Practice-based engineering design for next-generation of engineers: A CDIO-based approach

In recent years, practice-based learning has been establishing itself as a new norm in higher education: an enabler to foster knowledge, skills and innovative thinking in young learners. Conceive, design, implement and operate (CDIO), a well-established pedagogical methodology, offers many opportunities for education providers seeking to best achieve this practice-based learning within various educational environments. Case studies of engineering programs that made use of the CDIO model provide illustrations of how the ideas were put into effect in actual projects. This paper draws on a CDIO-based design case study where students were requested to solve a real engineering problem; in order to explore the great potential of such a teaching and learning paradigm in practice settings. Some first-year mechanical, biomedical and product design engineering students studying at the Canterbury Christ Church University were set a design brief by a Ford Motor Company tier supplier, to design a high security lock for commercial vehicles which works on both sliding and rear hinged slam doors. The project had twelve engineering groups, each with three or four students sharing responsibility for separate project design and engineering roles: including design sketches; computer-aided modelling; engineering material investigation; finite element analysis; computer-aided manufacturing; prototyping; project reporting and company presentation. In order to analyse the effect of incentives on the underlying motivation of learners, a cash prize was secured via the Engineers in Business Fellowship (EIBF) organisation, to be shared between the winners selected by the industrial partner after a detailed study of benefits, manufacturability and potential innovation. This paper documents the findings of collected qualitative and quantitative data as part of this project-based case study, and furthermore, reflects on the effectiveness of CDIO implementation on the depth of students’ knowledge and level of practical engineering learning. The objective here is to evaluate the individual and collaborative learning processes that occur among a group of students as they use CDIO active learning tactics. The analysis reported in this paper can serve as a foundation to illustrate how educators may better prepare their students for joining the workforce of the future, by using an active learning approach that provides more weight to practical than theoretical knowledge.

ASQ. (2022). What is Quality Function Deployment (QFD)? Retrieved December 19, 2022, from https://asq.org/quality-resources/qfd-quality-function-deployment
Autodesk. (2015). How to perform a mesh convergence study. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/simulation-mechanical/learn-e...
Bi, Z. (2018). Finite element analysis applications (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S.-k. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University : What the Student Does. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Briede, B. (2013). A constructivist approach in engineering education. Engineering for Rural Development, 12, 584-589.
CDIO. (2022). CDIO Syllabus. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from http://www.cdio.org/framework-benefits/cdio-syllabus
CES. (2019). Level 1: Metals and alloys. Canonsburg: ANSYS.
Chew, C. M., Ng, L. Y., Mah, S. K., & Ng, Y. S. (2021). Development of a university-industry collaboration model towards work-ready engineering graduates. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-19.
Engineering Council, (2019), The Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) fourth edition [on-line at] https://www.engc.org.uk/media/3464/ahep-fourth-edition.pdf, pp 32-37
FEMTO. (2021). Linear and non-linear analysis explained. Retrieved March 22, 2021, from https://www.femto.eu/stories/linear-non-linear-analysis-explained/
Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 131-150.
Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2011). Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education: a review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 137-149.
Haavi, T., Tvenge, N., & Martinsen, K. (2018). CDIO design education collaboration using 3D-desktop printers. Procedia CIRP, 70, 325-330.
Hu, X., Yan, R., & Chen, X. (2022). Implementing problem-based learning in engineering education through the CDIO framework: A case study. Education Sciences, 12(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020081
Lopes, A. M., Figueiredo, J., & Flores, M. A. (2022). Promoting reflection on work-integrated learning experiences through the CDIO framework. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(1), 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20419
Martins, R. M., Lima, R. M., & Gouveia, D. (2023). Developing engineering students’ skills using an integrated CDIO-based learning environment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2029327
Morgan, M., & O'Gorman, P. (2010). Developing industry ready engineers: A regional university perspective. In Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education, Gliwice, Poland (pp. 74-82).
NGEC. (2016). Status of equality and inclusion in Kenya. Nairobi: National Gender and Equality Commission.
Nortcliffe, A. L., Parveen, S., & Pink-Keech, C. (2022). Statistically, does peer assisted learning make a difference on a UK engineering degree programme? HETL Scotland 2017. Journal of applied research in higher education, 14(1), 489-506.
Shah, A., & Foster, A. (2022). Implementing CDIO in Online Engineering Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 12(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010035
Weibull. (2022). The Use of Failure Mechanisms in FMEA. Retrieved July 19, 2022, from https://www.weibull.com/basics/fmea.htm
Zhang, Y., Liu, Z., & Chen, X. (2022). A CDIO-based approach to promote sustainable development in engineering education. Sustainability, 14(3), 1337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031337