F. Georgsson, J. Kontio, J. Bennedsen (2015).  IMPROVING THE CDIO SELF-EVALUATION. 18.

One of the cornerstones of CDIO is a continuous improvement strategy. This is reflected in standard 12 — Program Evaluation: “A system that evaluates programs against these twelve standards, and provides feedback to students, faculty, and other stakeholders for the purposes of continuous improvement”

The process of creating the CDIO self-evaluation rubric was done in 2007 - 2010. Since then, a lot more members have joined CDIO making the background for the CDIO members even more diverse. Consequently, it is even more important to have a critical view on the rubric and improve it if possible.

The three authors have all experience in conducting self-evaluations on own study programs. They reported in an article last year of their own views on the rubric and associated descriptions for the different levels. The authors have also been reviewing self-evaluations from other possible members, as they serve as regional leaders. Based on their experience (both own and observed differences between the evaluated self-evaluations from others), they suggested some improvements. At that point CDIO council asked us to continue this development work aiming at new version of CDIO rubrics to the 12 standards. The goal is to produce CDIO standards with rubrics v. 3.0.

Based on the proposals we wanted to get feedback from the CDIO community. We received few comments earlier, but for this paper our aim is to get feedback in a more systematic way. We wanted to evaluate the proposed improvements and modifications among the other CDIO members. We wanted to hear whether they see the proposed changes necessary at all and whether the new proposed rubrics are more understandable. In addition, we wanted to see if there are needs to further modify and improve the rubrics.

The data collection had several ways. A web questionnaire was sent to all CDIO collaborators representing the CDIO member universities. Additional information and more detailed comments were acquired with a short semi-structured interview with selected CDIO collaborators and a session at the fall meeting with experienced CDIO members were held.

Based on the web questionnaire and the interviews the proposed rubrics of the 12 CDIO standards will be analyzed once more and necessary clarifications, improvements and corrections will be provided. Finally, a proposal for the CDIO standards with rubrics v. 3.0 will be presented and provided to the CDIO council for necessary actions.

Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015

Authors (New): 
Fredrik Georgsson
Juha Kontio
Jens Bennedsen
Umeå University, Sweden
Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland
Aarhus University, Denmark
Bennedsen, Jens, Fredrik Georgsson, and Juha Kontio. »Evaluating the CDIO self evaluation.« 10:th CDIO Conference. Barcelona, 2014.: 
CDIO. The CDIO Standards v 2.0 (with customized rubrics). 16. December 2010. (Accessed 28. January 2015).: 
Rouvrais, Siegfried, Claire Lassudrie, Samia Ech-Chantoufi, and Soukaina Bakrim. »Educational Program Evaluations: Retionalizing Assessment models and processes for engineering educationquality enhancement.« Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference. Barcelona, Spain, 2014.: 
Rouvrais, Siegfried, and Claire Lassudrie. »An Assessment Framework for Engineering Education Systems.« I Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Antanas Mitasiunas, Terry Rout, Rory V. O'Connor and Alec Dorling, 250-255. Springer International Publishing, 2014.: 
Go to top