The CDIO-FCDI-FFCD rubrics for evaluation of three-cycle engineering programs

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Kuban State Technological University

The CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Rubrics for Evaluation of Three-Cycle Engineering Programs

Alexander I. Chuchalin - Dr. Sc. (Engineering), Prof.

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to propose Rubrics for self-evaluation of graduate and postgraduate engineering programs based on the FCDI (Forecast, Conceive, Design, Implement) Standards and FFCD (Foresight, Forecast, Conceive, Design) Standards by analogy with Rubrics for self-evaluation of undergraduate engineering programs based on the CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate) Standards. The FCDI Standards and FFCD Standards were developed for Master's and Doctoral engineering programs as a result of the CDIO approach evolution and by analogy with the CDIO Standards originally developed for Bachelor's engineering programs. The CDIO/FCDI/FFCD Standards are recommended for the design and implementation of three-cycle engineering programs to train graduates for complex, innovative and research engineering activities, respectively, taking into account the features of the division of labor in the engineering profession. The 6-level scale Rubrics are helpful for evaluation the degree of Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral engineering programs compliance with the recommendations of the CDIO, FCDI and FFCD Standards, respectively.

Keywords: engineering education, CDIO Bachelor, FCDI Master, FFCD Doctor, Rubrics for evaluation

Аннотация

CDIO-FCDI-FFCD- рубрики для оценки трёхуровневых инженерных программ

Чучалин Александр Иванович - д-р техн. наук, проф.

Кубанский государственный технологический университет

Аннотация. В статье предложены рубрики для са,мооценки образовательных программ магистратуры!, и аспирантуры в области техники и технологий на основе стандартов FCDI (Forecast, Conceive, Design, Implement) и FFCD (Foresight, Forecast, Conceive, Design) по аналогии с рубриками для самооценки программ бакалавриата на основе стандартов CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate). Стандарты FCDI и FFCD разработаны для про- гра,мм ма,гистратуры и аспирантуры по техническим направлениям в результате эволюции подхода CDIO по ана,логии со станда,рта,ми CDIO, изначально созданными для программ бакалавриата. Стандарты CDIO/FCDI/FFCD рекомендуется применять при проектировании и реа,лизации трёхуровневых программ в области техники и технологий для подготовки выпускников, соответственно, к комплексной, инновационной и исследовательской инженерной деятельности, принимая во внимание особенности разделения труда в инженерной профессии. Рубрики с 6-уровневой шкалой полезно использовать для оценки степени соответствия инженерных программ бакалавриата, магистратуры и аспирантуры рекомендациям стандартов CDIO, FCDI и FFCD, соответственно.

Ключевые слова.: инженерное образование, CDIO Бакалавриат, FCDI Магистратура, FFCD Аспирантура, рубрики для оценки программ

Introduction

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the CDIO concept of improving engineering education was developed, taking into account the realities of time and providing a balance between theory and practice. This concept was aimed at training engineers capable of working on the CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate) stages of the life cycle of products, processes and systems. The CDIO Standards, containing recommendations on the planning of graduate's learning outcomes, curriculum design, learning technologies application, as well as the creation of material resources for program support and faculty development were offered to universities implementing basic (Bachelor's) engineering programs [1]- From the very beginning each of the 12 CDIO Standards was accompanied by Description, Rationale and Rubric for engineering program evaluation aligned with the CDIO Standards [2]. Universities that decide to implement the recommendations of the CDIO Standards using Rubrics carry out a selfevaluation of the programs for compliance with these standards. The Rubrics have been designed deliberately to encourage planning and allow universities various styles of CDIO Standards implementation and adoption. The Rubric is a table with the help of which on a 6-level scale it is possible to determine the degree of compliance of an engineering program with the recommendations of one or another CDIO Standard.

The CDIO Standards have become popular in universities of various countries. Currently, more than 140 universities located on all continents have united in the Worldwide CDIO Initiative organization and exchange best practices in applying the CDIO approach to the design and implementation of engineering programs. More than a dozen Russian universities are among the participants of the organization [3]. Some of them actively use the CDIO Standards for the modernization of engineering programs and share their experience with foreign colleagues [4-10]. Universities that implement the CDIO Standards use Rubrics both for self-evaluation of the programs as a whole and for selfassessment of the curriculum elements ensuring the achievement of intended learning outcomes by students [11-15].

