international cdio standards in russian n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Alexander Chuchalin Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russia PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Alexander Chuchalin Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russia

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 42

Alexander Chuchalin Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russia

3 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Alexander Chuchalin Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russia

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. International CDIO Standards in Russian Engineering Education Alexander Chuchalin Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russia

  2. Engineering educationin Russia The key factorsof engineering education development in the Russian Federation prescribe the need of complex training of faculty staff and university managers to modernization of educational programmes.

  3. Engineering education in Russia • Issues of training engineers of a new generation are in the spotlight at Russia. Actions taken to reform engineering educationimply: • the increase in state funding for training of engineering students, • modernization of laboratories and technical facilities within engineering schools, • grants for academic mobility programmes and internships, • updating of education-related legislation.

  4. Engineering educationin Russia 2. Evolution of the Federal State Educational Standards (FSES) shows the tendencies to extend academic freedom and responsibility of HEIs in ensuring the quality of education. However: Universities are not always ready to flex their rights in designing and implementing educational programme in accordance with the stakeholders’ demand.

  5. Engineering education in Russia 3. Russian engineering education is proud of its strong fundamentals. However: Development of students’ practical engineering skills remains a “sore point” of Russian engineering education. Employers consider that around 40% of newly graduated engineers need to be re-trained immediately.

  6. CDIOConcept CDIO Concept is one of the most systematic and comprehensive approaches to design, implementation and modernisation of engineering programmes. CDIOis based on a commonly shared premise that engineering graduates should be able to: Conceive – Design — Implement — Operate complex value-added engineering systems in a modern team-based engineering environment to create systems and products.

  7. CDIOConcept The conceptwas developed within the InternationalCDIO Initiative and is currently being implemented in more than 100 universities around the world. The CDIO Initiative was developed with input from academics, industry, engineers, and students and was specifically designed as a template that can be adapted and adopted by any university engineering school.

  8. CDIOConcept The CDIO Initiative aims to reach a consensus between theory and practice in engineering educationby setting actual requirementsto competences ofgraduates and creating relevant educational environment. There are two cornerstonesof CDIO: CDIO Syllabus and CDIO Standards.

  9. CDIOConcept CDIO Syllabus offers rational, complete, universal and generalizable goals for undergraduate engineering education. 12 CDIO Standardsare actual requirements to engineering programmes. They serve as a guideline for educational programmereform and evaluation, create benchmarks and goals with worldwide application, and provide a framework for continuous improvement.

  10. CDIOin Russia The CDIO approach to modernization of engineering education is becoming more and more popular in Russian HEIs. In the period of 2011-2015, 14 Russian HEIs have joined the CDIO Initiative. The objectives of the CDIO Initiative in educating and training of a new generation of engineers correspond exactly to the tasks of modernization of Russian engineering education.

  11. CDIO Academy in Russia The CDIO Academy is a project aimed at training of managers and faculty staff at Russian HEIs to modernize engineering education using CDIO approach. In frame of the project the professional development programme “Applying CDIO Standards in Engineering Education” was designed by Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU) and Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (Skoltech) with assistance of Chalmers University of Technology(Sweden) and other participants of CDIO Initiative.

  12. CDIO Academy in Russia The Programmeconsists of 5 modules. It is scheduled for implementation for a period of 16 weeks (one academic semester) and involves 3 face-to-face sessions (interactive lectures and practical classes), 2 internet on-line webinars, and self-guided workof trainees (development of 4 projects). Module 5 Module 3 Module 1 webinar webinar face-to-face session face-to-face session face-to-face session Module 2 Module 4

  13. CDIO Academy in Russia The Programmehas strong practical orientation. During the study period the trainees modernize their engineering programmes(modules/courses) by applying the acquired new knowledgeand skills. The topics of Programme sections and projects are designed in compliance with the CDIO model: Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate.

  14. CDIO Academy in Russia Module 1: Conceive While studying the sections of the 1st Module the trainees pass through the ‘Conceive’ stage of the engineering programmedesign: they develop programmeobjectivesand learning outcomes necessary for future professional activity and make them aligned with the key stakeholders (employers) needs. The CDIO approach to engineering education. 1.1. Engineering activity and engineering education. 1.2. The system of the CDIO Standards. 1.3. CDIO Standard 1. The CDIO approach in the context of engineering education. 1.4. CDIO Standard 2. Intended learning outcomes based on the CDIO Syllabus. Module project (P.1): Planning the learning outcomes for particular engineering programme (module, course) based on the CDIO Syllabus.

