Interdisciplinary Engineering Education - Practice Based Case Ville Taajamaa1, Tomi Westerlund1, Xing Guo3 Maija Hupli2, Sanna Salanterä2 and Tapio Salakoski1 1 Information Technology, University of Turku, Finland 2 Nursing Science, University of Turku, Finland 3 Information Science and Technology, Fudan University, P.R.China {firstname.lastname}@utu.fi1,2,
[email protected] Abstract Multiple disciplines approach, which includes interdisciplinarity, has been discussed in the engineering education context from the early 21st Century [1]. There is very little disagreement about its importance for the engineers. The key question has been how? How to implement theory into practice both in the curriculum and in the actual learning enhancement phase? Both Problem-based learning [2] and CDIO framework [1] are constructivist learning approaches [3] that emphasize these issues. In this paper, we discuss and elaborate some of the learning results of two interdisciplinary master´s level student teams that were structurally organized as Capstone project courses [4]. The course projects had ill-defined and openended problem setting. The coaching for students was organized from the departments of Information Technology and Nursing Science at University of Turku. Students that participated in the project represented 3 higher education institutions and 8 disciplines. The disciplines were nursing science, engineering, sustainable development, computer science, social science, educational science, business and administration as well as futures studies. Altogether there were fifteen (15) students from two (2) different nationalities in this study. The results show that in a teamwork and problem oriented and project based setting [5] the learning of professional skills of the students can be enhanced both at the team and the individual level. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary learning happens inside the teams and it depends on the time used, structure of the facilitation process and the general team dynamics. This is, however, not always the case and the possible reasons for this will be discussed.
Keywords Interdisciplinary engineering education, the Capstone course, Professional skills, Intended learning results
1. Introduction As the complexity of the real-life engineering challenges increase, the need for more diverse professional skills for the engineering students has increased and become more and more relevant [6]. This means that enhancing the crossdisciplinary learning process and assessing professional competencies has become even more important than before [7]. Engineers are expected to have disciplinary knowledge with technical competencies coupled with a strong grasp of additional skill sets. Fundamental knowledge includes areas such as sound knowledge in mathematics and natural sciences in general, capability to apply theory in practice and more recently basis for innovative and creative work [6]. In
addition to these fundamentals, problem–solving capabilities with flexible communication skills in teamwork and in international setting are expected [8]. The problem is that in many cases there is a gap between the statements of degree programmes and how they relate to the actual courses, and the goals set in those programmes [7]. All this in a context where engineering education has been struggling with the same issues for at least the past 35 years [1]. These include areas such as: bringing the context of human diversity into the engineering education; general social responsibility and ethics of engineering; creativeness; exciting first year for students; and retention of engineering students in general [1]. One of the possible answers to these issues has been a more hands-on approach to the teaching process with emphasis on problem-solving skills in a team setting [2,1]. This approach, coupled with interdisciplinary approach is seen as bridging the gap between the professional or working life skills and the fundamental technical knowledge. University of Turku, Finland (UTU) adopted problem oriented and project based learning as its educational approach and integrated the CDIO approach [1] into its engineering education. UTU is a multidisciplinary science university and has engineering education in the fields of information technology (IT) and biotechnology. The strategy of UTU Engineering is to integrate the disciplines of the university into its engineering teaching through interdisciplinary master´s level courses called Capstone projects [8]. The Capstone course, described in more detail below, comprises of an ill-defined and open-ended problem setting provided by an outside customer, a municipal organization and an international ICT company in these cases. In a Capstone1 case, the aim of the project was to “Better the night-time safety of older people”, especially focusing in the older people with memory diseases. The project focused in working with one nursing home with residents living in the home from two weeks to permanent positions. In a Capstone2 case, the task was to “Identify what are the future ways of learning mathematics in different age groups, societies and cultures and how are the educational technologies integrated into these”. This project focused to the math learning in Turku, Finland and in Shanghai, P.R.China. In this paper, we continue with the subject presented in our prior research [8]. In addition to the data gathered from the international Capstone project (Capstone2) [8], we have new data from another Capstone project (Capstone1) that is done in collaboration with the department of Nursing Science at UTU and the municipal authority of the City of Turku. The main focus of this research is to find whether the
interdisciplinary learning outcomes were achieved during the Capstone project or not. The interdisciplinarity was reached in the student team level as well as in the partition of the teaching responsibility. Students were from the department of Nursing Science specializing to older people nursing science and from the department of Information Technology specializing to the embedded electronics or information technology. One student was also recruited from the Turku University of Applied Sciences from the discipline of sustainable development. In the nursing science students degree structure, the Capstone project is compensated by an obligatory internship project in terms of study credits. Different degree and course structure affected the workload of the students as the requirements for final assessment were different. This is dealt in more detail in results and discussion section. In prior research, we have illustrated two master’s level interdisciplinary, problem oriented and project based university courses’ impact on the intended learning outcome [8]. Research was carried out in UTU and Aalto University, Finland. In this pilot study, it was stated that the working life demands require engineering students to have knowledge from different disciplines. This knowledge improves engineering students’ analytical thinking skills, and thus their ability to solve effectively open-ended real-life design problems. Depending on the engineer’s experience and aptitude, the knowledge can be at various levels such as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary [9,10]. This paper will continue to look into interdisciplinary learning results using comparable data from the two different courses. But first, the Capstone project course in UTU context is explained as well as how we define multiple disciplines in this context.
