continuing educ 22(2):151–167
Butler SM, McMunn ND (2006) A teacher’s guide to classroom assessment: understanding and
using assessment to improve student learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Criteria (3rd edn). SEEC, London
Eisner EW (1985) The art of educational evaluation: a personal view. The Falmer Press,
Basingstoke
Gosling D, Moon J (2003) How to use learning outcomes and assessment
Gibbs G (2008) How assessment can support or undermine learning, in TLHE, frontiers in higher
education. CDLT, Singapore
Gray P (2007) Student learning assessment. In: Crawley E, Malmqvist J, Ostlund S, Brodeur D
(eds) (2007), Rethinking engineering education. Springer, New York
Haladyna TM (1997) Writing test items to assess higher order thinking. Allyn & bacon, Needham
Heights
Knight PT (ed) (1995) Assessment for learning in higher education. Kogan Page, London
Knight PT (2006) The local practices of assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 31(4):435–452
Marton F (1984) The experience of learning. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
McTighe J, Wiggins G (2000) understanding by design. Association for supervision and
curriculum development
Montgomery K (2001) Authentic assessment: A guide for elementary teachers. Longman,
New York
Nucci IP (2001) Education in the moral domain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Osterlind SJ (1989) Constructing test items: multiple-choice, constructed response, performance
and other formats. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrehct, Netherlands
Prosser M, Trigwell K (1998) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher
education. Open University Press, Buckingham
Perkins DN (1992) Smart schools. The Free Press, London
Ramsden P (1992) Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge, London
Rowntree D (1987) Assessing students: how shall we know them. Harper Row, London
Stiggins R, Arter J, Chappuis J, Chappuis S (2006) Classroom assessment for student l1earning.
Pearson, New Jersey
Struyven K, Dochy F and Janssens S (2002) ‘Students’ perceptions about assessment in higher
education: a review’. Paper presented at the joint Northumbria/EARLI SG assessment and
evalaution conference: learning communities and assessment cultures, University of
Northumbria, 28–30 Aug
Tombari M, Borich G (1999) Authentic assessment in the classroom. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Chapter 5
Using Information-Communication
Technologies to Support Learning
and Teaching
5.1 Introduction
With good pedagogy as the guiding goal, technologies can be employed selectively and
sensitively to make a distinct contribution to teaching and learning. (Perkins 1995, xvi)
This chapter could easily have been written without any reference to CDIO. The
content and the approach taken are essentially generic to the use of information-
communication technologies (ICT) for enhancing learning effectiveness and effi-
ciency in any educational context. However, ICT’s are now so much part of the
educational landscape, I felt it important to provide a critical and practical frame
on their usage within the content of this book. Perhaps, even more significantly,
while ICT have been around for some time now, and are continually and rapidly
evolving, now is the ideal time for mainstream faculty to really exploit their
affordances.
I must confess to previously being sceptical concerning the often muted sig-
nificant benefits of ICT in enhancing learning effectiveness—at least in the short
term anyway. Like many others, I regularly experienced frustration when using
technology-based databases and software, often thinking ‘‘why is it that such a
simple process seems like the Mars mission?’’ Also, I remember, in the early days
of the technology euphoria, waiting to listen to a keynote talk at a conference on
the supposed benefits of technology in teaching—except that the speaker was
never able to get his work (not even his PowerPoint slides) up on the screen. He
had to abort the presentation. Such experiences did little to inspire us non-techie
folk to embrace technology for learning in any sustained manner.
Sallis and Hingley (1991) once referred to education ‘‘as a creature of fashion’’
(p. 9). That metaphor is perhaps most apt in the field of online or e-learning. It
does not seem so long ago that e-learning was being touted, to use an old English
metaphor, ‘‘as the best thing since sliced bread’’. However, more recently, we hear
references to e-learning as a ‘‘Thwarted Innovation’’ (Zemsky and Massy 2004).
Similarly, Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) concluded:

82 5 Using Information-Communication Technologies to Support Learning
By far the biggest weakness in how schools use new technologies are pedagogical and
strategic. (p. 84)
More recently, Oliver et al. (2007), commenting on the widespread availability

of ICT to create engaging and effective learning settings noted that:
What appears to be still missing for teachers is appropriate guidance on the effective
pedagogical practice needed to support such activities. (p. 64)
The reflections by Shea—Schultz and Fogarty (2002) provide a very interesting

insight into this apparent e-learning paradox:
One thing is certain—e-learning will evolve into something so simple, so elegant yet all
persuasive and natural, that our grandchildren will wonder in dismay why we didn’t see it
coming. (p. 165)
Truly human-friendly technological design won’t appear anytime soon. Computer, net-
working and software engineers cast the die five decades ago. (p. 89)
Fortunately, the above scenario is changing for the better. Firstly, the tech-
nologies are becoming more stable, faster (e.g., video streaming) and rapid
development software tools (e.g., SoftChalk Lesson Builder, Camtasia Studio,
VoiceThread) now require little learning time for high affordance practical
application.
Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, there is a refocusing of the use of ICT
towards a pedagogic perspective rather than technological use per se. Instead of
technology being used for technology sake, we are asking more critical questions
relating to learning effectiveness and efficiency. For example, if the use of technology
does not result in a significant gain (however defined) in either learning effectiveness
or efficiency for a group of learners in a particular context, then why use it?
In the following sections I will outline a framework from which ICT can be
used effectively and efficiently across the full range of teaching and learning
modes (e.g., face-to-face, fully online and blended). It is based on the pedagogic
framework presented in Chap. 3 in which core principles of learning were iden-
tified and explained in relation to aspects of the learning process. These constitute
the foundation of a pedagogic literacy, which applies to the design of learning
experiences irrespective of delivery mode or context. There are many affordances
of ICT when used from a pedagogic perspective framework, and in the context of
user-friendly rapid development software and collaborative web communication
tools, the possibilities are indeed exciting.
5.2 A Design Framework
The development of an effective and efficient learning design (irrespective of

delivery mode) can best be achieved through recognition and application of the
following:
5.2 A Design Framework 83
1. Good learning design is always grounded on core principles of learning

2. ICT are used to enhance specific aspects of the learning process
3. The completed blended learning design maximizes the affordances of a range of
learning modes and mediums.
1. Good learning design is always grounded on core principles of learning
As mentioned earlier, there is now an increasing focus on the pedagogy rather
than the technology in the use of ICT. Schrage (1990) is spot on when he argues
that:
Technology is really a medium for creating productive environments. (p. 67)
Similarly in discussing e-learning, Horton (2006) makes the important point

that:
At its best, e-learning is as good as the best classroom learning. At its worst, it is as bad as
the worst classroom learning. The difference is design (p. 3).
The core principles of learning are equally applicable to designing and

managing learning in the online or blended learning environment as in the face-
to-face context. Learning online does not change the way the human brain
functions or the basic processes of learning. ICT, in the present context anyway,
do not fundamentally affect human cognitive functioning and therefore key
aspects of the way humans learns. There is no ‘learning revolution’ in terms of
the way people learn; rather there is an information and processing revolution.
Human brains are no different now than 50 years ago and, if the anthropological
evidence is correct, maybe not even 50,000 years ago. While many scientists
may presently be seeking to integrate research findings from genetics, robotics,
information technology and nanotechnology to improve human psychological
functioning, we are probably dealing with the brain as it is for at least the next
20 years. What this means is that we will still need to design our instructional
strategies to be most consistent with existing cognitive functioning and other
nuances of the human condition. Clarke and Lyons (2005) analysis is still rel-
evant for the foreseeable future:
The most robust instructional principles are those based on a model of human psycho-
logical learning processes….Any given instructional method will be effective or ineffec-
tive depending on the extent to which it supports or disrupts basic-learning psychological
processes regardless of the delivery media. (p. 594)
Quite simply, disorganized and over complex content in the online environment
is no less disruptive than in the face-to-face context—perhaps even more so.
Similarly, dull is dull, wherever, whenever.
Also, within this frame, it is important to consider what human brains are both
capable and disposed to do well, in relation to information processing, as com-
pared to ICT. This provides significant guidance as to the learning contexts in
which technologies may be most effective. For example, we know ICT are much
better than the human brain at:
• Retrieving information from vast resource banks of data

• Rapidly, accurately and effectively processing complex sequences of clearly
defined facts
• Reconstructing and re-presenting large amounts of information.
Hence, in terms of providing access to knowledge bases and sources, ICT offer
almost unlimited opportunities. Vast amounts of information are contained in CD
Roms, databases, the Internet and through communication tools such as email,
bulletin boards and discussion forums. The capacity to decentralise the structure of
knowledge bases and reconstruct them in dynamic customised digestible bits
(knowledge warehousing) makes knowledge even more directly accessible.
Furthermore, packages that present knowledge in organized formats, which enable
learners to engage in constant recall practice with immediate feedback can facil-
itate knowledge acquisition.
In contrast, the human brain is better (at present anyway) than the computer at:
• Conceptualising ambiguous problems
• Exploring concepts
• Formulating and communicating ideas.
This would seem to be strongly supported by Brown’s (2009) extensive
experience in working with creative design teams. He concluded that:
The internet helps move information around but has done little to bring people together.
Creative teams need to be able to share their thoughts not only verbally but visually and
physically as well. I am not at my best writing memos. Instead, put in a room where
somebody is sketching on a whiteboard, a couple of others are writing Post-its or sticking
polaroid photos on the wall, and somebody is sitting on the floor putting together a quick
prototype. I haven’t heard of a remote collaboration tool that can substitute for the give-
and-take of sharing ideas in real time. (p. 30)
The extent to which ICT can enhance the quality of students thinking, espe-
cially creative thinking, is of key interest from a pedagogical point of view. The
importance of thinking in effective learning is well documented (e.g., Marzano
1992; Swartz and Parks 1994). Furthermore, the development of good thinking has
been a challenge to traditional forms of instruction long before the availability of
computer based technologies. In order to ascertain the potential usage of IT in
promoting types of thinking it is necessary to identify the instructional features and
conditions that are conducive to the promotion of such thinking. It is firmly
established that effective student thinking can be encouraged through:
• Active involvement in the learning process (questioning, discussion, debates,
etc.)
• Engagement in real world problem solving tasks (projects, case studies, etc.)
• Collaborative team-learning (group projects, discussion forums, etc.).
There are now many ICT applications that can be used to facilitate and enhance
thinking and learning in such areas. These include:
• Online tutorials involving active problem-solving with feedback

• Hypermedia software integrating knowledge, multimedia, activities and
feedback
• A range of communication tools (e.g., email, blogs, bulletin boards, forums, etc.)
• Constructing software (e.g., desktop publishing, spread sheets, etc.) where
learners can produce, manipulate and change information
• Simulations and virtual reality programmes.
From a pedagogical point of view, we need to be clear about the types of
thinking that we are trying to promote and provide practice in, as documented in
some detail in Chap. 2. From this standpoint we can ascertain how certain tech-
nologies and their particular use may contribute to enhancing the development of
such skills. However, it is necessary to recognize that the technologies themselves
do not ensure good thinking. As Melchior (1997) points out:
One pervasive myth is that the technologies themselves teach important complex skills…they
need to be identified, taught, modelled, and reinforced by capable teachers. (p. 91)
For example, in a chemical engineering module, using dynamic simulation to

