METACURRICULUM: A STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT CDIO IN ENGINEERING PROGRAMS AT UCN, CHILE. Alex Covarrubias, Juan Music Civil Engineering Department, Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile Claudio Acuña Chemical Engineering Department, Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile Ariel Areyuna Engineering School, Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile
ABSTRACT Universidad Católica del Norte (UCN) is committed to innovate and standardize its engineering programs. UCN is located in the North region of Chile, with an intense mining activity, where there is a continuous demand of engineers able to innovate and tackle problems from water scarcity, energy alternatives, and sustainable buildings to environmental and health regulations. There are 12 engineering programs not currently tuned with international standards, following a traditional model based on content teaching and demonstrative labs. In this context, all UCN engineering programs are redesigning their curricula based on CDIO standards and Chilean future regulations, through one project funded mainly by Ministry of Education, which will be operational by 2016. The process in conducted by 70% of the faculty memebers from engineering and science departments directly related to engineering programs, whose philosophy is “a professor who teaches must contribute to the redesign process”. The strategy is to harmonize CDIO, UCN vision, professional association, and international agreements concerning engineering through a common meta program structure, called Meta-Curriculum (M-C). M-C considers the same number of credits distributed in 5 years for all programs (Chilean programs take 6 years). M-C is organized in a common branch (science, engineering science, and interpersonal and personal skills, English mapped along the program, first year multidisciplinary project) and specific program activities (specialized science, engineering tools, professional specific training, and a capstone project). M-C is conceived and designed for two programs: Science-Based Engineering (5 years) and Technology-Based Engineering (4 years). This work presents a strategy for developing M_C and the methodology to make possible faculty member participation and involvement from all departments (Engineering, Science, English, and Education) as a strategy to manage institutional changes.
KEYWORDS Engineering curriculum, CDIO Approach, change management, blank page.
INTRODUCTION In 2012 Universidad del Norte (UCN), to respond to current society demands concerning engineering training, started a curriculum redesign process including all engineering programs, with the support of the Ministry of Education. The project is called “Reinventing Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
UCN Engineering Programs”, which aims at taking advantage of the opportunity to explore new educational designs leading to the implementation of a more effective and efficient training process. In this sense, the term “reinventing” implies that the purpose of the project is to start a radical innovation, as opposed to incremental or gradual changes, challenging the main paradigms which have been the framework of curriculum design in all UCN engineering schools. Why changing if what has been done is working properly? This question, recurrent in faculty members during the first stages of the process, makes a lot of sense because various indicators give account of the high employment level and career development of UCN engineers. Nevertheless, other indicators, such as low student retention rates in the first year (SIES, 2007); high failure rates in some courses, and graduation time make evident the need to change the way things are done and, in this way, offer a more efficient training process. In addition, radical improvements in curriculum design and teaching services in engineering programs will significantly reduce the economic and social costs that low academic performance involves for students, the university, and society as a whole (Cipriano et al, 2005). The team promoting the study was convinced of the need to make a radical innovation; however, several problems had to be solved to make this initiative come true. There were technical difficulties such as reducing programs in one year and also organizational ones related to structure, rules, and procedures, among others. Additionally, the project team was facing a major problem, that is, resistance to change - and even rejection – by faculty members from engineering programs. Thus, it was essential to define a strategy to face obstacles and mitigate the risks inherent to a project of such complexity and scope. The strategy to manage the project was structured into two components. First, from a technical viewpoint, the curriculum design was approached considering the programs as new ones: an M-C would be designed following CDIO approach as a reference framework for the process (Crawley et al, 2007). Second, in order to mitigate risks and the eventual rejection from faculty members, the project team decided to involve the greatest number of academics from the beginning of the project. After a one-year work, M-C was designed and 70% of faculty members have somehow participated in the project. The following sections describe the steps taken to attain these results.