2. Capstone a´la University of Turku The Capstone course in UTU is a Master´s level teambased project course with real-life, open-ended and illdefined problem setting typically provided by an industrial or governmental operator. The goal is to have several disciplines involved in the project, which will force students out of their comfort zone, and thus enable them to broaden their minds and find new approaches to the researched problems. As stated above, the teams represent multiple disciplines. The minimum requirement is that the team consists of students from different engineering disciplines. Most often the course utilizes a wide spectrum of disciplines provided by our multidisciplinary science university or other universities depending on the project settings. The Capstone project lasts for an academic year, typically from 8 to 11 months and it can be as large as 30 ECTS, typically 15 ECTS for the actual project and 15 [5+5+5] ECTS from related courses. The Capstone course follows the CDIO framework [1] added with a clear emphasis on interdisciplinarity and relevant working life skills. The rationale for this is that it fosters new approaches to engineering problems and helps engineers to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Also international perspective is often emphasized. The intended learning outcomes are listed below:
1. 2.
Analyze technical problems in a systems view Analyze and solve technical problems which are incompletely stated and develop iterative strategies subject to multiple constraints 3. Develop strategies for systematic choice and use of available engineering methods and tools 4. Make estimations and appreciate their value and limitations 5. Make decisions based on acquired knowledge 6. Pursue own ideas and realize them practically 7. Assess quality of own work and work by others 8. Work in a true project setting that effectively utilizes available resources and applies good timely project management practices 9. Explain mechanisms and processes behind progress and difficulties in projects 10. Communicate engineering in an interdisciplinary environment to different stakeholders – orally, in writing and graphically
List 1. Intended Learning Outcomes for the Capstone project [4,8]. A Capstone project team is composed of members with interdisciplinary professions and sometimes even international and multicultural background. It is necessary for engineering students to master the lifecycle of a product as well as the process of product innovation under the CDIO framework, and try to use engineering thinking, scientific thinking, and system thinking [1] when solving real life problems. From the faculty’s perspective, a well-set capstone project must have an open-ended problem-setting so that it cannot be solved with only knowledge of one discipline. Open-ended in this case means that there is no one solution to the problem and in the initial briefing of the project neither the customer, students nor the teaching team have an idea how to solve the case. Real world problems require multiple disciplines in order to find the final solution or solutions. A clear and effective instruction of CDIO-approach guided project should structurally reflect what students are expected to learn and do in each phase, e.g. Conceive phase for project preparation and planning, Design and Implement phase for project execution, and Operate phase for project delivery and evaluation [1]. According to previous research there are at least two elements in the learning and coaching process that affect the end result of the learning process and especially the level of interdisciplinary learning of the team [4,8]. First the teaching process including the structuring of the course must be proactive and reflective at the same time. There must be an initial structure that follows the CDIO cycle and this structure must be able to evolve during the course and according to the requirements of the intended learning results. The student team needs intervention from the teaching team. Too much autonomy will lead to a results were the students stay in their comfort zones. Secondly, according to our studies, the needed time for the interdisciplinary learning to happen is from six (6) to (9) months. The student team needs this time to go through the learning steps in project work and team dynamics in order to become an effective interdisciplinary team both in
their communication and the actual implementation of the project. In the final assessment of the Capstone projects, the criteria for the student teams and project managers are as follows: analysis of the problem, prototyping and proof of concept, communication within and to the stakeholders, innovativeness of the solution. Assessment is done on the basis of workshop results, presentations, study journals and the project report ie. project plan and final report) Customer feedback is also taken into account [4,8]. One influencing factor for the assessment can be the difference in the criteria for passing the course in different departments or institutions. This should be very explicitly discussed in the start phase. The students do what they are assessed for [3]. If the criteria are different this will affect the workload and motivation to participate to the project work and eventually create unneeded bias to the performance of the team. This was also one of learning results from Capstone1 from the final feedback. Then again, when working in real-life industry projects team members will also have different reasons, agendas and motivation to participate in the teams work. Learning to acknowledge this and act upon it already during studies, in the Capstone phase, can be very useful.
