The Hague University of Applied Sciences is 28 years old, a merger of fourteen schools in the region. It houses about 22.000 students in seven different faculties. The faculty of Technology, Innovation and Society (TIS) has twelve programs: mechanical engineering (EM), engineering management, mechatronics, electrical engineering, building engineering, civil engineering, climate and management, industrial design engineering, industrial design engineering | open innovator, engineering physics, applied math and processing & food technology (PFT). Since March 2015 TIS is a full CDIO member and all its programs are implementing the CDIO standards and syllabus. This paper describes this operation and discusses opportunities and challenges of such a large endeavor.
The decision to implement CDIO was based on mid-management enthusiasm to adopt the model for its merits in lifecycle thinking and accrediting standard in two of the programs. The EM program, which is located in Delft, was redesigning its curriculum based on CDIO after visiting the Boston conference. In The Hague in the meantime, PFT was transformed into an English program for the international market, also using CDIO as their educational framework. When TIS was formed in the 2014 reorganization, a process director was assigned to guide the application and implementation of CDIO in all programs.
Based on the first self-evaluations priorities were identified for the faculty as a whole. Unsurprisingly standard 1 was the weakest, along with standards 9 and 10. Though not weak, standard 8 was also a priority, as active learning was a focal point of the university already. Quality was another focus of the university, and the standards were coupled to the faculty and program policy plans. A comparison is presented between CDIO and the Dutch/Flemish compulsory NVAO accreditation standards. Transparency on this topic was important for the internal change process.
The self-evaluation process and results exposed differences in the programs, leading to grouping them in a fast track (already working with CDIO), drawing board track (implementing CDIO in a future new curriculum design) and quality track (starting to use CDIO to improve the quality of the current program). Each track has its own needs and challenges, and thus requires a different approach and will show a different speed of adapting. The paper discusses the change management approach for each track, describing efforts within program staff teams, pivotal moments with the upper management and curriculum commissions, and the emerging of a professional learning community within the faculty on CDIO affiliated topics. Challenges discussed are the varying level of understanding of CDIO, differences in interpretation, combining CDIO with pedagogical models such as 4C/ID or flip the classroom, applied sciences versus engineering programs, complacency etc.
Despite being a top-down decision, the adoption process at TIS is directed in a bottom-up way, aimed at the different personal motivations for lecturers and management alike. Although it may not always be in simple, equal for all, measureable targets upper management is asking for, progress is certainly made and CDIO provides us with the tools for continuous educational quality improvement.
Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland, June 12-16 2016
Conceive
Design
Implement
Operate