promote critical thinking, Sale and Cheah (2011) noted that it was the design of
activities, and specific questioning, cueing such thinking skills as analysis, com-
parison and contrast, evaluation and making inferences and interpretations, that
was most significant in promoting good thinking. Where activities were not
challenging, the simulator lost this capability for enhancing the development of
such critical thinking skills. It was also noted that in situations where both faculty
and students had shared notions of what constitutes good thinking, there was
evidence of further enhancements in the quality of student thinking.
Furthermore, and particularly important in the context of promoting good
thinking, there is real concern over the validity and usefulness of much internet
content. Indeed, Keen (2007) makes a damning criticism of so-called internet
expertise knowledge contained in such sites as Wikipedia:
…the real consequence of the Web 2.0 revolution is less culture, less reliable news, and a
chaos of useless information. One chilling reality in this brave new digital epoch is the
blurring, obfuscation, and even disappearance of truth. (p. 16)
Sylwester’s (1995) summary, from extensive review of the literature, pulls the
present discussion together nicely:
Our brain is better than a computer at conceptualising ambiguous problems.
Conversely, a computer is better at rapidly, accurately and effectively processing
complex sequences of clearly defined facts (p. 120).
It makes logical sense, therefore, to use such knowledge when designing and
managing e-learning, for example:
1. Model and morph what works well in face-to-face learning situations onto the
online platform—where viable and cost-effective
2. Don’t try to morph from the face-to-face what is not viable and cost-effective
3. Utilize the particular learning affordances (and there are many) that the online
capability offers.
2. ICT are used to enhance specific aspects of the learning process
In this section, certain key affordances of ICT are identified and discussed in
relation to pedagogic effectiveness and efficiency. The coverage is not intended to
be comprehensive, and the potentialities are changing almost daily in this rapidly
evolving field to claim a high degree of currency. However, working from a
pedagogical perspective, the essential framing and analysis of ICT usefulness will
remain current at the time of reading—so don’t put the chapter down.
In designing learning experiences, it is important to identify the ways in which
ICT (including online capabilities) can enhance aspects of the learning process.
This firstly involves clear recognition of the generic unique affordances offered by
the online environment and supporting technologies. These have been typically
identified as:
• Anytime, anyplace access to online resources
• Hyperlinked multi-modal, dynamic content
• Global social networking.
Secondly—and this is where pedagogic literacy is of key importance—it is
necessary to be able to identify the potential learning enhancement capabilities
(and costs) of specific technology applications and technology combinations.
The essential question then, goes something like this: ‘‘which e- tools can
enhance specific aspects of the learning process, for what learners, how, and in
what contexts, etc.?’’ In that an e-tool supports any of the core principles of
learning, there are possible enhancements to aspects of the learning process. For
example, perhaps the major affordance of the use of ICT is the capability to
design multi-sensory learning experiences in the anytime, anyplace, hyperlinked
online environment. People learn better when there is multi-sensory engagement,
as identified in Core Principle 6: Instructional methods and presentation
mediums engage the range of human senses. That’s why good face-to-face
teachers maximize their presentation style (e.g., voice modality, movement, eye
contact, audio-visual aids, etc.) to gain best attention and engagement. The
mainstream online learning environment does not, as to yet, provide such
‘visceral reality’ and neither can it viably compete with the virtual reality world
of ‘‘Disney’’.
However, what the online environment offers is the capability to bring together
a wide range of text based, multi-media and personnel resources way beyond what
is possible in the traditional classroom through the simple but awesome power of
the hyperlink. Hamilton and Zimmerman (2002) illustrate this vividly when they
wrote:
…the hyperlink, which is practicably without counterpart in the physical world of tradi-
tional academics. Within an internet document, hyperlinks are used to bring multisourced
information into the primary text or to give the reader a path to alternative media. In
essence, this eliminates the physical separation of material messages that are logically
connected. In addition to text, hyperlinked messages may be pictures, sound files, ani-
mations, or video clips. External links can refer students to other information-rich Internet
sites, including personal Web pages, specialized bibliographies, and professional spe-
cialists. (p. 270)
This provides the capability of creating networked resources that enable both
faculty and students to create, share and continually devlop an extensive and
varied range of resources that can support the desired learning outcomes. These
can include:
• Centralized key resources relating to a module syllabus (e.g., learning guides,
module maps, advanced organizers, annotated bibliographies of key resources,
guidance on how to negotiate potential difficult topic areas)
• Selected prepared resources to support learning (e.g., notes, cases, videos,
animations, activities)
• Selected web links to provide a networked architecture of extended and dynamic
resources
• Access, where appropriate, to other digital learning exchange portals (e.g.,
libraries, specific learning communities).
Even from a more traditional teacher-centred instructional point of view, this
capability provides faculty with a myriad of resource possibilities for facilitating
desired learning outcomes to a range of learning groups and learner preferences.
The ability to weave these resources into an effective—even creative—teaching
strategy relates back to the earlier sections and considerations of good pedagogy. If
teachers of yesteryear, armed only with a blackboard and different coloured chalks
could still create interesting and engaging lessons—and there were those who
could do this—then consider the creative potentialities in the present context.
Furthermore, it should be recognized that the use of asynchronous text can
provide certain significant advantages over the typical face-to-face situation. In
face-to-face learning there is often too much information to absorb and too little
time for reflective thought and the kind of synergetic knowledge building that
comes from good collaborative learning over time. Online text provides an
opportunity to model such synergetic activity and help build deep learning (Marton
et al. 1984). Hamilton and Zimmerman (2002) argue that the asynchronous text
medium can create an excellent forum for thoughtful, extended, reflective dia-
logue. They highlight that:
The medium supports iterative exchanges of information and opinions over an extended
time period, so ideas are not merely ‘‘hatched’’ and delivered but rather allowed to evolve
and be refined in a manner that makes information more convincing, narrative deliveries
richer in detail, and learning more thorough. (p. 265)
A similar analysis can be applied to any other aspect of the learning process.
For example, we know that good communication and rapport are fundamental to
effective learning, and this is often seen as a potential strength of the face-to-face
situation—at its best I might emphasize. However, we may be increasingly
in situations where we might prefer to use a face-to-face mode of learning, but
considerations of cost make this less viable. In the real world of educational
provision, we may have to compromise our best learning offerings to the needs of
cost efficiency. In these situations, we must apply our pedagogic skills to use
available technologies in the most effective ways. In terms of communication and
rapport building, apart from the clarity and organization of information, the ability
to provide Motivational and Attentional strategies. (Core principle 3) and create A
psychological climate which is both success orientated and fun (Core Principle 9),
are particularly important. For example, without the personal resources of voice
tone, gesture and body language, the online tutor has to use other communication
skills and strategies to foster a welcoming, friendly and comfortable environment
in which learners feel motivated to participate and collaborate. Hodges and Saba
(2002) suggest that there are three role dimensions for online tutors to negotiate if
they are to be effective in online tutoring:
• Organisational Role: This involves creating the agenda for the online pro-
gramme, establishing objectives of the forum discussion, timetabling, creating
procedural rules, and decision-making norms.
• Social Role: This involves creating a friendly social environment for learning. It
will involve a frequent and lively presence, as well as a sense of humour.
• Intellectual Role: This is essentially about educational facilitation. As in any
kind of teaching, the moderator should focus discussions on crucial points, ask
pertinent questions, and probe responses to encourage critical thinking (pp.
399–401).
The important point is that while the technology can play an important part in
facilitating desired learning, the actual learning design and application in practice
is likely to be the main arbiter in the actual outcomes. Unfortunately, apart from a
lack of good pedagogic design, there has been much criticism of online learning in
terms of usability. Shea- Schultz and Fogarty (2002) observed that such basic
design failure is common in e-learning environments:
When most learners complain about e-learning, it’s often not the training they object to but
the confusing menus, unclear buttons, or illogical links. (p. 117)
Shank and Sitze (2004) emphasize the point that:

Your success as a designer and developer of online learning is directly tied to your ability
to build instructional materials that don’t leave users frustrated. (p. 138)
3. The completed blended learning design maximizes the affordances of a

range of learning modes and mediums
The recognition that combining modes and mediums of learning may offer
more effective (and efficient) approaches to maximizing learning opportunities for
a wider range of learners has led to an interest in blended learning designs. As with
most things ‘educational’, there are different conceptions of blended learning. It
could be argued that most learning designs are blended in the sense that different
methods and resources are typically combined in the creation of teaching and
learning strategies. As Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) point out:
Blending is an art that has been practiced by inspirational teachers for centuries. It centres
on the integration of different types of resources and activities within a range of learning
environments where learners can interact and build ideas. (p. 1)
In the context of this framework, the following conceptions are acceptable

pertinent frames:
Blended learning is the combination of different training ‘‘media’’ (technologies, activi-
ties, and types of events) to create an optimum training for a specific audience (Bersin
2004, xv).
The goal of blended learning is to synthesize training media into an integrated mix—one
you can tailor to create a high impact, efficient and exciting training program. (Bersin
2004, xvi)
The notion of blended learning is attractive, but raises key questions such as:
• What learning outcomes, in which contexts, are best delivered primarily through
face-to-face mediums (including blends)?
• What learning outcomes, in which contexts, are best delivered primarily through
online platforms (including e-tool blends)?
• How is the complete learning event (e.g., course, module, unit) appropriately
structured and managed to maximize the total learning experience for the par-
ticular learner cohorts?
Essentially, this boils down to the question of what curriculum components are
best delivered in the face-to-face content or in the online environment—the balance
of the blend so to speak? From the perspective presented here, the answer is primarily
pedagogic and situated rather than numeric. If the following two stages of the design
process have been appropriately utilized, this final stage is essentially one of good
pedagogic judgement (e.g., application of the core principles of learning), a clear
understanding of the affordances of the online learning environment and the specific
uses of any particular ICT tool (or set of integrated tools) for enhancing learning
effectiveness or efficiency. Furthermore, this will always be in relation to the learning
outcomes, the student group, the learning environment and resources access.
However, while this may be an ideal scenario, in practice the ‘‘right blend’’ will
depend on many criteria, including the following:
• Programme type and focus (e.g., cost reduction, high impact)
• Learning group (e.g., prior competence, motivational level, cultural factors)
• Resources (including budget and technology infrastructure)
• Content stability (e.g., enduring, relevance).
Within this context of constraints, it is not a question of how much online
learning versus how much face-to-face learning; rather about how the face-to-face
learning context can be enhanced through ICT and vice versa. Garrison and
Kanuka (2004) frame this accurately when they argue that the real indicator of
blended learning is not the amount of face-to-face or online learning but their
effective integration within a programme.
Invariably, in a specific context, broad decisions can be made about what

parts of a curriculum are more likely to be effectively and efficiently deployed
online and what is better in the face-to-face medium. For example, course
information, syllabi, instructional materials, communication forums and many
aspects of the assessment system can often be predominantly online. More
interactive learning involving critical discussion and situated interpersonal skills,
specialized lab work, role-plays, etc. may be better negotiated in the face-to face
context.
In terms of supporting the implementation of CDIO in SP, the use of online
workshops is proving useful in a number of ways. Firstly, they provide staff with
the key underpinning knowledge for various aspects of CDIO implementation,
whether it’s for an overview of CDIO or specific areas such as learning design,
facilitation skills, performance-based assessment, etc. These have been especially
useful for new faculty who were not part of the initial staff development activities.
It is intended to have a fully online support facility for all key aspects of imple-
menting CDIO. Secondly, the online workshops also serve as a platform for
sharing good practices across schools and departments, as exemplars can be easily
uploaded for all faculty to benefit from. The online facility, coupled with specif-
ically tailored short workshops and collaborative project work between subject
faculty staff and EDU advisors will evolve into the kind of blended learning model
described in this chapter.
5.3 Choosing Technology Tools
In this final section I will offer a frame on certain emerging technologies and
their potential use for enhancing teaching and learning. The coverage is not
meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive; rather it is deliberatively selective,
focusing on the generic principles of ICT affordances, not specific software
products. However, having used a range of tools, I will offer my frame on them
and what I feel is particularly useful for busy faculty who want the maximum
benefits for student learning in the most efficient time-lines possible. You may
note at the beginning of this chapter, I made reference to this being the ‘‘ideal
time for mainstream faculty to really exploit their affordances.’’ Let’s see if I
can convince you!
5.3.1 Rapid Development Software Tools
In most basic terms these are technologies that enable the production of e-learning
content and learning experiences which have the following two key elements:
5.3 Choosing Technology Tools 91
• Are user-friendly in that only a short time (in some cases only a few hours) is
required to master the essential functional use of the technology
• Teaching and learning resources can be produced and up-dated rapidly. This
depends on the amount of resources produced, but is significantly quicker than
more conventional e-learning development software.
This enables faculty to quickly get up to speed in being able to produce and
integrate a variety of media rich and interactive learning resources tailored to
course learning outcomes and accommodating to a range of student learning
preferences. When used in the context of the design framework outlined in this
chapter, they provide real capability for the effective and efficient production,
delivery and management of learning experiences.
Apart from the ease of use and rapid production time, they are able to incor-
porate the key affordances of many ICT documented earlier, for example, ‘‘the
capability to design multi-sensory learning experiences in the anytime, anyplace,
hyperlinked online environment’’. With a strong pedagogic literacy as the foun-
dational base, teaching faculty can now be really creative in their design of
learning experiences for the students they teach.
From my experiences, and remember I am pedagogically focused and not a
techie (whatever that means in the present context), apart from PowerPoint which
has been around for a long while, I have found the following rapid development
software tools to be particularly useful:
SoftChalk LessonBuilder enables the creation of interactive web pages for
e-learning courses. The software is easy to use (really) and it enables the quick
production of interactive lessons that have a professional look to them. Specific
features include pop-up text annotations, self-assessment quizzes, and interactive
learning games. After production you can package your lessons for delivery via
CD-ROM, Intranet, Internet, or integrate with your LMS (Learning Management
System). As their homepage states
If you can use a word-processing program, you can use LessonBuilder. Designed for
teachers and content-experts who don’t have time to learn complex software, Lesson-
Builder is simple, yet powerful, with only the features you need to create exciting,
interactive, content for your online course.
They offer free trial downloads and the software is well priced in terms of
comparative products on the market. Here’s the current homepage: http://
www.softchalk.com/.
Camtasia Studio enables the creation of packaged lessons within a self-con-
tained video format that can be web-enabled. It has a screen recording system that
will capture a prepared lesson (e.g., Powerpoint presentation) as well as your voice-
over during the recording. Using good pedagogic design, high-quality teaching
videos can be shared with students on the Web, CD-ROM, as well as on portable
media players such as the iPod. The live action video component adds the human
touch to the presentation material and enables both technical professionalism as
well as the use of informal narrative with humour. The current website is http://
www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp#.
Articulate Presenter is a rapid development software tool that enables quick
production of high quality e-learning materials by merging PowerPoint creation
with Flash delivery. This enables the quick production of an integrated multimedia
presentation that works very effectively due to the format’s low bandwidth
requirements and the very high (around 98 %) penetration of the cross-platform
Flash player.
The natural architecture of the system provides a clear and easy to use menu
system and content hierarchy that offers depth of content provision without cre-
ating cognitive load and navigational complexity. It offers a very professional and
relatively easy to learn rapid development e-learning option, but is comparatively
quite expensive. It can be accessed currently at http://www.articulate.com/.
VoiceThread is a web-based application tool that facilitates the presentation of
an environment of integrated learning resources (e.g., images, video, documents)
in which participants can interact and contribute (e.g., voice, video upload) both
synchronously and asynchronously as part of collaborative discussion. It is a more
interactive collaboration tool than the other tools outlined. The application is easy
to use, provides a versatile learning environment that is easily modifiable and
reasonably priced. The current homepage is http://voicethread.com/.
While these applications have some quite different affordances, as indicated in
the brief summaries above, all have significant capability to enhance learning
effectiveness and efficiency. Given the user-friendly nature of such technologies, it
will not be a time consuming or frustrating experience to experiment with them or
view some good exemplars from faculty versed in both the technology use and
sound pedagogy. From that basis, it should then be readily apparent which
applications (and you can use more than one) are best suited for particular parts of
your curriculum and for the students you teach.
5.3.2 Social Networking and Collaboration Tools
I don’t want to get caught up in definitions here, as Web 2.0 tools cover such a
wide range of capabilities and functionality in relation to social networking and
collaboration. Precise and uncontested definitions are not possible and indeed,
probably not useful. In broad terms Web 2.0 refers to a new, and continually
emerging, generation of web development and design tools, that makes possible
global communication, information sharing and collaboration on the World Wide
Web.
The Web 2.0 tool I find particularly useful is the blog. Firstly, a blog offers the
well documented affordances of the online environment identified earlier, such as:
• Anytime, anyplace access to online resources