In multidisciplinary teams, the team members work in parallel or in different time sequence and stay on their disciplinary “silos” or disciplinary base during their work [9,10,13]. Multidisciplinary team benefits from different disciplinary knowledge, but does not create new or holistic knowledge. In interdisciplinary teamwork, participants work jointly. Teams’ objective is to find a coherent and holistic end result by analyzing, synthesizing and harmonizing different disciplines. In transdisciplinary approach, traditional disciplinary boundaries are made transparent and team members share a conceptual framework and aim to address the problem setting by using different disciplinary-specific approaches, theories and concepts [9,10,13,14].
3. Methods Empirical data for this paper was gathered from two different sources. Firstly, from an interdisciplinary course done together with the Nursing Science and IT departments ordered by the municipal authorities, the Capstone1 project; and, secondly, from the Capstone project with international students and an international commission ordered by an international customer, the Capstone2 project. The data is partly quantitative, partly qualitative. It was gathered in the form of study journals, interviews, final reflective feedback session and an electronic survey during May – December, 2013. The quantitative parts are first analyzed after which the qualitative data is reflected in relation to the findings. Themes for the surveys and interviews are from the intended learning results: interdisciplinary work environment, teamwork setting, problem solving capabilities and communication. The gathered data was analyzed, and the found similarities as well as the differences were further analyzed and reflected qualitatively to the current engineering education research. We used the basic content analysis research method [15].
4. Results
Figure 1. Structure of the Capstone project course in the UTU engineering syllabus. Students are enrolled from the different disciplines in UTU and the project subjects are selected from the thematic strength areas of the university: health technology, game and educational technology, management of technology and global information society.
2.1 Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Teamwork definitions Multiple disciplinary approaches are becoming more and more popular in different universities [9]. Still, there is confusion on what is meant by different multiple discipline approach. There is abundance of different definitions for disciplines starting from: multi-, pluri-, inter-, cross-, conceptual-, intra-, synthetic-, trans- and interdisciplinary to mention a few [9,11,12]. In this paper, we focus on multi–, inter– and transdisciplinary approaches. These terms should not be used interchangeably. Let us further elaborate these approaches.
