PBL and CDIO: Complementary models for engineering education development

Kristina Edström, Anette Kolmos

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

76 Citationer (Scopus)

Resumé

This paper compares two models for reforming engineering education, problem/project-based learning (PBL), and conceive–design–implement–operate (CDIO), identifying and explaining similarities and differences. PBL and CDIO are defined and contrasted in terms of their history, community, definitions, curriculum design, relation to disciplines, engineering projects, and change strategy. The structured comparison is intended as an introduction for learning about any of these models. It also invites reflection to support the understanding and evolution of PBL and CDIO, and indicates specifically what the communities can learn from each other. It is noted that while the two approaches share many underlying values, they only partially overlap as strategies for educational reform. The conclusions are that practitioners have much to learn from each other's experiences through a dialogue between the communities, and that PBL and CDIO can play compatible and mutually reinforcing roles, and thus can be fruitfully combined to reform engineering education.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuropean Journal of Engineering Education
Vol/bind39
Udgave nummer5
Sider (fra-til)539-555
ISSN0304-3797
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2014

Citer dette

@article{b82016370f2947ca8bfd6467b708b427,
title = "PBL and CDIO: Complementary models for engineering education development",
abstract = "This paper compares two models for reforming engineering education, problem/project-based learning (PBL), and conceive–design–implement–operate (CDIO), identifying and explaining similarities and differences. PBL and CDIO are defined and contrasted in terms of their history, community, definitions, curriculum design, relation to disciplines, engineering projects, and change strategy. The structured comparison is intended as an introduction for learning about any of these models. It also invites reflection to support the understanding and evolution of PBL and CDIO, and indicates specifically what the communities can learn from each other. It is noted that while the two approaches share many underlying values, they only partially overlap as strategies for educational reform. The conclusions are that practitioners have much to learn from each other's experiences through a dialogue between the communities, and that PBL and CDIO can play compatible and mutually reinforcing roles, and thus can be fruitfully combined to reform engineering education.",
author = "Kristina Edstr{\"o}m and Anette Kolmos",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1080/03043797.2014.895703",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "539--555",
journal = "European Journal of Engineering Education",
issn = "0304-3797",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "5",

}

PBL and CDIO : Complementary models for engineering education development. / Edström, Kristina; Kolmos, Anette.

I: European Journal of Engineering Education, Bind 39, Nr. 5, 2014, s. 539-555.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - PBL and CDIO

T2 - Complementary models for engineering education development

AU - Edström, Kristina

AU - Kolmos, Anette

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This paper compares two models for reforming engineering education, problem/project-based learning (PBL), and conceive–design–implement–operate (CDIO), identifying and explaining similarities and differences. PBL and CDIO are defined and contrasted in terms of their history, community, definitions, curriculum design, relation to disciplines, engineering projects, and change strategy. The structured comparison is intended as an introduction for learning about any of these models. It also invites reflection to support the understanding and evolution of PBL and CDIO, and indicates specifically what the communities can learn from each other. It is noted that while the two approaches share many underlying values, they only partially overlap as strategies for educational reform. The conclusions are that practitioners have much to learn from each other's experiences through a dialogue between the communities, and that PBL and CDIO can play compatible and mutually reinforcing roles, and thus can be fruitfully combined to reform engineering education.

AB - This paper compares two models for reforming engineering education, problem/project-based learning (PBL), and conceive–design–implement–operate (CDIO), identifying and explaining similarities and differences. PBL and CDIO are defined and contrasted in terms of their history, community, definitions, curriculum design, relation to disciplines, engineering projects, and change strategy. The structured comparison is intended as an introduction for learning about any of these models. It also invites reflection to support the understanding and evolution of PBL and CDIO, and indicates specifically what the communities can learn from each other. It is noted that while the two approaches share many underlying values, they only partially overlap as strategies for educational reform. The conclusions are that practitioners have much to learn from each other's experiences through a dialogue between the communities, and that PBL and CDIO can play compatible and mutually reinforcing roles, and thus can be fruitfully combined to reform engineering education.

U2 - 10.1080/03043797.2014.895703

DO - 10.1080/03043797.2014.895703

M3 - Journal article

VL - 39

SP - 539

EP - 555

JO - European Journal of Engineering Education

JF - European Journal of Engineering Education

SN - 0304-3797

IS - 5

ER -