What makes Students learn for Life?

What makes Students learn for Life?

J. Jakupovic, A. Carstensen (2017).  What makes Students learn for Life?. 11.

As a master student, Jakupovic explored if and how computer science education may be up-to-date, when the computer engineering area is such a moving target. The results of the presented thesis are worthwhile to present to engineering educators. Jakupovic interviewed former students, now working as programmers or project managers in industry, and found the following themes: The education laid the foundation for the programmers’ careers, but the transition from school to industry was rather difficult, and furthermore, what was taught, and expected by industry, did not correspond to students’ expectations of what to learn at university. In this study, we use these interviews and continue to answer the following questions: How can we make the transition into work life more smooth? How can we motivate students that what we are teaching is not outdated and obsolete? There are many studies on motivation, and especially using CDIO-courses as a motivating factor. The students speak of: specific content they learned, the theory-practice gap and how teachers either teach or facilitate students’ learning. They also reflect on the fact that they prior to the interviews had not realized that the university courses had made such an impact on their career. Our hypothesis is that motivation will be enhanced, and courses will feel up-to-date if we may align students’ expectations to the needs of industry.

Jakupovic, J. (2016) Educated to Learn - How to enhance the education of computer science and informatics. Master thesis, Jönköping School of Engineering, Jönköping University

Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22 2017

Authors (New): 
Jasmin Jakupovic
Anna-Karin Carstensen
Jönköping University, Sweden
Student expectations
Computer Science Education
Curriculum Development
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO standard 4
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 9
CDIO Standard 10
CDIO Standard 11
Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula ACM/IEEE-CS (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. AMC, New York. Retrieved from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2534860: 
CDIO (2008). The CDIO Standards v. 2.0 – Retrieved from: http://www.cdio.org/implementingcdio/standards/12-cdio-standards January, 2017: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R. & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, London.: 
Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(SPL CONTENT), 1344-1360. [6185632].: 
Guba, Egon G & Lincoln, Yvonna S (1981). Effective evaluation. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.: 
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, California.: 
Jakupovic, J. (2016). Educated to Learn: How to enhance the education of computer science and informatics. (Master Thesis Dissertation). Jönköping: Jönköping School of Engineering. Retrieved from: http://hj.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1010158&dswid=-8066 January, 2017: 
Kinnunen, P., Butler, M., Morgan, M., Nylen, A., Peters, A-K., Sinclair, J., Kalvala, S., & Pesonen, E. (2016). Understanding initial undergraduate expectations and identity in computing studies. European Journal of Engineering Education: 
Klawe, M., & Shneiderman, B. (2005). Crisis and Opportunity in Computer Science. Communication of the ACM, 48(11), 27-28: 
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2014). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE Publications, California.: 
Langan, A., M., Dunleavy, P., & Fielding, A. (2013). Applying Models to National Surveys of Undergraduate Science Students: What Affects Ratings of Satisfaction? Educational science 2 193-207.: 
Lewis, C., Jackson, M. H. & Waite, W.M. (2010). Student and Faculty Attitudes and beliefs about Computer Science. Communications of the ACM 53(5), 78-85.: 
Malmberg, J. (2007). Analog Circuit Topology Development: Practice Methods for Technology and Teaching Based on Comprehensible Transistor Models. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.: 
Pears, A. (2015). Envisioning the Education of the Future. Proceedings of the AlBaha University and Uppsala University Symposium on Quality in Computing Education (ABU3QCE 2015), 44-47.: 
Peters, A-K. (2014). The Role of Students' Identity Development in Higher Education in Computing. (Licentiate Dissertation). Uppsala: Uppsala University: 
Peters, A-K., Berglund, A., Eckerdal, A. & Pears, A. (2014). First Year Computer Science and IT Students’ Experience of Participation in the Discipline. International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE: 
ahami, M., Aiken, A., & Zelenski, J. (2010). Expanding the Frontiers of Computer Science: Designing a Curriculum to Reflect a Diverse Filed. Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 47-51.: 
Sewell, M. (1998). The Use of Qualitative Interviews in Evaluation. (Workbook & Guides). Arizona: University of Arizona. Retrieved from: https://cals.arizona.edu/sfcs/cyfernet/cyfar/Intervu5.htm January, 2017.: 
Tynjälä, P., Salminen, R. T., Sutela, T., Nuutinen, A., & Pitkänen, S. (2005). Factors related to study success in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education 30(2), 221-231.: 
Go to top