In 2014, the CDIO Standards have been revised and Rubrics have been further modified. However, these modifications have been relatively minor and have not changed the scope or the main contents of the standards. At the same time, as a result of widespread use of the CDIO Standards, proposals for their more significant modification began to appear [16; 17] including proposals to supplement the existing standards with new ones related to digital learning, diversity, engineering entrepreneurship, engineering ethics, internationalization & mobility, leadership, Master-level CDIO programs, multidisciplinary, collaborative skills, research-integrated education, sustainable development, etc. The need for the evolution of the CDIO approach has become apparent. The issue is being discussed in publications and at regular meetings of collaborators - participants of the Worldwide CDIO Initiative.

CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Models

In 2013, some Russian universities - participants of the Worldwide CDIO Initiative became members of “elite” group of 15 leading Russian universities - participants of so called “5-100 Russian academic excellence project”. The goal of the project was to improve the quality and prestige of Russian higher education and bring at least 5 Russian universities from among the project participants into the 100 best universities in the world according to the three most authoritative world rankings: QS, TIMES and ARWU. After some time, 6 more Russian universities entered the project.

As part of the “5-100 Russian academic excellence project”, 21 Russian universities have focused on graduate and postgraduate higher education including Master's (MSc) and Doctoral (PhD) programs in engineering and technology. To implement the strategy focusing on graduate and postgraduate engineering education, universities needed a conceptual and methodological basis for improving the quality of MSc and PhD engineering programs. The CDIO approach could become such a basis. However, the CDIO Standards, originally developed for basic (undergraduate) engineering education and well-proven in the process of upgrading Bachelor's (BEng) programs, did not fully comply with MSc and PhD engineering programs. At Tomsk Polytechnic University with the participation of representatives of other Russian universities - Worldwide CDIO Initiative collaborators, relevant studies were conducted and it was proposed to evolve the CDIO approach and adapt it to graduate and postgraduate engineering education [18]. Further developments led to the creation of the CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Models for three-cycle engineering education [19].

Firstly, by analogy with the CDIO Syllabus (CDIO Standard 2), lists of intended learning outcomes (LOs) for graduates of MSc and PhD engineering programs were developed, which, unlike BEng programs graduates trained for complex engineering, should be focused on innovative and research engineering activities, respectively. In the formation of a list of intended LOs for Master's engineering programs, it was proposed to use the abbreviation FCDI (Forecast, Conceive, Design, Implement) instead of the abbreviation CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate). The absence of “Operate” in a new abbreviation indicates that this kind of engineering activity (operation and maintenance of products, processes and systems) is not a priority for MSc program graduates. The presence of “Forecast” emphasizes the importance of forecasting potential needs of society in new products, processesity for PhD program graduates. The presence of “Foresight” emphasizes the importance of technological foresight to anticipate potential needs of society and to create a scientific basis for conceiving and designing new products, processes and systems in the research activity.

Secondly, by analogy with the CDIO Standards, the FCDI Standards and FFCD Standards were developed. The standards give appropriate recommendations for the design and implementation of MSc and PhD engineering programs providing graduate's LOs required for innovative and research engineering activities. Based on the CDIO Standards, FCDI Standards and FFCD Standards it is possible to develop, design, implement and evaluate Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral programs aimed at graduate's training for complex, innovative and research engineering activities, respectively. Based on the CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Triad, a new generation of BEng, MSc and PhD engineering programs can be designed. The CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Models were piloted at Tomsk Polytechnic University and further developed at Kuban State Technological University [20; 21].

CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Rubrics

As already noted, the application of the CDIO Standards begins with self-evaluation of Bachelor's programs using appropriate Rubrics. When creating new versions of the CDIO Standards, new Rubric versions were created accordingly [22-24]. For self-evaluation of Master's and Doctoral engineering programs for compliance with the FCDI Standards and FFCD Standards, corresponding Rubrics have been developed by analogy with the updated Rubrics for the CDIO Standards (v.2.1) [23]. The Rubrics for the CDIO/FCDI/FFCD Standards are presented below. Each Rubric is provided with a description of a CDIO/FCDI/FFCD/Standard, summarized in a single table.

CDIO-FCDI-FFCD Standard 1

The CDIO/FCDI/FFCD Standard 1 regarding the context of undergraduate/graduate/ postgraduate engineering education is presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows the priority activities of the Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral program graduates at the Foresight - Forecast - Conceive - Design - Implement - Operate stages, taking into account the system of division of labor in the engineering profession.

The degree of compliance of three-cycle engineering programs with the CDIO/FCDI/ FFCD Standard 1 is determined with the use of a 6-point scale based on the criteria presented in the Rubric (Table 3). Similar Rubrics (Tables 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26) are used to determine the degree of compliance of three-cycle engineering programs with other standards (Tables 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21,23, 25).

Table 1 CDIO/FCDI/FFCD Standard 1 - The Context