• Hyperlinked multi-modal, dynamic content
• Global social networking.
This capability in the context of the blog is emphasized by Richardson (2006)

when he writes:
Being able to connect ideas and resources via linking is one of web-logging’s most
important strengths. (p. 19)
Secondly, the ease of use and familiarity of the blog with young people is
highly significant. Blogs are now an everyday part of the communication channels
for most students, albeit more of a social rather than educational orientation at
present. However, a blog’s capability to enhance learning effectiveness and effi-
ciency rates very highly in relation to the core principles of learning. For example,
in order to learn a subject effectively, students need to connect new information
with what they already know (Core Principle 2: Learners’ prior knowledge is
activated and connected to new knowledge). The very nature and design of a blog
facilitates this principle very well. Blog Posts typically appear in reverse chro-
nological order with the most recent post appearing at the top of the web browser.
Assuming that a blog was regularly updated each week, students will be able to see
a progressive update of the material covered each week and will be able to link
what they are currently learning with prior knowledge.
Similarly, as different media types can enhance the learning experience (Core
Principle 6: Instructional methods and presentation mediums engage the range of
human senses, blogs can enable the publishing of a range of multimedia content on
the web (video, audio, animation, etc. They can also make explicit and clarify
learning outcomes, encourage good thinking, provide rapid, clear and constructive
feedback, as well as create a psychological climate which is both success orien-
tated and fun.
Another group of Web 2.0 tools are those focusing on social networking.
Facebook is perhaps the most famous example to date. These tools provide a social
network service that focuses on building online communities of people who share
interests and/or activities. Activities in social networking websites may consist of
chats, email, discussion boards, groups, photo sharing, games, etc. As these tools
are especially popular with young people, as in the case of the blog, they may be
used beyond the more social aspects to a means of communication between faculty
and students that have pedagogical benefits also. It may certainly enhance interest
and variety to teacher-student engagements.
A final Web 2.0 technology that I will mention in this context is RRS (Really
Simple Syndication). RRS enables the pulling together of distributed content from
across the web to provide a ‘collective intelligence’ about certain topics or areas. It
can push and pull content, as well as continually update content, from subscribed
users.
5.3.3 The Use of the Laptop and Other Mobile Technologies
As laptops have become lighter, more powerful and affordable, especially in the
context of widening access and capability of online facilities, so interest in their
use has an instructional tool as increased. However, as to yet, there is limited
substantive evidence that laptops enhance student learning (Olsen 2002).
Furthermore, there is certainly evidence that laptops can be a distracter in the
classroom as students may be more interested in personal web-surfing and
emailing than the specific lesson experience (Mangan 2001).
While the notebook and other mobile devices do no more than a desktop in
terms of capability, they have specific advantages over a fixed workshop station.
These are essentially to do with portability and connectivity, which offer learners:
• Convenience
• Expediency
• Immediacy
• Accessibility
• Individuality
• Interactivity.
With increasing portability, the notebook and other mobile devices such as Ipad
become an immediate resource platform with the ability to ‘push’ and ‘pull’
information for collaborative sharing. Taken together, these affordances create a
convenience aspect for the user that becomes a truly personalized computing
concept. Both faculty and students can construct their own knowledge bases, share
information at will and work collaboratively in the situated context of learning.
However, in that the laptop is essentially no different from any other technol-
ogy, are there other specific useful pedagogic opportunities that have yet to be
recognized or effectively utilized? As I see it, in the present context, apart from the
advantages identified above, the main learning affordances of the laptop are in the
facilitation of situated learning and the ‘here and now’ construction of knowledge.
For example, while students can of course use the internet out of classroom and on
fixed workstations, the opportunity of finding resources and facilitating key
understanding at the ‘teachable’ or ‘learnable’ moment is one of the most powerful
uses of the notebook as an instructional tool. Students can collaboratively find new
knowledge and connect to prior learning in the situated context of the classroom
activity and capture that learning in their own preferred structure (e.g., notes,
mind-map, media capture or whatever). Some specific activities include:
• Internet searching for relevant resources in response to authentic learning tasks
(e.g., projects, specific tasks, PBL activities)
• Making personal notes, based on classroom discussions and information
searched
• Sharing resources in situ with peers and tutor

• Developing media literacy through classroom discussion of different media
resources concerning their validity and usefulness.
Invariably, the laptop will become an everyday personal accessory for most
students, especially as they are now lighter, more versatile, quicker and perhaps
equally important, ‘aesthetically stylish.’ Similarly, the increasing range of smart
mobile devices will offer opportunities for enhancing aspects of the learning
process for increasing numbers of learners. However, in the case of mobile
learning both common sense and ultimately, research, will show that small screen
size will not be that popular in terms of viewing long content or rich media—
which is better utilized on desktop or laptop. Even handheld devices that enable
students to input or read text in lectures may result in both distractions for lecturers
and students. Also, while it may invite some to communicate, it may equally
diminish the face-to-face communication—hence its educational value is perhaps
questionable, at least in the foreseeable future.
5.4 Summary
This chapter has attempted to provide a practical frame on the use of ICT to
support teaching and learning. They can certainly contribute towards learning
effectiveness and efficiency in range of delivery modes (e.g., face-to-face, online,
blended). However, while the technologies offer many affordances, they are only
likely to add significant value to the learning process when employed from a sound
pedagogic base.
Most significantly, in terms of the technologies, is the increasing availability of
powerful e-learning and web-based applications that are easy to use, providing the
‘killer’ affordance of creating hyperlinked multi-modal interactive learning envi-
ronments. While there is no one application that provides all affordances in terms
of facilitating learning, it is now a question of selecting and integrating those
e-tools that are most useful for the situated content in which you teach (e.g., types
of learning outcomes, students taught, and resources capability, etc.).
We now have a readily available suite of tools that can be easily utilized by
mainstream teaching faculty as part of their total resource capability as teachers.
Apart from the inevitable pressures of time, the capability to produce creative and
engaging learning experiences for our students has definitely come of age.
References
Bersin J (2004) The blended learning book. Wiley, San Francisco

Brown T (2009) Change by design. HarperCollins, New York
Clark R, Lyons C (2005) Graphics for learning: proven guidelines for planning, designing, and
evaluating visuals in training materials. Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. Internet High Educ 7(20):95–105
Hamilton S, Zimmerman S (2002) Breaking through zero-sum academics: two students’
perspectives on computer-mediated learning environment (Ch 11). In: Rudestam KE,
Schoenholtz J (eds) Handbook of online learning: innovations in higher education and
corporate training. Sage, London, pp 257–276
Hargreaves A, Fullan M (1998) What’s worth fighting for in education. Open University Press,
Buckingham
Hodges P, Saba L (2002) Teaching statistics online (Ch 18). In: Rudestam KE, Schoenholtz J
(eds) Handbook of online learning: innovations in higher education and corporate training.
Sage, London, pp 389–404
Horton W (2006) e-Learning by design. Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Keen A (2007) The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture and assaulting
our economy. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London
Littlejohn A, Pegler C (2007) Preparing for blended e-learning. Routeledge, London
Mangan KS (2001) Business schools, fed up with internet use during classes, force students to log
off. Chronicle High Educ Sept 7:A43
Marton F (1984) The experience of learning. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
Marzano RJ (1992) A different kind of classroom. ASCD, Alexandria
Melchior T et al (1997) New technologies. In: Costa A, Liebmann RM (eds) Supporting the spirit
of learning: when process is content. Corwin Press, California
Oliver R (2007) Describing ICT-based learning designs that promote quality learning outcomes.
In: Beetham H, Sharpe R (eds) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and
delivering e-learning. Routledge, London
Olsen F (2002) Duke U. decides against requiring freshmen to own laptops. Chronicle High Educ
Jan 11:A44
Perkins DN (ed) (1995) Software goes to school: teaching for understanding with new
technologies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Richardson W (2006) Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms.
Corwin Press, California
Sale D, Cheah SM (2011) Developing critical thinking skills through dynamic simulation using
an explicit model of thinking. Paper to be presented at 7th international CDIO conference at
DTU Lyngby, Denmark, 20–23 June
Sallis E, Hingley P (1991) College quality assurance systems in mendip paper d20. Coombe
Lodge, Bristol
Schrage M (1990) Shared minds: the new technologies of collaboration. Random House, New
York
Shank P, Sitze A (2004) Making sense of online learning. Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Shea-Shultz H, Fogarty J (2002) Online learning today. Berret-Koehler, San Francisco
Swartz RJ, Parks S (1994) Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction. Critical
Thinking Press and Software, Pacific grove
Sylwester R (1995) A celebration of neurons. ASCD, Alexandria
Zemsky P, Massey WF (2004) Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why.
University of Pensylvania, Learning Alliance Report
Chapter 6
Evaluating the CDIO Experience
6.1 Introduction
Evaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining and providing information useful for
making decisions and judgements about educational programmes and curriculum.
(Kemmis 1989, p.117)
Educational initiatives are always to some extent ‘experiments’. For this reason
it is important to evaluate such initiatives in terms of their impact on student
learning. While we may have a well constituted rationale for embarking on an
initiative, it is essential to ascertain if the curriculum changes introduced have, in
fact, led to the desired improvement in student learning outcomes. Furthermore,
we may also want to know more specifically what has improved (or otherwise) and
how. From this basis we can better understand how our curriculum and teaching
practices are impacting at the level of student experience, and what we might
subsequently do to improve them.
The basis for implementing CDIO in the SP context was outlined in Chap. 1.
This chapter documents the evaluation approach and outcomes to date; the
methodology employed; the main findings and their significance for the future
direction of CDIO implementation. The actual evaluation programme, initiated in
April 2008, aimed to provide a structured research driven approach to monitor and
review the implementation, assessing its worth as an educational framework in the
SP context.
At present, the evaluation activities have focused on addressing three broad
research questions central to understanding the impact of key aspects of the CDIO
implementation:
1. Are the learning outcomes, learning activities and assessments aligned?
2. How have the changes in the curriculum, learning activities and assessments
impacted the students?
3. What are the lecturers’ perception of the curriculum changes and their impact
on students’ competence in the selected CDIO skills and interest in the subject?