METHODOLOGY The scope and depth of the project was an important challenge from the viewpoint of managing this innovation. On the one hand, the redesign involves all UCN engineering programs, seven of them being science-based and five technology-based. On the other hand, there was a major change in each program because most of them had to be reduced in one year. This reduction was the most complex aspect to face from the technical and cultural viewpoints, being a source of conflict menacing the project development. It was clear for the initial project team that the reduction could not be attained by decreasing the current number of courses in the curriculum. It was necessary to propose a totally new methodological approach to ensure both, a coherent curriculum design and the minimization of conflicts and an eventual rejection by some faculty members. “Blank page” was the informal name the team gave to the methodological approach leading the curriculum redesign. The name is based on the difference between this and previous redesign efforts. Current engineering curricula would not be taken into account. A blank page would be the starting point. This blank page would be gradually filled after revising, evaluating, selecting, and adapting the best national and international practices in engineering training. Two meta-curricula would be designed in the first stage – one for Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
science-based engineering and the other for technology-based engineering (International Engineering Alliance, 2013) – to redesign the particular curriculum of each engineering program. In addition, the CDIO approach would be used to “fill the blank page”. Syllabus v2.0 (Crawley et al, 2011) would be used as a guide to define what to teach and the 12 standards would help to decide how teaching would proceed. Finally, CDIO was also considered to define UCN engineering the graduation profiles (Crawley, 2001). A multidisciplinary team, including faculty members from the two engineering schools, departments, and programs, participated in designing M-C. The team worked for several months in the M-C conceptual design, considering different norms (ABET, 2012), criteria (CNA, 2007), and restrictions established by several organizations related to the engineering profession training and practice (Colegio de Ingenieros, 2013). The M-C course organization was mainly based on the first point of Syllabus v2.0 (Crawley et al, 2011), that is, disciplinary knowledge and reasoning. Within this framework, three course categories were identified in M-C. First, basic science courses (syllabus section 1.1): math, physics, chemistry, and biology; second, engineering courses (syllabus section 1.2): thermodynamics, transport phenomena, programming, dynamics, and economic engineering, among others; and third, applied engineering courses (syllabus section 1.3) defined by each specialty. Additionally, engineering graduate skills and attitudes (syllabus section 4.8) are addressed in two ways. On the one hand, some courses will be associated with social sciences and English and, on the other hand, learning paths included in disciplinary courses will be defined. Apart from the curriculum aspects related to methodology, a strategy was designed to increase adhesion to this innovation and mitigate rejection risks from faculty members who did not participate in the project formulation team. Traditionally, this kind of project has been addressed by small teams, usually belonging to one academic unit working in isolation during design phases to then communicate the changes to the academic community when trying to implement an innovation. This way of working has not always resulted in the best response. So, results have been significantly poorer than initial expectations. In some cases, resistance was so great that the implementation phase was never achieved. It was clear for the team promoting the project that they should find a different form of organization and participation to mitigate rejection risks. The participation strategy was based on 3 principles: sense of emergency, co-construction of the project, and UCN authority commitment. In January 2013, all faculty members from the schools of engineering and sciences were invited to participate in a workshop to start the project construction. More than 100 participants attended the workshop, including the deans from the 3 schools involved. To install the sense of emergency for the change proposed, three main arguments were posed: (a) The performance of engineering programs in terms of student retention and permanence (Centro de Microdatos, 2008)(CICES, 2007), which was low; (b) curriculum designs and teaching methodologies were based on an admission and graduation profile dating back to 30-40 years, while other universities had made relevant innovations; and (c) a very low percent of students received their professional titles. Thus a very high percent of students who entered UCN did not get any degree or certificate, just a huge debt in financial institutions and the State. The first two arguments affected UCN competitiveness; while the third one fully impacted UCN social responsibility and mission. Co-construction is associated with the participation of all the members of the academic community in the design and development of the project activities. The workshop above mentioned aimed at presenting the objectives and main indicators of the innovation in very general terms. Then participants worked in teams to analyze the risks and propose mitigation strategies. This workshop allowed participants to learn about the scope of the project in detail and, at the same time, make a decision to participate in the innovation process that was just Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
beginning. As a result of this collective construction process, 70% of the faculty members associated with engineering programs, organized in 17 work teams, contributed to the attainment of the project objectives in 2013. This way of working demanded a great management and coordination effort. Nevertheless, a positive result of this “modus operandis” was the little resistance to the changes fostered by the project. For instance, at the beginning of 2013 most faculty members rejected the idea of reducing engineering programs in 1 year. At the end of 2013 very few faculty members still kept their view. Finally, the commitment of UCN authorities has been a gravitating factor to encourage this innovation. The direct participation of deans and department and program heads, along with the support of the UCN President and Academic Vice-President have contributed to step forward in this complex curriculum innovation process.
UCN ENGINEERING M-C UCN engineering curriculum redesign consists of two main components: the graduation profile and M-C. The first one is documented in Flores et al. (2014) and the second one is described below. The first step was defining ourse categories and their associated credits. This work is based on the scientific and disciplinary knowledge of the engineering profile elaborated from CDIO Syllabus v2.0 (Crawley et al, 2011).