  15. CDIO Academy in Russia Projects of the 2nd and 3rd Modules are focused on the ‘Design’ and ‘Implement’ stages of engineering programme and its elements: design of integrated curricula implying progressive sequential development of professional, personal and interpersonal competencies of students by means of project-based learning technologies. Module 2: Design Design of engineering programme based on the CDIO approach. 2.1. CDIO Standard 3. The integrated curriculum design. 2.2. CDIO Standard 4. The module “Introduction to engineering”. Module project (P.2): Designing particular engineering programme(module/course) based on the CDIO approach.

  16. CDIO Academy in Russia Module 3: Implement Organization of the teaching and learning processes based on the CDIO concept. 3.1. CDIO Standard 5. Organization of the students project work and innovation activities. 3.2. CDIO Standard 6. Workspace for students engineering activities. 3.3. CDIO Standard 7. Technology of integrated education. 3.4. CDIO Standard 8. Active learning methods. Module project (P.3): Development of project and innovation topics for the students engineering activity within particular engineering programme (module/course).

  17. CDIO Academy in Russia At the ‘Operate’ stage, the trainees develop assessment methods and criteria of students learning outcomes achievement, as well as evaluatetheir engineering programme for its compliance with CDIO Standards. Module 4: Operate Assessment of learning outcomes and evaluation of the engineering programme. 4.1. CDIO Standard 11. Assessment of the students learning outcomes. 4.2. CDIO Standard 12. Evaluation of the engineering programme. Module project (P.4): Development of indicators and assessment methods aimed at learning outcomes achievement within particular engineering programme (module/course).

  18. CDIO Academy in Russia The Module 5 is dedicated to discussion and elaboration of the systematic plans and models that enhance faculty competencesin providing of modernized engineering programme. Module 5: C-D-I-O Training faculty staff to implement the CDIO concept. 5.1. CDIO Standard 9. Faculty staff development for CDIO implementation. 5.2. CDIO Standard 10. Enhancing faculty staff competency for teaching.

  19. CDIO Academy in Russia • Two rounds of the Programme were completed. In the framework of Programmepilot implementation (January – May, 2014) the system of its quality monitoring was launched and tested. • The feedback from various stakeholder groupswas obtained: • administrative staff and managers responsible for CDIO implementation at Russian universities, • Programmeinstructors, • Programmetrainees.

  20. What are the key results of the survey amongst Russian CDIO members? 1. The results of the survey showed that CDIO approachis implemented for modernization of wide variety of programmes. This concerns different levels of education (research oriented and practice oriented bachelor and master studies) and various fields of study (engineering sciences, management and humanities). Such dispersion of programmeswhere CDIO is applied causes some difficulties both among the trainees and instructors themselves. However it reveals the innovative experience of Russian Universities and will contribute to differentiation of requirements (Standards and Syllabus) imposed on various CDIO programmes.

  21. What are the key results of the survey amongst Russian CDIO members? 2. Basic reasons preventing implementation of CDIO approachat Russian HEIs are:

  22. What are the key results of the survey amongst Russian CDIO members? 3. All universities whose representatives participated in the CDIO Academy use teaching and information materials of the Programme as methodological support for providing educational reforms. As a rule, the Programmematerials are adjusted to peculiarities of educational process at the universities.

  23. What are the key results of the survey amongst Russian CDIO members? The Programmesections, the materials of which were the most frequently implemented by the participants for providing educational reforms (percentage of HEIs):

  24. What are the main remarks of the Programme instructors? 1. When fulfilling practical tasks and projects the majority of the trainees used best practices and creative ideasof educational programmesreforming available at their universities. The problem is that these innovative experiences exist separately from each other (as a practice of a particular university or even as a technology of a particular course). Thus, the instructors view one of the Programme’simportant task as identification and discussion of these innovative experiences and their wide distribution.

  25. What are the main remarks of the programmeinstructors? 2. One of the biggest difficulty that the instructors faced on is that the majority of the trainees do not clearly define their role in the process of educational programme modernization at their universities. They do not see the area of their responsibility for educational programme outcomes. It results in poor readiness and low motivation of faculty staff ‘to go beyond the field of their subject’ for collaboration and alignment of actions with other departments of an university.

  26. What are the main remarks of the programmeinstructors? • 3. As Рrogramme instructors noticed, the most discussed and crucial questions were: • how to involve industry representatives into educational process at all stages of engineering programme life cycle (design, implementation and evaluation)? • how to motivate faculty to change its teaching and learning methods? • how to define the start points of modernization process?