98 6 Evaluating the CDIO Experience
Table 6.1 Broad and specific research questions

Broad research questions Specific research questions
1. Are the learning outcomes, learning • Are the CDIO skills sufficiently incorporated
activities and assessments aligned? in the learning outcomes, learning activities
and assessments?
• Are the learning designs appropriate?
• Are the assessments appropriate and valid?
2. How has the changes in the curriculum, • Are the students showing competence in the
learning activities and assessments CDIO skills?
impacted the students? • Are the students more engaged and interested?
• Do students find the lessons more
meaningful?
3. What are the lecturers’ perception of the • In what ways, do the activities help develop
Curriculum changes and their impact on the selected CDIO skills?
Students’ competence in the selected CDIO • In what ways do the activities encourage
skills and interest in the subject? interest and learning?
• What are the difficulties and areas for
Improvement?
The three broad research questions were further refined to more specific
questions within each area; these are identified in Table 6.1 below:
6.2 Methodology
The research approach while eclectic emphasized the following key characteristics
of qualitative research in that:
• The focus is on the description, understanding and interpretation of human
experience in situated contexts (e.g., in this case, student’s experience of
teachers teaching specific skills)
• Those who are studied are to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives
through personal stories in their own words.
While there are a number of important aspects of curriculum development to be
considered, it is the student’s perception of the relevance of what was being taught,
as well as the actual learning experience in terms of interest, engagement and
quality of learning, that is considered paramount in the evaluation. It is one thing to
have clearly defined educational aims and objectives, but translating them into
effective educational arrangements and practices which actually result in their
attainment is, to use an old English metaphor, ‘‘another kettle of fish’’. Furthermore,
in the practical context, as Prosser (2008) points out:
…it is not the way we teach and design our courses that relate to the student learning
experience and outcomes, but the way students perceive the teaching and the courses.
(p.39)
6.2 Methodology 99
Different questions in the evaluation required different evidence sources, hence

different sampling formats and methods of data collection were incorporated for
the various evaluation activities. Where appropriate, triangulation of data has been
employed to generate multiple framing and the possibility of enhancing validity in
relation to some questions. However, while accessing a range of data sources, we
are well aware of Hammersley and Atkinson’s (2008) caution that:
One should not adopt a naively ‘optimistic’ view that the aggregation of data from dif-
ferent sources will unproblematically add up to produce a more complete picture. (p.199)
Furthermore, while the overall methodology was identified and systematically

planned prior to the data collection activities, certain modifications were made in
response to emergent data. As Cronbach (1988) points out:
Designing an evaluation is a continuing process, what variables deserve close attention
will be discovered as the fieldwork proceeds. (p.7)
For the qualitative data sources, a broad grounded theory approach (Glasser &
Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990) was employed in that theory generated
will be emergent from the data rather than researcher determined constructs.
As Strauss and Corbin (1990) describe:
A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of
the phenomena it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and
provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis
pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis,
and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does
not begin with a theory, then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area
of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge. (p.23)
In the case of the student focus groups, a more phenomenographic approach

was adopted after the initial round of interviews. This was in response to recog-
nizing the potential of the research situation to explore more rigorously how
students experienced certain key skills of the CDIO curriculum (e.g., thinking) and
their perception of how these were being taught. Phenomenography is concerned
with describing qualitatively different ways—variation—in which people experi-
ence, understand, conceptualize, make sense of various kinds of phenomena in the
world around them. While people make sense of the world based on prior expe-
rience and selective perception, etc., our common human apparatus and need
orientation typically results in shared ways of experiencing the world. As Marton’s
(1981) suggests:
phenomena, aspects of reality, are experienced (or conceptualized) in a relatively limited
number of qualitatively different ways. (p.181)
This was specifically applied to students’ conceptions and approaches to

thinking. As critical and creative thinking are an important area of competence in
the CDIO syllabus, we were particularly interested in how students experienced
the teaching of thinking and their conceptions of ‘good thinking’. We sought to
identify the variation in the ways in which students went about their thinking and
Table 6.2 Summary of research methods and evidence sources

Broad research questions Data collection methods (evidence sources)
1. Are the learning outcomes, learning • Examination(in collaboration with
activities and assessments aligned? participating faculty) of a range of
curriculum materials(e.g., course
documents, module documents, learning
plans, schemes of assessment, assessment
items)
2. How has the changes in the curriculum, • Student questionnaire for all students in the
learning activities and assessments sample
impacted the students? • Student blog
• Focus group interviews with a sample of
students
• Students achievement in
assessments(e.g.,performance in Learning
activities/test relating to selected CDIO
skills)
3. What are the lecturers’ perception of the • Focus group interview with faculty teaching
Curriculum changes and their impact on on CDIO programmes
Students’ competence in the selected CDIO • Observation of selected lessons(e.g., those
skills and interest in the subject? incorporating activities related to selected
CDIO skills)
how this might inform our practices in teaching good thinking within the subject
context.
Table 6.2 summarizes the data collection methods and evidence sources
utilized for the various components of the evaluation.
The following sub-sections outline the data collection methods employed, their
rationale in context and how they were used in practice.
6.2.1 Examination of a Range of Curriculum Materials
As identified in Table 6.2, this involves the examination of a range of related

curriculum materials (e.g., course documents, module documents, learning plans,
schemes of assessment, assessment items). The aim was to ensure that the cur-
riculum materials met the conditions of an aligned curriculum (e.g., Biggs 1999)
and were consistent with relevant CDIO standards (Crawley et al. 2007).
In practice, this involved on-going collaborative work with school/department
faculty (who are the subject specialists) and Educational Development staff
(EDU), who provide the pedagogic guidance in producing the necessary materials
and to the standard required.
6.2 Methodology 101
6.2.2 Student Questionnaire
This is a standardized questionnaire administered online via our Blackboard

Learning Management System (BLMS) and currently enumerates around 60 % of
the full student population (e.g., AY2009/10, 2126 responses, across 17 modules).
The questionnaire employs a number of structured questions, which vary from
school/department (e.g., faculty focus and interest) in the form of personalized
statements relating to designated experience, which are rated on a 5-point scale
(where 5 represents a perception of ‘‘strongly agree’’ and 1 represents ‘‘strongly
disagree’’).
It provides quantitative data relating to a number of the research questions
across the full student sample. Care is taken in the design of the questionnaire
items to ensure clarity, appropriate focus and efficiency, as well as incorporating
the wider principles of good questionnaire design and implementation identified in
the literature (e.g., Oppenheim 2000). However, it is always useful, in using
questionnaires, to be mindful of Quinn Patton’s (1983) comment that:
…questionnaires are probably employed more often than any other technique of evalua-
tion. Questionnaires also probably generate more worthless data than any other technique
in evaluation. (p.140)
6.2.3 Student Blog
A student blog, incorporated in the BLMS, was used as a medium for providing
ongoing communication and feedback with a sample of student co-participants.
Students are typically presented with specific questions relating to their experience
of lessons that had selected CDIO skills infused, and asked to provide their
responses with examples to illustrate where possible.
They are also at liberty to post comments at any time if they feel this infor-
mation would enhance our understanding of their learning experience in the
classroom context. Apart from the collection of data per se, the use of the blog was
seen as a useful and novel way to help build rapport with the students, encouraging
more authentic and open communication—hence increasing the possibility of
more valid situated data.
6.2.4 Focus Groups
The use of focus groups was employed for the following main reasons:
• Enables the collection of data relatively quickly from a larger number (as
compared to individual interviews) of research participants;
Table 6.3 Focus group participants

Semester Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1 42 20 4
2 43 38 4
• Provides a more naturalistic context than the individual interview in that it is

closer to the everyday conversations that people typically participate in;
• Offers the potential of a synergistic effect in that it allows participants to react to
and build upon the responses of other group members, producing richer accounts
of the experience being investigated.
The focus group interviews typically lasted from between 1–2 h for both staff
and students, depending on situated factors (e.g., the number of participants
involved and time commitments, etc.). In practice the process worked well and it
was felt that sufficient time is available to encourage a wide range of participation
and achieve a sufficient depth of exploration of key areas (e.g., attain ‘‘theoretical
saturation’’, Glaser and Strauss 1976; Strauss and Corbin 1990). The general rule
in grounded theory research is to sample until theoretical saturation of each cat-
egory is reached—this means until:
– No new or relevant data seem to emerge, only confirmations of previous data.
– The category development is dense and established.
– The relationship between categories are well established and validated.
The number of students who participated in focused group interviews for the
period 2009–2010 is summarized in Table 6.3.
The staff participants in the focus groups comprised those teaching modules in
which selected CDIO skills were infused. At the time of writing 28 staff, repre-
senting all schools and departments, had participated in the 7 focus group sessions.
In the interview sessions an opening scenario of 3 main areas were presented to
staff to offer their experiences and reflections on:
• What have you been involved in doing, in terms of CDIO implementation?
• What have you specifically done and how?
• What is your perception of its impact on student learning based on your
experience with student groups?
Where necessary points of clarification are offered, and staff are encouraged to
ask their own questions to each other and to participate in the kind of dialogue
arrangements that they feel comfortable with. The advice of Douglas (1984), who
argues for more ‘‘creative interviewing’’ in which the interviewer must establish a
climate for mutual disclosure, is interesting in this context:
Creative interviewing…involves the use of many strategies and tactics
of interaction, largely based on an understanding of friendly feelings an
intimacy, to optimize cooperative, mutual disclosure and a creative search
for mutual understanding. (p.24)
6.2 Methodology 103
Table 6.4 Student co-participants

Semester Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1 153 39 6
2 154 58 6
The interviews are facilitated by two members from EDU; one mainly doing the
facilitation and the other recording key responses.
In the case of the student focus group interviews, it was decided at the outset
not to have students who were ‘conscripted’—so to speak—by schools/depart-
ments. The ideal situation is one in which the students take on the role of
‘‘co-participants’’ a terms used by Lincoln (1990, p.78), in that they had some
personal interest and commitment in taking part in the research activities. They
were, therefore, given a full briefing on the research purpose and their role and
responsibilities in participating. It was made very clear to the potential student
groups that they should only participate if they felt that they could meet the
responsibilities in an authentic and conscientious manner. They were specifically
required to:
• Chat to classmates and identify their experiences relating to learning the
selected CDIO skills and the teaching approaches used.
• Make personal notes and/or blog their experiences in relation to both structured
and open questions in the designated student blog.
• Meet with the researchers at least once a semester for group sharing.
The present sample of student co-participants is summarized in Table 6.4

below.
The methodology largely involves questions specifically focusing on their
subjective experience relating to aspects of CDIO activities. It is made clear to the
students that we are not looking for ‘right’ or ‘better’ answers, only the best
representation of their experience as they can recall it. The typical interview
process for each area of interest involves the following :
• A standard opening scenario is presented and developed with the students (e.g.,
have you experienced your lecturer explicitly teaching thinking in any of the
classes; what does thinking mean to you; how have you responded to this
learning experience; what made you experience it in this way, etc.?).
• No new features are introduced—only encouragement for students to further
explain and provide examples until no new information is forthcoming.
• Clarification of meaning and checking understanding where appropriate.
6.2.5 Observation of Lessons
The purpose of observing selected lessons taught by faculty involved in the CDIO
implementation was to obtain a more ethnographic insight into what is actually
occurring in the situated context of the classroom and what might be useful for
enhancing understanding of how students experience learning activities related to
the selected CDIO skills. Such insights might prove useful in deciding what is of
most value in this curriculum and how it is best negotiated in a range of learning
contexts. The process for conducting this part of the evaluation is as follows:
• The classes to be observed are mutually agreed by school/department faculty
and EDU staff.
• The lesson must incorporate a significant component relating to the teaching/
assessment of a CDIO skill area.
• There is opportunity to ask students questions (at the end of the observation)
pertaining to their experience of the particular learning activity and CDIO skill
areas.
6.3 Data Analysis and Findings
Data analysis techniques were selected on the basis of appropriateness to the data
types generated from the various collection methods. Table 6.5 summarizes the
approaches taken.
The analysis of the qualitative data components provided the greater challenge
in terms of collation and analysis. As Marshall & Rossman (1989) point out:
Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to the mass of
collected data. It is a messy, ambiguous, time consuming, creative, and fascinating
process. Qualitative data analysis is a search for general statements about relationships
among categories of data; it builds grounded theory. (p.112)
The following sub-sections summarize the main findings from the various data
sources obtained in the evaluation to date.
Table 6.5 Summary of data analysis approach

Data type Data analysis approach
Curriculum Analysis of curriculum documents and materials (e.g., module documents,
materials learning, activities, learning designs, assessment schemes, assessment
items and scoring systems)
Recording of the numbers of appropriately completed (and non-completed)
document/material types
Student blog Quantitative tabulation and analysis of responses to questions Qualitative
data analysis (e.g., categorization and generation of themes)
Student Quantitative tabulation and analysis of responses to questions
questionnaire
Focus groups Qualitative data analysis (e.g., categorization and generation of themes)
Observation of Qualitative data analysis using designated recording categories (e.g., tasks
lessons relating to thinking, teamwork and communication)
6.3 Data Analysis and Findings 105
6.3.1 Examination of a Range of Curriculum Materials
This part of the evaluation has been a particularly valuable learning experience, both
for faculty and EDU staff. Over the duration of the implementation it became
apparent, through the collaborative activity, that a number of modules required
significant revision in terms of the writing of learning outcomes generally (e.g.,
rationalization, performance focus, clarity of intent). There was an initial challenge
to both revise and rewrite existing learning outcomes and appropriately infuse
selected CDIO skills. The process of rewriting learning outcomes was initially quite
time-consuming, both for academic faculty and EDU staff. However, over the past
three years many workshops have been conducted on writing learning outcomes and
an online tutorial developed, which has reduced the workload significantly.
Once the process of ensuring clarity and appropriateness of learning outcomes
(including the infusion of selected CDIO skills) is largely completed, a similar
process of review and revision continues for the design of learning tasks and
assessment activities (including the scoring systems) until the module curriculum is
fully aligned. This collaborative process, apart from the technical curriculum work
done, resulted in the building of good rapport between school/department faculty and
EDU staff, which proved invaluable over the duration of CDIO implementation.
6.3.2 Student Questionnaire
The following are the summary generic findings:

• Students across schools, understand the usefulness of these skills in their
learning and development as technologists.
• The percentage ratings overall tend to be positive (e.g., 4 and 5 combined
consistently exceed 3, 2 and 1 combined). However, it is to be noted that there is
a significant percentage of 3 ratings across many of the question areas relating to
application of the CDIO skills.
• There is some variation in responses across schools and between modules. This
is likely to reflect the different approaches taken by schools and departments, as
well as the individual faculty effect which became very apparent from the
student focus group interviews.
6.3.3 Student Blog
The student blog, in which co-participants respond to their experience in classes

with specific CDIO infused skills, proved to be an insightful research component.
The student co-participants have shown a high level of diligence in both the
regularity and quality of their blog responses. The following are the more generic
findings:
• The great majority of students who blogged, perceived the importance of these
skills as a valuable part of the curriculum. The variation in perception was low
with most students agreeing that these skills are an integral part of being a good
engineer as well as useful in a range of life contexts.
• There is considerable variation across modules in terms of student learning
experiences relating to these skills. For example, in some modules there is a
clear recognition that teamwork and communication are being specifically
taught; whereas in others, students feel that they have to just get on with it and
sort things out without guidance. It is also evident that there is wide variation, in
terms of the student learning experience, emanating from different lecturers’
‘teaching styles’. Even within the same class, there is occasionally wide range of
perception concerning the usefulness of learning activities. For example in one
class, two students made the following comments relating to the same task:
I personally feel that it doesn’t improve my skill to generate ideas and conceive
solutions to engineering problems at all.
It has greatly improved my ability…I am able to think out of the box and look into areas
for solutions.
• The responses to doing more active and experiential learning (real world tasks)
as part of the student learning experience strongly suggests that such tasks link
theory to practice, make the learning experience more meaningful and inter-
esting. It is evident that such tasks, when well designed and managed, are
effective in both the teaching of CDIO skills as well as consistent with good
pedagogic practice generally. One student captured the essence of many when
he/she blogged:
Making the car chassis helped (sic) learn in groups and communicate well…think criti-
cally…improved understanding of how a machine works.
• The explicit teaching of thinking seems to be lacking in many modules.