Table 1. Course categories of Science-Based Engineering M-C. Category Basic Sciences
Engineering Sciences Applied Engineering Social Sciences
Graduation profile start-up 1.1 Apply knowledge in math and natural sciences, i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology to the solution of complex engineering problems. 1.2 Apply knowledge in engineering sciences to the solution of complex engineering problems. 1.3 Apply disciplinary knowledge, methods, and tools to the solution of complex engineering problems. 2.1 – 4.8 Personal and interpersonal skills for engineering practice.
Credits 80
50
130
40
Table 1 shows the 4 course categories set for the Science-Based Engineering M-C. The courses involve 300 credits distributed in 10 semesters, divided into two cycles. The first cycle lasts 4 years and leads to a Bachelor Degree in Engineering Sciences. The second cycle lasts 1 year and leads to a professional title.
Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
Professional Title
Bachelor in Engineering Sciences 1
Basic Sciences
2
3
4
Basic Sciences Basic Sciences Engineering Sciences
Social Sciences
Project
Basic Sciences
Engineering Sciences
Social Sciences
Applied Engineering
Social Sciences
Project
Social Sciences
Project
5 Basic Sciences
Engineering Sciences
7
8
Basic Sciences
6
Basic Sciences
Basic Sciences
Engineering Sciences
Engineering Sciences
Applied Engineering
Applied Engineering
Social Sciences
Project
Applied Engineering
9
10
Engineering Sciences Applied Engineering Applied Engineering
Capstone Project
Social Sciences Project
Project
Social Sciences
Figure 1. Science-Based Engineering M-C. Figure 1 shows the course distribution finally adopted. There are some aspects relevant to highlight in M-C organization. First, there is a clear distinction between the undergraduate courses and the graduation process. In fact, the undergraduate courses can be considered as an intermediate step to make it possible for students to pursue a graduate degree. In addition, the graduation process focuses on the competencies for professional practice. These competencies must be demonstrated via a Capstone Project in the 10th semester (Colegio de Ingenieros, 2013). Second, students can advance in the different course categories at the same time. Traditionally, engineering curricula concentrated basic science courses in the first years; then they took engineering science courses; and in the last years they focused exclusively on applied engineering courses. In M-C, basic science training accompanies training in other categories throughout the undergraduate courses. Also, applied engineering courses begin in the first semesters, thus enabling students’ access to training that integrates and contextualizes knowledge of a different nature. Third, 7 courses have been changed into project courses, including the Capstone Project, which are based on the Aalborg University model, that is, problem-based learning organized in projects. In this way, the learning process is expected to be strengthened as a whole, simultaneously addressing disciplinary knowledge and personal and interpersonal skills. In addition, the project courses integrate the content, activities, and evaluation of the courses taught at the same time in a given semester. The first semester project is a course on introduction to engineering for students to experience the design and implementation of a technological solution to a general problem. The project course in the second semester is also a course on designing and implementing a technological solution, but applied to a problem related to students’ specialty. Another important issue is the identification of 12 paths for learning personal, interpersonal, and professional skills, which will be integrated to disciplinary courses, particularly as projects. Table 2 shows the paths considered for M-C. Table 2. Learning paths for personal, interpersonal, and professional skills. Name Engineering thought
Learning outcomes Identify, formulate, model, and solve complex engineering problems, considering variable interaction and dynamics.
Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
Scientific thought
Systemic thought Professional attitude
Personal attitude
Team work Effective communication in Spanish Effective communication in English Sustainability
Strategic thought Innovation
Entrepreneurship
Identify, formulate, model, and solve complex engineering problems, considering variable interaction and dynamics. Organize and integrate actual components, based on a systemic view and considering various perspectives. Show personal skills leading to successful engineering practice: initiative, decision-making, perseverance, critical thinking, continuous learning, creative thought, goal-orientation, flexibility, self-evaluation, and time and resource management. Act according to universal principles based on people’s value and their whole development leading to personal realization, sense of justice, social responsibility, and equity. Lead and work in multidisciplinary teams. Communicate oral, written, and graphic technical information comprehensively in Spanish at an advanced level. Communicate verbal and written technical information comprehensively in English at an intermediate level. Incorporate the global, social, health, safety, legal, cultural, and environmental context to the solution of engineering problems. Apply knowledge and skills acquired to contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. Manage engineering projects and participate in innovation teams associated with systems, products, services, and processes. Participate in social, cultural, organizational, and entrepreneurial ventures.
