Aims of Engineering Education Research – The Role of the CDIO Initiative

Aims of Engineering Education Research – The Role of the CDIO Initiative

K. Edström (2016).  Aims of Engineering Education Research – The Role of the CDIO Initiative. 12.

The CDIO Initiative is first and foremost an endeavour to improve engineering education, but in the 12th International CDIO Conference in 2016, a special track is opened for engineering education research (EER). This paper aims to clarify some tensions within the emerging EER field, and show how CDIO can contribute in shaping the field.

The fundamental definitional question for EER regards the aims of research: is it to improve educational practice, or to seek new knowledge for its own sake? These are not mutually exclusive categories, but it is a matter of precedence in definitions of quality. If the aim is to produce new knowledge, it is a task of proving something and the main criterion is truth (or rigour). If the aim is to inform improvement, the consideration for usefulness will be most important. Considering the balance and relationship is not merely an abstract exercise of ideas and ideals, because the definition of quality is always intertwined with the question of who is the legitimate judge of it. There are implications for legitimacy and power, and real consequences for the people within engineering education and its stakeholder groups.

This is of course a classic discussion for all research, and the debate has been lively within higher education and in society at large, not least with the expansion of research and higher education in recent decades. Work by Brooks (1967), Boyer (1990) and Gibbons et al. (1994) provides useful concepts for understanding the tensions within EER, including the underlying values and interests on each side of the argument.

The conclusion is that although there is a tension, both sets of values will always apply, since success depends on internal recognition as well as external legitimacy. The tension must therefore be reconciled – but not glossed over. The values on both sides of the balance must be safeguarded and we must see through hollow claims. For instance, disciplines have an interest in referring to usefulness to legitimate the resources spent on research. Conversely, there is an interest in attaching the research label to what is really development, to improve status and opportunities for career and funding. In all circumstances, EER needs quality mechanisms to weed out work that is neither true nor useful.

The balance and relationship between truth/rigour and usefulness is both a philosophical and practical question, on an individual and collective level. For individual researchers the tension is at the heart of every inquiry: do I consider ‘what can be useful’ or ‘what can be known’? Or (how) can my work be simultaneously useful and credible? For the field, there are implications for peer review practice, for upholding borders and forming relationships between research/researchers and development/developers.

In the CDIO Initiative, we must understand this tension and create a working and productive relationship between the two aims. Otherwise we risk ending up in camps and weakening the community in an internal, eternal, trench war. Success means creating legitimacy for the research that is simultaneously credible and contributes to the improvement of engineering education.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku, Finland, June 12-16 2016

Authors (New): 
Kristina Edström
Pages: 
12
Affiliations: 
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden
Keywords: 
The CDIO Initiative
the International CDIO Conference
engineering education research
engineering education development
research aims
discipline
usefulness
Year: 
2016
Reference: 
Adams, R., Aldridge, D., Atman, C., Barker, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Bjorklund, S., & Young, M. (2006). The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 259-261. : 
Baillie, C., & Douglas, E. P. (2014). Confusions and Conventions: Qualitative Research in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 1-7. : 
Bernhard, J., & Baillie, C. (2013). Standards for quality of research in engineering education. : 
Borrego, M. (2007a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by trained engineers learning educational research methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2), 91-102. : 
Borrego, M. (2007b). Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 5-18. : 
Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14-47. : 
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53-66. : 
Brooks, H. (1967). Applied Research, Definitions, Concepts, Themes Applied science and technological progress: A report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives (pp. 21-55). Washington: National Academy of Sciences.: 
Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging research methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186-210. : 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Cham.: 
de Graaff, E. (2014). Research versus educational practice: positioning the European Journal of Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(1), 1-6.: 
10.1080/03043797.2014.882146
Edström, K. (2015). Criteria for review of Engineering Education Research (EER) contributions in CDIO. Retrieved from www.cdio.fi/docs/CDIO2016_EERcriteria.pdf: 
Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539-555.: 
10.1080/03043797.2014.895703
Felder, R. M., & Hadgraft, R. G. (2013). Educational Practice and Educational Research in Engineering: Partners, Antagonists, or Ships Passing in the Night? Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 339-345.: 
10.1002/jee.20015
Felder, R. M., Sheppard, S. D., & Smith, K. A. (2005). A New Journal for a Field in Transition. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 7-10.: 
10.1002/j.2168- 9830.2005.tb00824.x
Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research (Vol. 20): Springer Science & Business Media.: 
Finelli, C. J., Borrego, M., & Rasoulifar, G. (2015). Development of a Taxonomy of Keywords for Engineering Education Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 365- 387.: 
10.1002/jee.20101
Gabriele, G. A. (2005). Advancing engineering education in a flattened world. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 285-286. : 
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage.: 
Godin, B. (2006). The Linear model of innovation the historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(6), 639-667. : 
Haghighi, K. (2005). Quiet no longer: Birth of a new discipline. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 351-353. : 
JEE. (2005). JEE Strategic Plan 2005–2010: Advancing engineering education research worldwide. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 283-284.: 
JEE. (2011). JEE Strategic Plan, 2011–2016: Sustaining and Expanding Engineering Education Research Worldwide. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 217-219.: 
Jesiek, B. K., Borrego, M., & Beddoes, K. (2010). Advancing global capacity for engineering education research: relating research to practice, policy and industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(2), 117-134. : 
Jesiek, B. K., Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M. (2009). Engineering education research: Discipline, community, or field? Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 39-52. : 
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2014). Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research: Cambridge University Press.: 
Kolmos, A. (2008). Proposal for Working group on Engineering Education Research. Retrieved from www.sefi.be/: 
Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Douglas, E. P. (2008). State of Qualitative Research in Engineering Education: Meta‐Analysis of JEE Articles, 2005–2006. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 163-175. : 
Lohmann, J. R. (2003). Mission, Measures, and Manuscript Central™. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 1. : 
Lohmann, J. R. (2005). Building a community of scholars: The role of the Journal of Engineering Education as a research journal. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 1-6. : 
Lohmann, J. R. (2011). JEE and its Second Century. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 1-5. : 
Olds, B. M., Moskal, B. M., & Miller, R. L. (2005). Assessment in engineering education: Evolution, approaches and future collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 13-25.: 
Osorio, N. L., & Osorio, M. A. (2004). Engineering education in Europe and the USA: An analysis of two journals. Science & Technology Libraries, 23(1), 49-70.: 
Soderberg, C. R. (1967). A Note on Engineering Education. In Applied science and technological progress: A report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives (pp. 399-413). Washington: National Academy of Sciences (U.S.).: 
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation: Brookings Institution Press.: 
Streveler, R. A., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Conducting rigorous research in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 103-105. : 
Wankat, P. C., Williams, B., & Neto, P. (2014). Engineering education research in European Journal of Engineering Education and Journal of Engineering Education: citation and reference discipline analysis. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(1), 7-17.: 
Go to top