  27. Results of Programmeevaluation done by the trainees • 1. The trainees identified the Programme sections that should be considered in more details, with demonstration of examples and master-classes, because the subjects of them are particularly challenging for the Russian engineering education: • CDIO Standard 3. The integrated curriculum design (45% of trainees), • CDIO Standard 7. Technology of integrated education (34% of trainees), • CDIO Standard 2. Planning intended learning outcomes based on the CDIO Syllabus (27% of trainees), • CDIO Standard 5. Organization of the students projectand innovation activities (27% of trainees), • CDIO Standard 8. Active learning methods (25% of trainees).

  28. Results of Programmeevaluation done by the trainees • 2. The trainees marked issues of educational changeswhich are considered as the most difficult to apply: • identification of institutional requirements to the quality of educational programmes, • design and assessment of learning outcomes, which traditionally were not considered ‘engineering’ ones, however become important when engineering graduates competencies are concerned: personal and interpersonal skills, leadership, entrepreneurship and teamwork, • organizationand mentoring of project- and problem based courses.

  29. Results of Programmeevaluation done by the trainees 3. The CDIO experience and practice of foreign partners (Chalmers University of Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Aalborg University, Technical University of Denmark, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) that were the most valuable for the Programme participants:

  30. Development of the Programme • On the basis of integration of feedback data obtained from various stakeholder groups after pilot implementation of the Programme, it was substantially modernized. • Changes covered 3 aspects of the Programme: • contentof Programmemodules and project tasks, • technologyof Programmeimplementation, application of learning methods; • systemof educational process assessment.

  31. Changes in the Programme’scontent • In compliance with stakeholder’s demands the following topics were included into the Programme: • comparison of requirements of the Russian FSES with international standards of engineering education (CDIO, EUR-ACE, WA); • HEI joining the CDIO Initiative: objectives, tasks, application submission procedure, programme modernization results, cooperation of universities within the CDIO Network; • strategy and tactics of engineering programmes modernization on the basis of CDIO Standards, definition of the scope of transformations and resources needed.

  32. Changes in the Programme’scontent • We tried to provide the trainees with a lot of examples ofimplementing the CDIO approach into the educational process of Russian universities taking into account requirements of the Russian legislation, including development of institutional regulatory documents. • In frame of the Programme7 Russian CDIO members shared their best practices on how to adapt CDIO approach for modernization of educational programmes and process.

  33. Changes in implementation technology • Changes in implementation technology refer to reinforcement of active and integrated learning methods: • discussions on issues and problems related to CDIO application, • master-classes and trainings on using active learning methods and organization project- and problem-based academic activities, • case-studies, including examples of applying the CDIO approach in Russian and foreign universities, • practical tasks for teamwork of trainees, which ensure peer learning and sharing experience.

  34. Additions to the methods of assessment The basic change in the system of programmeevaluation is introduction of peer assessment method. This contributes to trainees learning about the experience and ideas of each other and promotes active discussions among them. Besides, the active forums on the basis of LMS Moodle are supported. They are used to consult the trainees, to get feedback and exchange opinions regarding relevant topics.

  35. Results For every section of the Programmethe trainees were offered to evaluate from 1 to 5 (5 is the highest on the scale) the levels of following aspects: • relevance (to what extend the subject of the section is relevant for modernization of engineering programme), • practical importance (to what extend the materials of the section and acquired knowledge and skills will be used), • novelty (to what extend the content of the section systematizes and enlarges the knowledge of Programmeparticipants in corresponding fields).

  36. Results The overall score for relevance of the 1st round of the Programmewas 4.51out of 5, and 4.61is the overall score of the 2nd round.

  37. Results The overall score for novelty of the 1st round of the Programmewas 4.16out of 5, and 4.37is the overall score of the 2nd round.

  38. Results The overall score for practical importance of the 1st round of the Programmewas 4.39 out of 5, and 4.43 is the overall score of the 2nd round.

  39. Conclusion The proposed model of Faculty Developmentprogramme provides complex preparation of the trainees to go through all stages of educational programme improvement: starting with setting learning outcomes to evaluating its quality. CDIO has served as an effective framework for Russian faculty staff training to be able to implement system changes of all elements of engineering programmes: learning outcomes, content and structure, teaching, learning and assessment methods.

  40. Conclusion The Programme evaluation shows that the respondents gave high scores to all Programme’ssections (the overall score for all sections of the 1st round was 4.35 out of 5, and 4.47is the overall score of the 2nd round). The involvement of wide range of stakeholders into Programme evaluation allowed to reveal the issues which are particularly challenging for Russian HEIs as well as to identify the faculty skills which are mainly wanted to develop.

  41. Results According to the opinion of respondents the biggest success of the Programmeis the fact that it develops Russian teaching community, which in its turn is motivated and interested in developing the engineering education.

  42. Many Thanks !