However, a number of responses clearly suggest that some lecturers are sys-
tematically encouraging students to think critically through questioning and real
world tasks that require good thinking. The following response is not untypical:
The lecturers are not exactly teaching us good thinking, but they did a great job making us
think by ourselves. The lecturers leave us with questions which we have to crack our
brains, brainstorm with our group members and maybe source the internet (sic).
• In response to questions of ‘what can be improved’, a number of responses point

to the importance of the student experience with individual faculty. It is clearly
the case that the experience of learning the selected CDIO skills is not separate
from the holistic experience that students have of each lecturer. This was very
much corroborated from the focus group interviews with students. It is certainly
apparent that some faculty are creating a learning experience that is engaging
and motivating students (whether these be CDIO related skills or otherwise),
while others are not. The latter is aptly captured by one blogger who com-
mented, ‘‘Maybe some lecturers should improve their teaching skills’’.
6.3 Data Analysis and Findings 107
6.3.4 Student Focus Groups
The student focus groups have been very insightful in terms of understanding the
student experience. They provide a means to further unpack the blog response and
explore the realities of classroom experience. The following are the more generic
summary findings:
• All students who participated in the focus groups felt that the selected CDIO
skills (e.g., thinking, communication and teamwork) are relevant and important
to learn as part of SP curriculum.
• The experience of learning these skills (indeed, the whole learning experience)
seems to be significantly mediated by the particular practices of individual
faculty. For example, in some cases, students are clearly experiencing these
skills being taught in an explicit manner (‘‘…lecturer poses questions during the
practical to probe our thinking. It is on a regular basis’’; Mr X challenges us all
the time, he wants us to present our thoughts and answers. The way Mr X
teaches makes us motivated to learn more’’). In contrast, other students depict a
less motivating scenario (‘‘some lecturers only talk, talk, talk…give answers
without checking for understanding’’; ‘‘We are told to think well but since we
are not guided, we just thinking in the way we want’’).
• While some faculty are teaching the skills explicitly, this is less evident in others
cases. In some situations students are provided with learning activities that
involved the skills, but are expected to learn experientially without sufficient
guidance and scaffolding.
• When students were specifically probed as to what good thinking involves, it
was apparent that only a few faculty had explicitly taught the components of
good thinking. The comment by one student, ‘‘Lecturer just asks me to think’’
captured much of the student experience in this area.
• Concerning what constitutes good teamwork and communication, there is again
diversity of student experience. Most students who had completed the Team-
work and Communication module felt that it was useful overall. However, in the
subject modules, the experience varied from very explicit skill teaching to no
explicit teaching at all.
6.3.5 Staff Focus Groups
The response to the questions and issues raised are diverse across schools/
departments and individual faculty. The following represent some of the more
salient and general findings across the data:
• The relevance of the CDIO framework (e.g., need to make engineering more
practical and interesting) is favourably perceived by staff across the schools/
departments. Some have experienced positive impacts on student attention and
interest, especially when doing hands-on activities (e.g., building and racing a car).
The lecturers’ experience (e.g., observation and talking to students) supports the
view that a greater emphasis on real world engineering projects and activities does
result in better student attention and engagement.
• There is agreement that CDIO implementation initially resulted in an increase in
workload as a result of the preparation and assessment involved, especially
when cohort size is large and there are a number of assessment components.
However, one year later approximately half of the staff interviewed felt this had
significantly declined as much of the changes that required considerable time
(e.g., rewriting module documents, designing assessment) had been completed,
and that they were more comfortable with the teaching approaches.
• There is still a range of practices concerning the explicit teaching of the selected
CDIO skills. Some faculty are explicitly teaching the skills and following up
with relevant performance-based activities. However, in other situations, skills
are not being taught explicitly.
• The more motivated students seem to be coping better with the more chal-
lenging integrated learning tasks; less competent students are requiring more
help, which takes time.
• There is still concern that teaching creativity and other CDIO components may
be beyond the existing capability of some faculty. It was reported that some
lecturers have insufficient knowledge about effective teamwork and are not
comfortable teaching and assessing it. Also, some lecturers find it difficult to
develop or find interesting and relevant resources to make learning more active
and experiential.
• It is noted that as new faculty come into the course programme they will not
have had the training and hands-on experience in teaching CDIO skills. This
raises the need for ensuring that appropriate training and support is made
available for new faculty.
6.3.6 Observation of Lessons
This evaluation component has been discontinued mainly as a result of time-

resource constraints. It was felt that the time invested is unlikely to result in
significant new insights relating to the research questions underpinning the eval-
uation. The main summary findings, based on the sample to date, are:
• Some learning tasks provide opportunities for the development of types of
thinking, team-working and communication skills
• The actual skills and what is involved in developing them were not seen to be
taught explicitly in most observations. The relative lack of the explicit teaching
of these skills is supported from the data obtained from the student focus groups
• Students are generally positive about the learning activities, some needing more
support than others.
6.4 Summary and Recommendations 109
6.4 Summary and Recommendations
As Kemmis (1989) once argued:

The quality of the evaluation may be judged by the quality of its contribution to informing
and improving the critical debate about the programme. (p.120)
The following summary statements and recommendations are those deemed

most pertinent in relation to the research questions, as well as other significant
learning derived from the evaluation experience to date.
6.4.1 Research Questions
Q.1 Are the learning outcomes, learning activities and assessments aligned?
The collaborative work between schools and departments in evaluating present
curriculum materials (e.g., course documents, module documents, learning activ-
ities and assessments) has been an on-going activity over the evaluation period,
and is still continuing as new courses join CDIO. As mentioned, this has been and
invaluable part of the CDIO implementation, leading to many module documents
being improved in terms of alignment as well as establishing good collaboration
and rapport between subject teaching faculty and EDU staff. As noted earlier, this
was a time-consuming process—albeit an essential part of the implementations
success. Increasingly this is becoming less time consuming as school based staff
are more familiar with the CDIO framework and are able to take on and coordinate
this activity, using EDU more as an overall support function in this area. This
should become the norm as a number of school/department staff have worked in
close collaboration with EDU staff and we now have a number of good exemplars
of practice for reference. For example, many modules, as well as assessment
systems and learning activities, are readily available for new staff to review as a
basis for reframing their curriculum. Some of these have been identified and
illustrated in previous chapters.
Q.2 How has the changes in the curriculum, learning activities and assess-
ments impacted the students?
The data from the range of evaluation activities strongly suggests that there is
comprehensive acceptance of the relevance of the infused CDIO skills into the
engineering content curriculum. This is consistently articulated in the focus groups
and from the blog responses in particular. The quantitative data further supports
this across the wider student sample.
In terms of student engagement, interest and perceived meaning, it is clearly the
case that real-world projects and other performance-tasks support a positive frame
in this context. Most students have communicated that these tasks have made the
learning more meaningful, supporting the development of understanding and
competence. However, it is also apparent that some students have found the tasks
difficult and feel that not enough time is available to fulfil the requirements ade-
quately. This was corroborated through dialogue with staff in their focus groups.
It is recommended, therefore, that faculty consider ways to make such tasks more
differentiated in terms of requirements (e.g., having certain minimum standards for
successful task completion as well as allowing the more competent students to do
extension work). This may have implications for staff development in both the
design of such tasks, as well as differentiated teaching approaches in their facili-
tation of projects, etc.
Q.3 What are the lecturers’ perception of the curriculum changes and their
impact on students’ competence in the selected CDIO skills and interest in the
subject?
Faculty across schools and departments see the relevance of the underlying
purpose and practices of the CDIO framework. There is certainly a high level of
agreement that the real world tasks introduced (e.g., building and testing a for-
mula 1 model racing car, etc.) have led to greater student interest and engagement.
However, there has been varied experience in terms of actual teaching in the CDIO
infused modules. From the earlier evaluation data, workload was a major concern,
as staff felt that revising module documents, assessment methods and developing
more active and experiential learning designs is time-consuming. While workload
concerns still remain, it is less prevalent as an increasing number of staff have
completed the document revisions. A significant concern is that some staff report a
lack of competence in teaching and assessing certain CDIO skills such as creative
thinking and teamwork. While it has been recommended that module teams
consider carefully who is best able to teach specific areas of the curriculum, this is
not always possible in practice due to manpower considerations and timetabling. It
is further recommended that specific training and online support materials are
made available to support staff in the most effective and efficient ways possible.
6.5 The Role of the Teacher as the Key Mediator

of Experience
A major overall finding from the student co-participants, especially from the focus
group interviews, confirms the powerful impact that individual lecturers have on
the ways in which students experience their learning in classrooms, irrespective of
subject context. While, there is agreement among students that some subjects are
‘‘drier’’ than others, actual faculty teaching significantly impacts attention, sub-
sequent forms of engagement and learning, and the learning approaches adopted.
Many factors invariably influence student learning orientation (e.g., prior
experiences, intrinsic motivation), and there is much in the learning situation that
can impact what is learnt and how. Most important in the SP context is the quality
of teaching, which is consistent with the increasing body of research documented
in Chap. 3. The importance of understanding how students are experiencing
6.5 The Role of the Teacher as the Key Mediator of Experience 111
aspects of our courses and teaching has significant implications for the enhance-
ment of practice and the possibility of helping students to be better learners. As in
any human performance activity, there are better and worse ways of doing
things—some ways are even dysfunctional to the desired outcomes. The evalua-
tion findings clearly show that there is still some way to go in terms of supporting
faculty development in being able to fully utilize the pedagogic approaches and
practices outlined in Chap. 3.
While we can never design learning experiences that are going to get desired
results with all students, we are now in a more informed position concerning
understanding our students’ experiences and the meaning they are making of their
time in our classrooms. In terms of improving the quality of student learning
outcomes, we can now draw upon both a more empirical base of knowledge about
human learning, as well as the situated realities of the students we teach, As
Marton (2007) suggests:
It is only when we have a fair understanding of what learners are expected to learn, what
they actually learn in those situations and why they learn something in one situation but
not in another that pedagogy becomes a reasonably rational set of human activities. (p.22)
6.5.1 The Challenge of Teaching Thinking
It is very apparent, across schools and departments, that many faculty were not
explicitly teaching the CDIO skills infused. This is evidenced most strongly from
the student focus groups and verified by some staff. While many of the modules
incorporate learning activities that involve the skills, in many cases it is assumed
that students will learn them implicitly. From the student feedback, this is very
often not the case, particularly noticeable in relation to thinking. When asked, the
majority of students interviewed still had limited and idiosyncratic perceptions
relating to what is good thinking.
The student response to the question, what is ‘good thinking’, suggests sig-
nificant variation in constructs relating to what thinking is and its underlying
cognitive heuristics. The following examples of student response illustrate this
variation:
conscious mind, a good amount of reasoning
using the mind like a freight train with a checklist
logically, systematically and creatively to solve problems
thinking in positive and optimistic ways
Students’ prior learning (including the impact of the explicit teaching of