CDIO STANDARDS The second tool orienting the curriculum redesign process was the 12 CDIO standards (Crawley et al, 2007). They made it possible to identify both, design criteria to consider in MC and lines of action for the continuous improvement of learning processes and resources. The levels of standard attainment are related to the maturity of teaching processes. In this sense, as the university incorporates these processes into its organizational routines, the standards are expected to reach higher levels. The impact of CDIO standards on the curriculum redesign process and other aspects of UCN work are described below. 1. Context. The M-C design team adopted the principles of the CDIO context for engineering training. The most tangible evidence is the great number of courses taught as projects, which were incorporated in M-C. The adoption of these courses by faculty members who have not participated in the project yet is still pending. 2. Learning outcomes. Both the profile and M-C are defined in terms of learning outcomes. Basic science and engineering science courses already have a Syllabus organized on the basis of learning outcomes. 3. Integrated curriculum. Twelve learning paths related to personal, interpersonal, and professional skills were identified. These must be integrated to disciplinary courses, particularly project courses. 4. Introduction to engineering. Two courses on introduction to engineering were defined for students to design and implement technological solutions to problems. The first is
Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
a general course and the second one deals with an engineering area chosen by students. 5. Design and implementation experiences. Apart from the two courses on introduction to engineering, 4 other courses were included from the second to the fourth year. Finally, a Capstone Project course was included in the last year. 6. Engineering work spaces. Some work spaces, particularly for Capstone Projects were adapted. However, there is still a lot to do in this regard. 7. Integrated learning experiences. Several initiatives have been considered in this matter. The most developed is English learning. Students will take two courses in the second year. Then, practical activities such as presentations, readings, and reports in English will be gradually included in the disciplinary courses. 8. Active learning. A great number of faculty members have been trained in active and experiential learning techniques such as problem-based learning, case study, peer learning, and project-oriented PBL, among others. Additionally, 3 TEAL (Technology Enabled Active Learning) classrooms are being prepared for math and physics teaching. 9. Improving faculty member skills. Twelve faculty members are being trained in coaching to support other academics in the development of personal and interpersonal skills and also students with problems concerning socio-emotional vulnerability. 10. Improving teaching competencies. A unit specialized in the development of teaching competencies was created. Teaching competencies were identified and included in a so-called Dictionary of Teaching Competencies. In addition, individual training plans have been designed. 11. Learning assessment. Different learning outcome assessment instances are being implemented, particularly for project courses, to facilitate comprehensive assessment of students’ progress. 12. Program evaluation. A Quality Management System incorporating CDIO standards, among others, is being implemented. In summary, CDIO standards have been a substantial contribution to M-C design and the related learning and management processes. In this sense, it has been a guide for decisionmaking and the implementation of initiatives supporting the curriculum change in progress.
CONCLUSIONS Reinventing UCN engineering programs is an ambitious project for the scope, depth, and radicalism of the innovation proposed. Therefore, the risk of failing is high. For this reason, it is essential to develop a strategy to mitigate the probability of failure in attaining the goals established. The emphasis on collective participation of faculty members and based on the sense of emergency, co-construction, and authorities’ commitment has proved to be effective, the rejection fear being significantly attenuated. The “blank page” approach has allowed adopting new educational approaches which may have been impossible to consider if the project had been addressed in a traditional way, that is, as a reform of an existing curriculum. However, it is essential to count on methodological guidelines leading the filling process of the “blank page”. Formal criteria are needed so that the multidisciplinary team can agree on complex decisions concerning curriculum design. This has been called Meta-Curriculum (M-C). As previously mentioned, the CDIO approach was used to conduct M-C design. Apart from major resources such as Syllabus and the 12 standards, the international academic community contributed with its experience, bibliography, and consultancy to the progress of the project. In this context, Dr. Doris R. Brodeur’s consultancy and supervision has been Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
vital. She is an international well-known CDIO and curriculum design expert and one of the authors and communicators of this new approach to engineering on a global basis. Without her invaluable collaboration it would not have been possible to attain our goals in a short time, considering that this is probably the first collective and cross-cutting CDIO application to engineering curriculum redesign in a university on a world basis. So far, cases of this kind are limited to a low percent of engineering programs belonging to one or two engineering schools. They are pilot projects likely to be applied in other engineering programs, based on results.