Results show that interdisciplinary learning takes place both in team and at individual level although not as much in Casptone1 as in Capstone2. In Capstone1, the interdisciplinary learning is at abstract level meaning that students understand each other’s disciplinary issues and they are able to share knowledge so that everyone understands what is meant. However, when doing things for the project, the disciplinary boundaries were not crossed in Capstone1. “We were able to understand each others strengths and disciplines. This we could not make actualize in doing. In the end of the summer we decided to focus on maximizing the learning and expertise of each individual. This said we wanted to learn from each others disciplines as well but we could not reach that state in the actual doing. We all worked in our disciplinary areas.” a Capstone1 student More so in Capstone2: “..the multidisciplinary team was a great source of inspiration. It was great to work closely with people from very different backgrounds. Every day I understood something new about their approach to both science and life.”, a Capstone2 student More importantly, results show clearly that the learning results in problem solving, teamwork and communication
skills are being achieved. This means that interdisciplinary, in this context, can be understood in a way that the students understand the importance of different kind of experience and thinking in a project. They do not go deeply into each other’s disciplinary knowledge areas, id est, into transdisciplinary [9,10,11] learning but utilize and acknowledge each other’s different input into the project. “We have utilized the strengths and knowhow of the students of different fields in individual tasks, but have shared all the information among the whole group to find solutions where all the different angles are taken into consideration and we have made decisions together based on all of the information.” a Capstone1 student “..we have really great team from very diverse backgrounds so that has been really great opportunity to learn communication, problem solving as a team and teamwork. I've seen also the effect what happens when part of the team hasn't shown motivational attitude. And counter part, what happens when we try to cheer and motivate each other.” a Capstone1 student From a quantitative point of view, 20% of the students in Capstone1 stated that the team has reached a state of we are at high level of interdisciplinary in the team, 20% could not say, 20% felt that they achieved very little interdisciplinarity in the teams work and 40% thought that the recent state for the team is quite much interdisciplinarity. In terms of learning, the results show that 20% have thought the team had so far achieved considerable learning results in interdisciplinary learning, 40% felt that they achieved some learning results, 20% did not know and 20% felt that the team had achieved no learning results. This gives reason to suspect that some interdisciplinary learning occurs in Capstone1. The team unanimously stated that they had learned problem solving at the level of some learning results. Also teamwork has scored high scores as 40% had given the level of some learning results and another 40% considerable learning results. Only 20% had not much learning. Communication is also a strong area for the team: 60% felt that they achieved some learning results, 20% felt that they achieved considerable learning results. 20% had not much learning. The individual learning results are in align with the team level results. 60% gave interdisciplinary learning the second highest level, the level of some learning results. 20% did not know and 20% gave some learning. Same phenomenon applies for the problem solving, teamwork and communication. In problem solving, 80% felt that they achieved some learning results, in communication 20% felt that they achieved considerable learning results and 20% felt that they achieved not much learning results. In teamwork 20% felt that they achieved considerable learning results, 60% chose the second highest level, the level of some learning results and 20% chose I do not know. In Figures 2 and 3 the students evaluated first the level interdisciplinary learning in both individual and team level and in Figure 3 individual and team level learning of working life skills.
Figure 2. Discipline related learning results evaluated by personal and team’s point of view. The criteria for evaluation are: 1=no learning results; 2=not much learning; 3=I do not know; 4=some learning results; 5=considerable learning results.
Figure 3. Working life skills from the personal and team’s point of view. The criteria for evaluation are: 1=no learning results; 2=not much learning; 3=I do not know; 4=some learning results; 5=considerable learning results. When asked about the difficulties that they have encountered during the course, Capstone1 students’ difficulties were closely linked to the professional skills such as managing the project and in communication especially. The differences in different ways of thinking were brought up as well: “It is not always easy to understand the engineering way of thinking (and vice versa). It´s also sometimes hard with to write project plans and other papers when five persons have various ways to write.” “Coordinate our schedules together have been challenging.” “Use of time, stress, knowledge that our plan/work is probably not going to be utilized (motivation)” For the statements part of the research, the results can be compared with the results from Capstone2. The students were asked to answer statements compiled by the teaching team and scale them from 1 to 5. One being I totally disagree and five being I totally agree.
5. Discussion
Figure 4. Statement results from the two Capstone teams. Both Capstone teams answered similar surveys about the achievement of intended learning results. Both similarities and differences were found. Both teams were good at solving conflicts and Capstone1 had much better results in “sharing information”. One of the reasons is that Capstone1 had five student members compared to the ten in Capstone2. Also all of the students were of the same national and cultural background. Roles of the project management were studied in this paper. All the Capstone team students answered a survey individually. Capstone1 survey was done in August 2013 and Capstone2 in May-June 2013. The teams were in the same phase of their projects at that time. Figure 4 shows that there are similarities but differences as well. The students were asked to rank the following statements from 1 to 5: Roles of the project team members are totally clear, Information inside the team is shared and everybody knows what is happening, There is fun and excitement in the team, Our team is constantly developing its practices and the quality of work, We are interested in new ways of working, Team members can give and take criticism and acknowledgment, Personal work load for me is under control, Work load in the team is under control, The team is good in solving conflicts, I understand the intended learning outcomes and assessment criteria for the course, teaching team is supportive and committed. The biggest similarity is in the point The team is good in solving conflicts which has scored relatively high in both teams. This point is very important since it refers to communication skills, teamwork as well as problem solving which are all very important working life skills. The score is 3.5/5, which means that there is still room for improvement. Especially in the structures and processes of coaching [8]. Biggest difference is in the Information inside the team is shared and everybody knows what is happening that is in the sharing of information. Capstone1 students are from different disciplines but they are all of the same nationality as well as have same language and cultural background. They also have five (5) members in the team. Capstone2 had ten (10) students from different countries and the team was divided in two continents. In Capstone2, the spoken languages varied from Finnish to Chinese mostly concentrating in English. It remains unclear how much, for instance, the project manager’s role influences this phenomenon [18]. If the project manager is an active communicator, he or she is able to keep all of the team members and other stakeholders in the loop. This is an interesting and important subject but not in the scope of this paper.