thinking) plays a significant role in their present framing of what is good thinking.
For example, from the wider evaluation evidence, it is clearly the case that some
staff had explicitly taught the components of good thinking as identified in Chap. 2
(e.g., specific types of thinking, dispositions relating to good thinking). It may well
be that this is resulting in some students applying the model and incorporating the
‘language of thinking’ into their descriptions. In contrast, many staff had not taught
thinking explicitly, which may equally be related to the less formalized constructs
of what is good thinking as depicted by many students.
6.6 Summary Frame on Future Directions
While it is important that the evaluation stays focused on the key research areas
already identified, it is necessary to both move away from questions that have
become ‘theoretically saturated’—so to speak, for exploring other emerging
questions relevant to a better understanding of the specifics of the students learning
experiences. For example, we have decided to discontinue the present evaluation
approach with first year students as it is now apparent that the likelihood of new
insightful data emerging is unlikely, and subsequent time spent would not be cost-
effective. We have made the inference and interpretation that the majority of
students perceive the relevance of CDIO skills and the curriculum approach
employed to make their learning more interesting and real world focused. At
present, we are focusing the evaluation more on the student’s actual experience
while doing specific types of learning activities (e.g., projects, cases) to attain
better insight into factors that may enhance their level of intrinsic motivation.
This data from the evaluation programme so far supports the usefulness of
certain pedagogic and assessment practices relating to CDIO standards. For
example, well constituted integrated real world tasks, when effectively managed,
typically result in better student interest and engagement. There is also evidence,
based on faculty reporting, that students are displaying better learning outcomes in
terms of understanding and actual competence.
However, the evaluation has revealed that there are systemic issues relating to
teaching and learning, which may require more focused and creative solutions.
Based on our existing framing, the following remain pertinent questions and issues
to pursue over the next evaluation cycle:
• Are students developing a real understanding of the selected CDIO skills and
able to display both competence and transfer, and to what extent? While there is
evidence that this is occurring in some classes, it is clearly mediated by the
pedagogical and related communication styles of faculty. It is important to
further explore what types of learning arrangements and pedagogic competences
are most conducive to better learning. The approach documented in Chap. 3 is
particularly pertinent in this context.
• A consistent finding is that students’ perception of what is good thinking shows
a high degree of variation. It is clearly evident that while the development of
good thinking (i.e., critical, creative, metacognitive) remains an educational
aim, it is not established as consistent pedagogic practice at present. The
challenge of contextualizing good thinking to the various subject field contexts
6.6 Summary Frame on Future Directions 113
will be an interesting and necessary part of forthcoming professional develop-

ment activity.
• How to develop the necessary staff competence to meet the demands and rigor
of the increasingly challenging professional teaching role? What are the most
effective and efficient structural arrangements, learning platforms and modes of
delivery, etc.?
References
Biggs J (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press, Buckingham
Springer, New York
Cronbach L (1988) ‘Issues in planning evaluation’. In: Murphy R and Torrance H Evaluating
education: issues and methods. Paul Chapman Publishing, London
Douglas J (1984) Creative interviewing. Sage, London
Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago
Hammersley M, Atkinson P (2008) Ethnography: principles in practice. In: Silverman D (ed)
Doing qualitative research: a practical guide. Sage, London
Kemmis S (1989) ‘Seven principles for programme evaluation in curriculum development and
innovation’. In: House ER New directions in educational evaluation. The Falmer Press, London
Lincoln YS (1990) The making of a constructivist: a remembrance of transformations past. In:
Guba EG (ed) The paradigm dialog. Sage, London
Marshall C, Rossman GB (1989) Designing qualitative research. Sage, London
Marton F (1981) ‘Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us’.
In: Instructional science 10, 177–200. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam
Marton F (2007) Towards a pedagogic theory of learning. In: Entwistle N, Tomlinson P (eds)
Student learning and university teaching. Leicester, The British Psychological Society
Oppenheim AN (2000) Questionnaire design. International Publishing Group, London
Prosser M (2008) ‘Experiencing teaching and learning in higher education’. In: Frontiers in High
Educ. International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, CDTL,
Singapore
Quinn Patton M (1983) Practical evaluation. Sage, London
Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Sage, London
Chapter 7
Managaing the Change Process;
Approach, Strategies and Professional
Development
7.1 Introduction
…where educational change is concerned, if a teacher can’t or won’t do it, it simply can’t
be done. (Hargreaves and Evans 1997, p. 3)
The importance of effective management of the change process, as well as the

various technical aspects of the change itself, is well documented in the literature
(Fullan 2007; Stacey 1996; Hargreaves 1994). Equally, the establishment of a
professional development approach to support emerging staff learning needs, in
ways that are effective and practical from the faculty perspective, is also of key
importance in the change stakes. In this chapter, I will outline the approach taken,
the key strategies employed and the professional development framework that has
evolved to support the implementation of CDIO.
In any change initiative, there are certain general questions that need to be
thoughtfully addressed at the outset, these include:
• Identifying what needs to be done, by who and how it might be done—possible
approaches, strategies, etc
• Anticipating the possible consequences of the different approaches that can be
taken and the strategies adopted
• Choosing the preferred approach, strategies, etc.
In practice, while educational innovations are inevitably multidimensional, they
typically encompass at least three components:
• New or revised curriculum and materials
• New teaching approaches
• Alteration of beliefs (e.g., pedagogical assumptions about teaching and learning).
As CDIO implementation involves significant curriculum restructuring,
addressing these three components is central to the change process. In working
towards meeting the CDIO Standards, much work has gone into customizing the
general syllabus into one that was relevant and practical to the polytechnic context
and which could be further contextualized to the various engineering schools’

116 7 Managaing the Change Process; Approach, Strategies and Professional Development
context. As documented in Chap. 2, this was time-consuming, but worth the effort
spent in terms of developing faculty ownership, collaborative empowerment and,
not least, a belief that the curriculum change was achievable and useful.
Similarly, for some faculty, CDIO implementation created challenges to aspects
of their traditional teaching practices, as well as underlying beliefs about teaching
and what this entails. Having to adopt a more holistic educational approach was,
and still is for some, rather vague and questioned in terms of viability in the
polytechnic context. It became very apparent from the outset that, apart from
dealing with any technical aspects of enhancing teaching knowledge, pedagogic
skills and techniques, a bigger challenge would present itself at the level of faculty
perception and beliefs. Sustained and lasting change needs to occur across all
components for it to be effective in practice. For example, there is little point in
successfully changing the curriculum documents and materials without corre-
sponding changes in teaching approaches, practices and accompanying pedagog-
ical beliefs. Most fundamentally, as Fullan (2007) has argued:
…changes in beliefs and understanding (first principles) are the foundation of achieving
lasting reform. (p. 33)
In broad terms, the change was framed in terms of successfully navigating these
three main components through the change processes of initiation, implementation
and institutionalization (Fig. 7.1: Summary of the Change Process) that have been
well documented by Fullan (2007).
Change can also be usefully conceptualized in terms of different levels of
human engagement. For example, Hersey and Blanchard’s (2001) depiction of four
main levels of change (Fig. 7.2) illustrates that while each level is important and
must be effectively negotiated in the change management strategy, progression
down the levels is paramount for meaningful sustained change.
Change at the ‘knowledge’ level refers to stakeholder awareness of the change,
its goal, purposes and key activities involved. At the ‘attitudes’ level, stakeholders
have developed a personal response to the change in terms of how they feel about
it, which needs to be generally positive if the change is to proceed as planned.
Change at the ‘individual behaviour’ level refers to some stakeholders effectively
implementing the practices underpinning the change. Changes at ‘group/organi-
zational behaviour’ level can be considered to have resulted only when a critical
mass of stakeholders (i.e., enough to make a significant impact in practice—
however defined) are behaving in accordance with the change objectives.
Invariably change becomes more difficult as we move down the hierarchy.
Also, without significant change in behaviour at the group/organization level, the
initiative is unlikely to reach a significant level of sustainability. Furthermore,
even if the desired change has become well established in terms of organizational
behaviour, there is always the issue of maintenance. Successful institutionalization
of a change initiative does not guarantee further progression or even continuity in
the same way that reaching a high level of physical fitness does not ensure sub-
sequent fitness. Huberman and Miles (1984) identified a number of factors that can
7.1 Introduction 117
Fig. 7.1 Summary of the Change Process
Fig. 7.2 Hersey and

Blanchard’s four main levels
of change
contribute significantly to the continued success (or otherwise) of an innovation

over time. Much depends on whether or not the change:
• Gets embedded or built into the structure (through policy, budget, timetable,
etc.)
• Generates a critical mass of administrators and teachers skilled and committed
to the change
• Has established procedures for continuing assistance, especially relative to

supporting new teachers and administrators.
In order to manage the change process in the context of the above framing, a SP
inter-school/department team was established with at least two senior management
representatives from each of the schools and departments involved. This team has
been (and continues to be) the anchor point of CDIO implementation over the past
five years, invariably with some change in personnel over time. The team secured
a timetabling arrangement in which it was able to meet weekly if necessary to
ensure a continuous hands-on approach to implementation.
At the school/department level, CDIO teams were also established to implement
relevant CDIO standards and practices at grass roots level with staff as well as obtain
faculty feedback. Close liaison between the school/department-based teams and the
implementation team became important for quickly identifying and addressing
issues of concern as well as maintaining a climate of openness and participation.
Throughout the implementation, teams sought to maintain a balance between
certain ‘top down’ elements of management (e.g., ensuring planning and organization,
monitoring and evaluation, etc.) with an open participatory ‘bottom up’ approach.
There was an explicit recognition that the change was an experiment and would require
much in the way of stakeholder meaning-making, especially in the early stages of the
implementation. Fullan’s (2007) ‘‘do’’ and ‘‘don’t’’ assumptions are worth careful
reflection in the change management processes, especially the following:
Do not assume that your version of what the change should be is the one that should or
could be implemented. On the contrary, assume that one of the main purposes of the
implementation is to exchange your reality of what should be with the realities of
implementers and others concerned, through interaction with them.
Assume that people need pressure to change (even in directions that they desire), but it
will be effective only under conditions that allow them to react, to form their own position,
to interact with other implementers, to obtain assistance, to develop new capabilities…
Assume that effective change takes time. It is a process of ‘‘development in use.’’
Unrealistic or undefined time lines fail to recognize that implementation occurs devel-
opmentally. Significant change in the form of implementing specific innovations can be
expected to take 2 or 3 years;… (p. 123)
It is important, therefore, to focus on what needs to be done properly, at least

from the particular framing at the time, rather than rush things through to give an
impression that lots of activity is occurring. We tried to keep to the maxim that
‘more is not better, better is better.’ It’s a challenging one in practice, believe me.
7.2 Managing the Change Process
In any change initiative there are always questions of why is the change necessary
and for what purpose. As mentioned in a previous chapter, education is often ‘a
creature of fashion’ and folk who have been in the profession for some time are
often suspicious of large scale curriculum innovations, especially if presented as
7.2 Managing the Change Process 119
‘‘the best thing since sliced’’. Hence, questions of why CDIO, how can it improve
aspects of professional practice and the student learning experience are central at
the initiation stage. Indeed, they periodically re-emerge as new faculty become
involved in CDIO implementation.
There was a clear recognition that simply spelling out the need and rationale of
CDIO, as documented in the pioneering work of Crawley et al. (2007), despite
being grounded in the engineering context, would not be unproblematic. As a
result, we avoided over-hyping CDIO, focusing on what we felt were the pertinent
issues for wider faculty discussion and engagement. Firstly, as CDIO is an edu-
cational framework conceived by engineers for engineering education, it has
greater face-validity than more generalized curriculum change initiatives.
Secondly, the framework being interpretive rather than prescriptive, and explicitly
encouraging customization to the local context added to the likelihood of
acceptance.
Furthermore, while CDIO had been identified as a possible framework for
curriculum improvement, it was not mandated by senior management, rather
encouraged on a volunteer basis. Schools/departments could choose their level of
participation and select courses for pilot work. This made possible an initiation
approach that encouraged open discourse on the various aspects and rationale, and
how it might be useful in the SP context.
This approach proved significant in terms of reducing the level of resistance,
especially over time. In retrospect, we were able to openly and collaboratively
consider the adoption of CDIO in terms of its use as a means of improving the
educational opportunities of our students. We certainly could not be accused of, to
use a Shakespearian quote ‘‘me think he doth protest too much’’ in terms of CDIO
advocacy. While faculty varied considerably in terms of their active involvement
in developing areas of practice consistent with the standards, there has been little
overt resistance to the goals and approach of CDIO. At present, course teams are
asking to be involved in CDIO as they perceive benefits in terms of student
learning, especially in the context of the evaluation results over the past 3 years.
Other well documented characteristics of change such as clarity and complexity
were also relevant considerations to the implementation of CDIO. Questions of
what needs to be done and how have proved to be challenging. For example, while
certain ‘CDIO Skills’ were identified as most useful and pertinent for infusion into
course curricula, as documented in Chap. 2, some faculty remained unsure of what
this actually meant in terms of course and module restructuring, learning design,
actual teaching and assessment. Ensuring clarity and minimizing complexity are
crucial, but unfortunately not so easy in practice. As Charles Mingis (2001) once
stated:
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple,
awesomely simple, that’s creativity.
In order to conceptually frame the most significant factors that might support
the implementation, as well as possible resistors, a force-field analysis was peri-
odically conducted to identify existing perceptions of the present change scenario
in relation to the desired situation. Force field analysis involves the use of a
graphical organizer (tool) to frame the various forces (as perceived at any point in
time), identifying those forces that are seen to support the change and those that
may be resistors to the change. The idea, in basic terms, is to maximize the
leverage on the forces supporting the change and mitigate or ‘turn round’ (make
into positives) those that may constitute barriers. Figure 7.3 shows the basic force-
field analysis template:
The initial use of the tool, as captured in the summary diagram (Fig. 7.4),
identified the following salient forces:
The forces supporting the change have remained strong in terms of perceived
potency. While there are still some faculty who share the view that SP has been
successful for over the past half-century, and there is no need for change, most
now recognize that change is necessary to remain relevant and competitive in the
educational provision stakes. Furthermore, a greater awareness that lecturing in
Fig. 7.3 Force-field analysis