REFERENCES ABET (2012a). Criteria for Accrediting Applied Science Programs. Effective for Reviews During the 2013-2014 Accreditation Cycle. Applied Science Accreditation Commission. ABET (2012b). Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs. Effective for Reviews During the 2013-2014 Accreditation Cycle. Computing Accreditation Commission. ABET (2012c). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Effective for Reviews During the 2013-2014 Accreditation Cycle. Engineering Accreditation Commission. ABET (2012d). Criteria for Accrediting Technology Programs. Effective for Reviews During the 2013-2014 Accreditation Cycle. Technology Accreditation Commission. Centro de Microdatos (2008). Estudio sobre causas de la deserción universitaria, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Chile. CICES (2007). Factores Explicativos de la deserción Universitaria. Informe Final Proyecto Consejo Superior de Educación. Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Cipriano, A. & Vásquez, J. & Vial, C. (2005 a). Gestión Académica en Ingeniería: Experiencias, Entorno y Visión de Futuro. Anales del Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile. CNA (2007). Criterios de Evaluación para Carreras de Ingeniería. Comisión Nacional de Acreditación, Chile. Colegio de Ingenieros (2013). Reglamento de Calificación de Títulos Profesionales de Ingenieros para Admisión de Socios Activos. http://www.ingenieros.cl/calificacionde-titulosprofesionales-de-ingenieros-para-admision-de-socios-activos/ (última consulta, 06.06.2013) Comisión de Asuntos Internacionales (2007). Normas que regulan el ejercicio de la Ingeniería en Chile. Colegio de Ingenieros de Chile. Crawley, E.F., (January 2001). The CDIO Syllabus, A statement of goals for undergraduate Engineering Education, http://www.cdio.org Crawley, E.F. “et al” (2011), The CDIO Syllabus v2.0. An Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education, Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, June 20-23. Crawley, E.F. “et al” (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education. Springer Science Business Media, Library of Congress Control Number: 2007921087 Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile (2013). Acreditación de Ingenieros. http://www.iing.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92:acreditacion&catid= 38:iing-menu&Itemid=231 (última visita, 06.06.2013). Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
International Engineering Alliance (2013). The Washington Accord: Past, Present, Future. IEET Accreditation Training. http://www.ieagreements.org/washington-accord/WashingtonAccord-Overview.pdf (última visita, 07.06.2013). International Engineering Alliance (2013):”The http://www.ieagreements.org/sydney (última visita, 07.06.2013).
Sydney
Accord”.
International Engineering Alliance (2013):”The http://www.ieagreements.org/dublin/ (última visita, 07.06.2013).
Dubin
Accord”.
Ley 29129 (2006). Ley de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior. Ministerio de Educación, Chile. Music J. (2002). Estudio sobre la oferta de carreras de Ingeniería en Chile, Comisión Nacional de Acreditación (CNA). Morales, E. (2009). Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies. Executive Summary. Extracto de documentos de la International Engineering Alliance: Washington Accord (Engineers Mobility Forum), Sydney Accord (Engineering Technologists Mobility) y Dublin Accord (Forum). Universidad de Santiago, Chile. SIES (2007). Informe sobre retención de primer año de las carreras Cohorte de Ingreso 2007”. División de Educación Superior, MINEDUC.
Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Alex Covarrubias, Civil Engineer, Dean of the School of Engineering and Construction Sciences. Is currently acting Director of Project UCN1204, “Reinventing UCN Engineering Programs”. Has been Head of the Civil Engineering Program and Director of the Civil Engineering Department. Led the first Civil Engineering accreditation process. Juan Music, Structural Civil Engineer and faculty member at UCN Civil Engineering Department. Is a member of the team leading UCN engineering program redesign process. Works as a consultant in institutional and undergraduate programs accreditation for the Ministry of Education. Was UCN President in 1990-2000. Claudio Acuña, Chemical Engineer and Director of the UCN Chemical Engineering Department. Led the previous Chemistry Civil Engineering curriculum redesign process. Currently participates in the team leading UCN engineering programs redesign. Ariel Areyuna, Computer Engineer and faculty member at UCN Engineering Department in Coquimbo. Participates as a facilitator in the team leading Project UCN1204. Is certified as an International Coach.
Corresponding author Ing. Alex Covarrubias Aranda Facultad de Ciencias de Ingeniería y Construcción Universidad Católica del Norte UCN Avda. Angamos 0610 Antofagasta, Chile +56-055-2355426
[email protected]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 2014.