There is not enough research results and knowledge in higher education research on how professional competencies are learned [19]. It is evident, however, that the challenge is big and even though it is widely acknowledged it is still in many ways unresolved how the challenge can be tackled [19]. According to both quantitative and qualitative results, we can state that problem solving and communication in a teamwork setting is happening in the teams and that this enhances the interdisciplinary learning [9,10,16]. Although, especially in Capstone1, students stayed in their disciplinary comfort zone during the actual implementation phase. According to our experience multiple disciplinarity in itself is more a result of the previous than the core phenomenon per se. When team excels in communication and can solve problems as a team, it is automatically in a mode and context where disciplinary boundaries can be blurred. This phenomenon should be further studied and validated scientifically. Results also show that not all of the students agree with the enhancement of learning results. The same result has been reported by several other studies as well [3,8,16,17]. The reasons vary and need to be further researched. The Capstone project in UTU context is a process, not a product. Understanding this and the commitment to the learning process varies from student to student. From the Capstone2 material and the findings presented in [8], it can be noted that there is a linear correlation between the commitment and time spent in the project. The relevant question, which needs to be further researched, is how to commit the students to the course. It is worth mentioning that Capstone1 team was very autonomous and independent. The team size was only 5 persons versus 10 persons in Capstone2, Capstone 1 could use their mother tongue in all communication and with the customer as well. Capstone2 had a multicultural team, used English as the communication language and the team was divided into two different countries. In addition, what kind of role do the course structures, educational philosophy and coaching methods play in this [3]? What kind of interventions can the teaching team make in order to motivate the students to make the extra effort is another important aspect? It was interesting to find out that although the teaching team in IT and Nursing science felt that all were clear in terms of course structure, workload and assessment of the course, it turned out that the workload for students had been very different according to which department they were from. This was found out in the final feedback discussion and came as a surprise. This would indicate that more communication with a team and within a teaching team could prevent this from happening. One more issue for further research is the role of the project manager. How much can project manager steer and enhance the actual results and also the learning of the team? If we look at the ill-defined project course (Capstone) in this case as an innovation project, the managerial role is often neglected in the research, that is, what do the project managers actually do when they manage a project [20]. Students are driven by curiosity, engagement, passion, expectations of future, and, most importantly, dreams [1]. How to channel these into learning results? How to achieve this “Passion Oriented and Excitement Based Learning”?
There is abundance of course examples with structures, intended learning outcomes and extra material and scientific data. It is all there for anyone to use. The key question also stated in the abstract is “how to implement it”. How to make it happen? If interdisciplinarity is more of a context related issue, then the actual learning phenomenon towards professional skills do we still need to look into multiple disciplines [9] when assessing professional skills [7] or just focus in the skills themselves? Probably yes. Reasoning is that although multiple disciplines are a product of scientific modeling of the surrounding world they help to categorize learning results in terms of professional skills such as communication, teamwork and problem solving skills. All of these issues are quite broad and general as well. Let us consider the communication skills further. For some IT engineering students it can be difficult just to open their mouth in a social set-up, that is, with other people. This means that first, you need to start working with basic presentation and negotiation skills, then move to understanding the values, vocabulary and thinking of people from other disciplines, culture. Finally, the student can learn how to communicate his own engineering ideas effectively to people from different disciplines in a way that the other people understand what the engineer means and all this in a context and scope of the project. According to the results of this and previous research [4,8] it takes from six (6) to nine (9) months of time and intervention from the teaching team to reach this level. One further future area for research should be how much intervention and coaching do the students need in order to achieve this level of communication? In Captstone1, this level was achieved only partially. In Capstone2, it was achieved for most parts. The differences were that in Capstone1 the students worked very independently without many interventions and only for 6 months. In Capstone2, the students worked for 9 months and with many structured workshops where they were pressured to develop and prove their communication skills. The findings are aligned with both the prevailing theories and the previous findings [1,3,4,8].