Template
Fig. 7.4 Summary of forces supporting and resisting the change

7.2 Managing the Change Process 121
higher education requires much more than transmitting technical content, but
actually teaching in the more holistic sense, has become less of a resistor and
potentially an enabler. For example, SP’s ‘‘Towards SP@60 (2014)’’, strategic
planning document (2009/2010) identified ‘Holistic Education’ as a main thrust
for the polytechnic. There is now a greater focus on making teaching more
active and experiential as well as being more responsive to the social and
emotional aspects of student learning. This in turn, brings into focus a height-
ened awareness of pedagogic knowledge and its importance in the design of
learning experiences.
Over the past 3 years, significant progress has been made in terms of
curriculum integration and developing integrated learning experiences, most
significantly through design-implement and multi-disciplinary projects. Staff
workload has remained a significant issue of concern (as depicted in the pre-
vious chapter). The establishment of Academic Mentors in schools/departments,
who have responsibility for charting educational initiatives at school level may,
in the longer term, result in a heightened perception by faculty of the impor-
tance of continual professional development in pedagogy, along with technical
up-grading.
7.3 Meaning Making and Relationship Formation
Much of the literature on organizational behaviour paints a daunting picture for

those expecting, even desired, change to be a smooth process (e.g. Brunsson 2000;
Stacey 1996; Argyris 1993). Stacey (1996), from a complexity theory standpoint,
argues that paradoxes inherent in the human condition make organizational life far
from one of stability and equilibrium. He identifies these as:
• The capacity to both love and hate at the same time
• The urge to separate from others and individuate and the longing to fuse and
lose oneself
• The capacity for destructiveness and the creative urge to make reparation
• The need for safety and comfort of the known and the desire for the exciting and
the unknown
• The desire for the rational, the functional, and the factual, on the one hand, and
the longing for the aesthetic, the emotional, and the sacred on the other (p. 130).
He goes on to argue that:
…through this lens, the world of organizations is seen as a system held far from
equilibrium, at the edge of chaos, by the paradoxical dynamics of competition and self-
organizing cooperation. In this fundamentally paradoxical world, the links between actions
and their long-term outcomes are lost in the complex interactions between various com-
ponents of the system. (p. 248)
In a similar vein, Argyris (1973) goes as far as asserting that:

…trust, openness, and risk taking are rare in formal organizations, and they are signifi-
cantly deviant from the mistrust, closedness, and emphasis on stability which we suggest is
more typical. (p. 82)
However, in practice, one has to work with reality as it presents itself, not how
one might want it to be. Certainly an understanding of how human behaviour
actually plays out in organizational contexts at least mitigates surprise and dis-
appointment when things appear chaotic. In recognition of this, we sought to work
carefully through the curriculum restructuring stages, negotiating key processes
and identifying professional development activities as need emerged. The key
phases of the curriculum reorganization are summarized below:
• Awareness of the CDIO educational framework, what it was, how it works and
in what ways might it support SP curriculum goals
• Reframing the curriculum in terms of learning outcomes, structure and sequence
• Designing the learning experience, incorporating methods, activities, and
resources
• Production of aligned assessment systems, methods and instruments
• On-going evaluation, incorporating the student experience, faculty experience,
curriculum materials and student performance.
A strategic aspect that proved important in effective implementation was the
early involvement of faculty in a manageable part of the change activity. Once
induction had reached a level where most faculty were aware of what CDIO was,
its potential benefits and the key phases of curriculum reorganization, etc., there
was a push for them to quickly get involved in useful CDIO related activity. In
reviewing courses and modules, for example, they were able to experience tangible
results in terms of clearer and more meaningful documents, from which to plan
student learning. As the old saying goes, ‘‘The proof of the pudding is in the
eating’’ or as Bate et al. (2005) illustrate in more technical terms:
…people cannot want it until they have tried it. The concrete experience of participating in
a movement is crucial, meanings and value being formed after the experience not before it.
(p. 31)
Similarly, Guskey (2000) makes the point that educators do not typically
change their beliefs from most professional development opportunities. Their
practice is only likely to change when they see evidence that the change positively
affects student learning. This process of practical engagement within realistic time-
frames was continued throughout the key implementation phases. Evidence of
successful implementation could be experienced in terms of curriculum products,
and direct experience in classroom practice and student response. There are, as
Fullan (2007) rightly points out, ‘‘no shortcuts to achieving shared meaning,
including serving it on a platter’’ (p. 104).
A second key strategy has been a focus on developing and maintaining good
relationships with all stakeholders. Over the past five years, the implementation
team has worked collaboratively to make meaning of the CDIO experience and try
to ensure that action taken is realistic and practical both in terms of school/
7.3 Meaning Making and Relationship Formation 123
department reference norms and for SP generally. This inevitably involved much
discussion, disagreement and negotiation. However, a significant factor in terms of
success has been the nature of relationships between the various team members in
terms of positive interpersonal interactions. Despite the number of meetings,
constant revisiting of what we were doing and the inevitable tedium that is
sometimes the reality of meetings, there was acceptance of difference, manage-
ment of egos (even mine) and, not infrequently, humour. The ability to ‘‘see the
funny side’’ is important in work and life, and especially in managing change.
At a personal level, good rapport with a number of colleagues involved in the
implementation, both with the implementation team and school/department-based
faculty has resulted in several papers co-written with colleagues. I had not pre-
viously written papers with engineers about engineering education. Hopefully,
they may have learned some useful knowledge about human learning and peda-
gogy from me, as I certainly know much more about engineering. The observation
by Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) appears to be well constituted:
Structures are only as good as the relationships and know-how of the people who occupy
them. Emotional management is ultimately about attending to these relationships properly.
Managing emotionally and rationally in today’s turbulent times is rocket science. (p. 129)
Similarly, Robbins (2001) powerful observation is worth reiterating in this

context:
Rapport is the ultimate tool for producing results with other people. (p. 231)
7.4 Professional Development
There are many ‘resistors’ to change, as well as the reasons for resistance.
Resistance to change is typically increased when people:
• Don’t see the purpose of the change
• Feel uninvolved in the change process
• Lack skills that are necessary to bring the change about
• Are unclear about what needs to be changed and how to do it.
While lacking the necessary skills and clarity of what to do and how are
typically perceived as pertinent issues for professional development, I take the
position that all aspects of resistance are professional development concerns. If
professional development is to have practical value it must result in contributing to
the core business of the organization. In educational institutions, that core business
is the quality of student learning outcomes (however defined). Invariably, there is
much that contributes to this overarching goal, not least the quality of teaching and
related curriculum components. Professional development, while necessitating
customization to the particular needs and role context of individual faculty, is
ultimately a collective and shared capability. It must encompass the engagement of

key stakeholders in the very process of making meaning and deciding the worth of
a change initiative which, in turn, involves the critical review of educational goals,
practices, research into the proposed change, and some good thinking.
The professional development approach deemed most useful initially was to be
quickly responsive to faculty needs and concerns with the provision of a range of
staff development functions (whether these be customized workshops, working with
school faculty on the development of curriculum materials, or other resource pro-
vision). Most significant, in terms of ensuring success, is the on-going collaborative
work between implementing faculty and the education advisors. As the education
advisors had been involved with both school and department representatives from
the outset it became the practice to further develop and leverage on this close liaison
throughout the implementation. There was a clear recognition that professional
development activities should evolve based on faculty perception of what is needed
and most useful at particular phases of the implementation. For example, in the
initial phase of infusing the CDIO skills in course and module documents, much
collaborative work between school faculty and education advisors was done, and
subsequently followed by sharing and evaluating examples of practice. The same
process continued for the production of learning activities and assessments.
At the present time, school/department based faculty continue to work col-
laboratively with EDU education advisors to support all aspects of CDIO imple-
mentation, whether it is induction of new faculty or further development of mature
programmes. Our approach to professional development is in many ways akin to
that summarized by Elmore and Burney (1999):
We know a good deal about the characteristics of successful professional development: it
focuses on concrete classroom applications of general ideas;it exposes teachers to actual
practice rather than descriptions of practice;it offers opportunity for observation, critique
and reflection; it providesopportunity for group support and collaboration; and it involves
deliberate evaluation and feedback by skilled practitioners with expertise aboutgood
thinking. (p. 263)
A similar frame is suggested by Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) who

summarize that:
Emerging evidence suggests that teachers benefit from participating in theculture of
teaching–by working with the materials and tools of teaching practice;examining teaching
plans and student learning while immersed in theory aboutlearning, development and
subject matter. They also benefit from participatingin practice as they observe teaching,
work closely with experienced teachers, and work with students to use what they are
learning. (p. 404)
In implementing CDIO, there has emerged an essential need to be able to rise to

the challenges of an increasingly diverse and challenging professional teaching
role. While the traditional lecturing approach, that has been the norm for many
faculty, still has merit as an important teaching method, it is no longer a sufficient
pedagogy for developing the kind of student competency profile needed for the
modern workplace and life preparation generally. Furthermore, as discussed in
7.4 Professional Development 125
detail in Chaps. 3 and 5, we are now in a better position to provide more effective
and engaging learning experiences through good pedagogic design and the
affordances of information-communication technologies. The implementation of
CDIO has coincided with an increasing refocusing of educational quality towards
that of enhancing the pedagogic competence of teaching professionals. The
importance of teaching quality has been clearly established by Izumi and Evers
(2002) who, drawing from an extensive range of research source, concluded that:
What the research does show is that the quality of classroom teachers has the greatest
impact on the performance levels of students. (p. xiii)
7.5 Summary
This chapter has attempted to provide a practical frame on managing the change
process in implementing CDIO, as well as our response to ensuring appropriate
and viable professional development for the faculty involved. Key aspects of the
change processes have been highlighted as well as core strategies employed. The
case is made for a thoughtful approach that involves both systematic planning and
a preparedness to respond quickly and responsibly to the emerging experiences,
concerns and needs of implementing faculty. The importance of allowing time and
providing on-going support for faculty to make meaning of the change objectives,
understand what needs to be done and how, as well as develop the necessary skills
for effective implementation is paramount. We still have some way to go in terms
of the change becoming institutionalized, let alone sustained. However, we feel
that much of the implementation approach has been conducted using a sound
curriculum development framework, pedagogic understanding and, most signifi-
cantly, good principles of human conduct. Perhaps that’s as good as it gets in the
real world of educational practice, or in any professional context come to that. We
intend to continue in the same vein.
References
Argyris C (1973) Intervention theory and method. Addisson-Wesley Publishing Company,

London
Argyris C (1993) On organizational learning. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge
Bate P, Bevan H, Robert G (2005) Toward million change agents: a review of the social
movements literature. National Health System, London
Brunsson N (2000) The irrational organization: irrationality as a basis of organizational action
and change. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen
Springer, New York
Darling-Hammond L, Bransford J (2005) Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers
should learn and be able to do. San-Francisco : Jossey-Bass
Elmore RF, Burney D (1999) Investing in Teacher Learning. In: Darling-Hammond L, Sykes G
(eds) Teaching as the learning profession. Jossey Bass, San Francisco
Fullan M (2007) The NEW meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press, New York
Guskey TR (2000) Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks
Hargreaves A, Fullan M (1998) What’s worth fighting for in education. Open University Press,
Buckingham
Hargreaves A, Evans R (1997) Beyond educational reform: bringing teachers back in. Open
University Press, Buckingham
Hargeaves A (1994) Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age. Teachers College Press, New York
Hersey P, Blanchard KH (2001) Management of Organizational Behaviour. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
Huberman M, Miles M (1984) Innovation up close. Plenum, New York
Izumi TL, Evers WM (2002) Teaching quality. Hoover International Press, San Francisco
Mingis C (2001) Quote. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_mingus.html
Accessed 18 Aug 2010
Robbins A (2001) Unlimited power. Pocket books, London
Stacey R (1996) Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco
Towards SP@60(2014), (2009/2010), Opening minds, shaping lives: the strategic plan of
singapore polytechnic. Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore
Appendix 1
The CDIO Syllabus Customized for
Singapore Polytechnic
Technical Knowledge and Reasoning
Knowledge of Underlying Sciences [a]

Mathematics (including statistics)
Physics
Chemistry
Biology.
Core Engineering Fundamental Knowledge [a]

Fluid Mechanics
Solid Mechanics and Materials
Dynamics
Signals and Systems
Thermodynamics
Control
Computers and computation.
Advanced Engineering Fundamental Knowledge [k]

Aerodynamics
Structural Mechanics
Structures and Materials
Jet and Rocket Propulsion
Flight and Advanced Aerospace Dynamics
Computational Techniques
Estimation and Navigation
Human and Supervisory Control
Digital Communications

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4560-29-0, Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014
128 Appendix 1: The CDIO Syllabus Customized for Singapore Polytechnic
Software Engineering
Autonomy
Digital Circuits and Systems.
Personal and Professional Skills and Attributes
Engineering Reasoning and Problem Solving Process

Identify and formulate problems
Evaluate background data and symptoms
Select the key issues to be resolved
Write a problem statement.
Formulate a strategy to solve problems
Apply tests for consistency and errors (limits, units, etc.)
Generate alternative solutions (using models, analytical and numerical solutions,
qualitative analysis, experimentation and consideration of uncertainty, working
within realistic time constraints)
Analyse essential results of solutions and tests
Analyse and reconcile discrepancies in results
Formulate summary recommendations.
Experimentation and Knowledge Discovery

Formulate hypothesis
Select critical questions to be examined
State hypotheses to be tested.
Conduct Literature Review
Conduct information search and identification using library tools (on-line catalogs,
databases, search engines)
Sort and classify secondary information
Evaluate the validity and reliability of information
Identify essential information (e.g., innovations) contained in the information
Cite relevant sources of information.
Conduct Experimental Inquiry
Construct experimental design (e.g., Identify controls and control groups
Identify valid sources of data, Identify the precautions (e.g., environmental, safety
and health) in conducting experiments
Appendix 1: The CDIO Syllabus Customized for Singapore Polytechnic 129
Conduct experiment (Apply test protocols and experimental procedures, Collect

and collate data).
Analyze data and write report
Validate data using statistical methods
Identify the limitations of data employed
Draw conclusions supported by data
Appraise possible improvements in knowledge discovery process.
System Thinking
Understand the basis and methods of System Thinking
Explain the purpose, discipline and methodology of system thinking
Identify types of systems, sub-systems and components
Identify the key characteristics (‘laws’) of systems
Apply systems thinking in problem-solving.
Use a range of systems thinking tools
Identify factors that affect the behavior of the system (e.g., ‘‘input’’, ‘‘throughput’’,
‘‘output’’, ‘‘feedback’’, and ‘‘delay’’)
Analyse the impact of feedback and delay on system behavior.
Personal Skills and Attitudes

Apply the thinking process
Identify key thinking skills in good thinking
Identify barriers to effective thinking (e.g., traits, dispositions, working memory,
perception, lack of information, etc.)
Identify factors that promote effective thinking (motivation, openness, risk taking,
exposure to varied knowledge bases and ideas, etc.)
Use a range of critical thinking skills (e.g., analysis, comparison and contrast,
inference and interpretation, and evaluation)
Use the creative thinking process (e.g., generating possibilities, incubation,
illumination)
Use a range of creative thinking tools and techniques (e.g., Brainstorming,
Mindmapping, TRIZ)
Identify contradictory perspectives and underlying assumptions
Reframe and take a range of different perspectives
Use metacognition in monitoring the quality of personal thinking.
Manage Learning
Identify key aspects of the learning process
Identify how emotions and beliefs affect learning

Identify approaches for self-improvement (e.g., lifelong learning, creating positive
beliefs and psychological states, managing emotions, etc.)
Display key dispositions (e.g., initiative, perseverance, flexibility, etc.) in work
projects
Use a range of learning strategies and skills (e.g., goal setting, learning plans,
organizing/summarizing information, receiving feedback, etc.)
Manage time and resources.
Professional Skills and Attitudes

Evaluate the impact of values and ethics
Identify the need for values and ethical codes of conduct
Compare and contrast value systems and ethical codes of conduct
Analyse the impact of values and ethical codes of conduct on personal and
professional behaviour.
Demonstrate professional behavior at work and in society
Use ethical reasoning on issues relating to human conduct in personal and
professional contexts
Identify behaviours that demonstrate social responsibility
Demonstrate behavior consistent with agreed codes of ethics and values systems.
Staying current on emerging research and practices
Analyse current research and practices in own professional field
Identify the impact of new research and technology on engineering practices.
Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork and Communication
Teamwork
Form Effective Teams
Identify the components of an effective team
Identify the stages of team formation
Identify team roles and their impact on team performance
Analyse the strengths and weakness of a team.
Manage and Participate in Teams
Identify goals and agenda
Apply team ground rules

Apply facilitation and conflict resolution strategies
Display teamwork, including leadership, in a range of team role situations.
Communications
Design appropriate communications strategies
Analyze the communication situation (e.g., in terms of purpose, audience and
context (PAC))
Identify key considerations in communicating across cultures and disciplines
Identify communications objectives
Read critically and select relevant content
Identify and choose appropriate communication structure and style
Select appropriate multimedia and graphical communication (e.g., email,
voicemail, video conferencing, tables and charts, sketching and drawing).
Demonstrate effective written communication
Write with logical organization and clear language flow
Use concise and precise language
Use correct grammar, spelling and punctuation
Apply appropriate written styles with appropriate formatting conventions to suit
PAC.
Demonstrate effective oral communication
Design and deliver presentations applying communication design principles (e.g.,
as in 1.1.1 above)
Speak clearly and coherently (e.g., to be understood in a range of communication
situations)
Use appropriate nonverbal communications (e.g., posture, gestures, eye contact)
Demonstrate active and empathetic listening in a range of communication
situations (e.g., working in teams, responding to questions, etc.)
Ask and answer questions effectively.
Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and Operating Systems

in the Enterprise and Societal Context
External and Societal Context

Understand Roles and Responsibility of Technologists
Explain professional goals and roles of the engineering profession
Analyse the responsibilities of technologists to society.
Understand the Impact of Engineering on Society
Explain the impact of engineering on the environment (e.g., ecological, social,

economic, cultural systems etc.)
Explain the need for Sustainable Development
Identify possible solutions to support Sustainable Development.
Understand the Regulation of Engineering
Recognize the way in which legal systems regulate and influence engineering
Describe how professional societies license and set standards
Describe how intellectual property is created, utilized and defended.
Develop a Global Perspective
Identify the basis of cultural diversity
Compare and contrast a range of cultural practices and their impact on human
conduct and communication
Define globalization
Identify factors that contribute to globalization
Identify the social, economic and environmental impact of globalization.
Enterprise and Business Context

Appreciate Different Enterprise Cultures
Recognize the differences in process, culture, and metrics of success in various
enterprise cultures:
Corporate vs. academic vs. governmental vs. non-profit/NGO
Market vs. policy driven
Large vs. small
Centralized vs. distributed
Research and development vs. operations
Mature vs. growth phase vs. entrepreneurial
Longer vs. faster development cycles
With vs. without the participation of organized labor.
Identify Enterprise Strategy, Goals, and Planning
State the mission and scope of the enterprise
Recognize an enterprise’s core competence and markets
Recognize the research and technology process
Recognize key alliances and supplier relations
List financial and managerial goals and metrics
Recognize financial planning and control
Describe stake-holder relations (with owners, employees, customers, etc.).
Understand Technical Entrepreneurship

Recognize entrepreneurial opportunities that can be addressed by technology
Recognize technologies that can create new products and systems
Describe entrepreneurial finance and organization.
Understand Organizational Structure and Dynamics
Define the function of management and organizational structure
Describe various roles and responsibilities in an organization
Describe the roles of functional and program organizations
Describe working effectively within hierarchy and organizations
Describe change, dynamics and evolution in organizations.
Conceiving and Engineering Systems

Identify market needs and opportunities
Elicit and interpret customer needs
Identify opportunities which derive from new technology or latent needs
Classify competitors and benchmarking information.
Define Function, Concept and Architecture
Identify necessary functions (and behavioral specifications)
Select relevant engineering concepts
Identify the appropriate level of technology
Analyse trade-offs and recombination of concepts
Identify high level architectural form and structure
Identify the decomposition of form into elements, assignment of function to
elements, and definition of interfaces.
Model System to Verify Goals
Identify appropriate models and prototype, (e.g., models, animation tools,
simulation etc.) of technical performance
Describe the concept of implementation and operations
Select between trade-offs among various goals, function, concept, structure and
cost.
Develop Project plan
Produce project scope, objectives and deliverables
Identify project resources (e.g., cost, manpower, facilities, etc.)
Produce project schedule, key milestones and critical path analysis
Identify risks and contingency plans
Produce project report guidelines.
Designing
Formulate the Design
Choose requirements for each element or component derived from goals and
requirements
Analyse alternatives in design
Evaluate prior work in the field, standardization and reuse of designs (including
reverse engineer and redesign)
Select the most appropriate design
Synthesize the final design.
Plan the Design Process and Approaches
Explain the activities in the phases of system design (e.g., conceptual, preliminary,
and detailed design)
Identify process models appropriate for particular development projects (waterfall,
spiral, concurrent, etc.).
Apply Disciplinary Knowledge and Skills
Choose appropriate techniques, tools, and processes
Conduct quantitative analysis of alternatives
Evaluate analytical refinement of the design.
Apply a Multidisciplinary Perspective
Explain multidisciplinary design
Compare and contrast different discipline perspectives (e.g., conventions,
assumptions, design environments)
Identify interactions between disciplines in design.
Evaluate design/prototype to achieve multiple objectives
Appraise design for:
• Performance, life cycle cost and value
• Optimizing experience through aesthetics and other human factors
• Implementation, verification, test and environmental sustainability
• Functionality
• Maintainability, reliability, and safety
• Robustness, evolution, product improvement and retirement.
Implementing
Plant the Implementation Process
State the goals for performance, cost and quality
Plan the implementation project according to:
Task allocation
Work flow.
Plan for Hardware Realization
Describe the production of parts
Describe the assembly of parts into larger constructs
Define tolerances, variability, key characteristics and statistical process control.
Planning for Software Implementing Process
Explain the breakdown of high level components into module designs (including
algorithms and data structures)
Describe algorithms (data structures, control flow, data flow)
Describe the programming language
Execute the low-level design (coding)
Describe the system build.
Planning for Hardware Software Integration
Describe the integration of software in electronic hardware (size of processor,
communications, etc.)
Describe the integration of software integration with sensor, actuators and
mechanical hardware
Describe hardware/software function and safety.
Testing, Verifying, Validating, and Certifying
Describe test and analysis procedures (hardware vs. software, acceptance vs.
qualification)
Describe the verification of performance to system requirements
Evaluate the validation of performance to customer needs
Verify design conformance to standards.
Managing Implementation
Identify sourcing, partnering, and supply chains
Control implementation cost, performance and schedule
Describe quality and safety assurance
Describe possible implementation process improvements.
Operating
Planning Training and Operation procedures
Interpret the goals for operational performance, cost, and value
Identify types training for professional operations (e.g., Simulation, demonstration,
instructional procedures)
Plan a training program for end user

Produce operational process manual.
Managing Operations
Forming partnerships and alliances
Control operational cost, performance and scheduling
Describe quality and safety assurance
Describe possible operations process improvements.
Supporting the Product Lifecycle
Explain maintenance and logistics
Describe lifecycle performance and reliability
Recommend product improvement based on needs observed in operation
List disposal options
List environmental considerations for disposal.
About the Author
Dennis Sale is presently Senior Education

Advisor at Singapore Polytechnic. He has
previously worked across all sectors of the
British educational system. Over the past 20
years Dennis has been extensively involved in
training, coaching and assessing teaching
professionals in a variety of vocational and
cultural contexts. His specialist areas include
Creative Teaching, Curriculum Development
and Blended Learning. He has invented highly
effective and practical models in these areas,
provided a wide range of consultancies for both
public and private sector organizations, and conducted numerous workshops in
many countries. He is also widely noted to be a dynamic and creative presenter,
blending practical relevance with situated humour.

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4560-29-0, Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

CDIO Book PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDIO Book PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDIO Book PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What framework was used to reframe the engineering courses at Singapore Polytechnic?

What framework was used to reframe the engineering courses at Singapore Polytechnic?

Dennis Sale

The Challenge of Reframing

ISBN 978-981-4560-28-3 ISBN 978-981-4560-29-0 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2013948857

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

We understand everything in human life through stories.

Successful curriculum implementation, by its very nature, requires a high level of

2 Producing Curriculum Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Effective and Creative Learning Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 25

3.4 Applying the Pedagogic Framework: Effective

5 Using Information-Communication Technologies

6 Evaluating the CDIO Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

6.4 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

7 Managaing the Change Process; Approach, Strategies

Appendix 1: The CDIO Syllabus Customized

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education is the first book to document

1.2 CDIO Framework and Rationale

CDIO is an international initiative, originally conceived at the Massachusetts

D. Sale, The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education, 1

Essentially, engineering education was seen as over prioritizing the teaching of

The importance of Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate, as an organizing

The creation of an educational framework that would encompass this wide

The implementation of a CDIO program is guided by 12 standards, which

1.3 Chapters in this Book

Each chapter focuses on particular aspects of implementing curriculum reframing

Table 1.1 Summary of CDIO standards

approach into a more comprehensive learning framework, based on the most

Crawley E, Malmqvist J, Ostlund S, Brodeur D (2007) Rethinking engineering education.

Defining curriculum outcomes is essentially concerned with addressing the

In the specific context of engineering education, the issue of curriculum out-

However, in engineering, as in most curriculum areas, we are being faced with

D. Sale, The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education, 7

In the present societal context of rapid change, unpredictability and a volatile

The strong commitment to education in Singapore, a nation state renowned for

2.2 Challenges to Higher Education Institutions

Furthermore, there are other widespread concerns raised concerning institutions of

In an increasingly competitive educational landscape, institutions of higher

2.3 Deriving Specific CDIO Curriculum Outcomes

This was a major challenge as we needed to produce a customized programme

2.4 Integrating CDIO Skills into Course and Module

This specifically focuses on CDIO Standard 3: Integrated Curriculum:

In contrast, Young (1971) argued that knowledge is less delineated at the

Fig. 2.1 Integrated Design Build Module

2.5 Using the Concept of Infusion for Integrating

outcomes. This led to content reduction, rationalization, and updating in many

evaluation (documented in Chap. 6 : Evaluating the CDIO Experience) was that

There is no shortage of models of thinking or lists of thinking skills, processes

2.6 An Explicit Model of Good Thinking

experience phenomena in the world—based on prior experience and selective

Fig. 2.2 Sale Model of

Table 2.1 Summary of key heuristics of types of thinking

Metacognition, as outlined above, is the monitoring and evaluation of the overall