6. Limitations and future research The research findings are preliminary in the sense that there are only two different course projects in this data set and one of the Capstone project was still underway when writing the first versions of this paper. In the best-case scenario, this research could be done again with the same problem setting after the students have become alumni. The research field in itself is acute and very much in the scope of what is happening in the field of engineering. In the future more emphasis should be put in the assessment of the interdisciplinary project courses. Also more research emphasis could be put in to the more structured coaching methods and aligning them with the course structure and with the whole curriculum. Capstone project should not be an independent part of the Master´s thesis phase. It should be even more aligned to the other courses and Master’s thesis phase. Also the managerial actions in the actual project process should be investigated more thoroughly, preferably in an international and a cross-disciplinary setting.
7. References [1] E.F. Crawley, Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., Rethinking Engineering Education, The CDIO Approach, Springer, 286 pages. 2007 [2] M.Lehmann, P.Christensen, X. Du, and M.Thrane, “Problem-orientated and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.33, No. 3, June 2008, 283-295 [3] J.Biggs, “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment”, Higher Education 32: 347-364, 1996, Kluwer Academic Publishers [4] V.Taajamaa, T. Westerlund, P.Liljeberg, T. Salakoski, “Interdisciplinary Capstone Project”, 41th SEFI Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 2013 [5] RÍOS, Ignacio de los, et al. ”Project–based learning in engineering higher education: two decades of teaching competences in real environments”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010, 2.2: 1368-1378. [6] The Royal Academy of Engineering, “Educating Engineers for the 21st Century”, The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2007 [7] M. Daniels, Developing and Assessing Professional Competencies: a Pipe Dream?”, Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from Faculty of Science and Technology 738, AUU, 2011 [8] V. Taajamaa, H. Sjöman, S. Kirjavainen, T. Utriainen, L. Repokari, T. Salakoski, “Dancing with ambiguity – Design thinking in engineering education”, 2013 [9]Bernard C.K. Choia and Anita W.P. Pak, “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness” Clin Invest Med, vol. 29, no 6, pp. 351364, 2006 [10] P.Rosenfield, “The Potential of Transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences”, Soc. Sci. Med., Vol. 35 35, No 11. Pp 1343-1357, 1992 [11] J.T. Klein, “Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice” Detroit, Mich: Wayne State University Press, 1990 [12] K. Huutoniemi, J.T. Klein, H. Bruun, J. Hukkinen,“Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators”, Elsevier, 2009 [13] Bernard C.K. Choia and Anita W.P. Pak, “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement” Clin Invest Med, vol. 30, no 6, pp. 224232, 2007 [14]
Bernard C.K. Choia and Anita W.P. Pak, “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 3. Discipline, inter-discipline distance, and selection of discipline” Clin Invest Med, vol. 31, no 1, pp. 41-48, 2008
[15] K. Krippendorff. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Inc., 2004 [16] Taajamaa, V., Vilonen, K., “Future trends of engineering education – implementing CDIO?”, ICEE 2012 conference, Turku Finland, 2012 [17] Atman, Cynthia J., Sheri D. Sheppard, Jennifer Turns, Robin S. Adams, Lorraine N. Fleming, Reed Stevens, Ruth A. Streveler, Karl A. Smith, Ronald L. Miller, Larry J. Leifer, Ken Yasuhara, and Dennis Lund., “Enabling Engineering Student Success: The Final Report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education”, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2010 [18] Rekonen S, Björklund, “The influence of technical expertise on managerial activities throughout the innovation process”, ICED Conference, 2013 [19] Keltikangas, K, “Becoming an electrical engineer: a mixed methods study of electrical engineers' studies and career”, Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS 112/2013 [20] Rekonen, S, “Managing Innovative Projects: Dynamics of Managerial Activities in the Front-end and Development Phases of the Innovation Process”, Licentiate thesis, 2013
