UPDATED RUBRIC FOR SELF-EVALUATION (v.2.

1)

Jens Bennedsen

Aarhus University, School of Engineering, Denmark

Fredrik Georgsson

Umeå University, Umeå Institute of Technology, Sweden

Juha Kontio

Turku University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Business, ICT and Chemical Engineering,
Finland

ABSTRACT

On November 13, 2015 the CDIO Council approved an updated version of the self-evaluation
rubric. This paper will present the updated version of the rubric along with some general
thoughts on how to work with it. In this paper we will also present the process that started
with a paper in the 2014 CDIO world conference identifying inconsistencies in the version 2.0
of the CDIO rubric for self-evaluation and ended in the proposed rubric.

KEYWORDS

Self-assessment rubric, quality assessment, continuous improvement, CDIO rubric, CDIO

standards, Standard: 12

INTRODUCTION

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” (CDIO, 2010). As an aid for performing the self-
evaluation a rubric was presented in 2010. In 2014 we presented our first paper on
suggested changes (Bennedsen, Georgsson, & Kontio, 2014) that was followed by an
updated proposal presented in (Georgsson, Kontio, & Bennedssen, 2015) and discussed at
the CDIO Fall Meeting in Belfast in November 2015. The CDIO council approved the
changes at their meeting on November 13 2015.

The outline of the paper is as follows: Firstly, the updated rubric will be presented, then an
introduction on how to think about the levels of the rubric will be given along with some
theoretical foundation. Lastly the process of developing the new rubric will be described.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
THE UPDATED RUBRIC

Since this document is intended to serve as a description of the latest version of the CDIO
rubric for self-evaluation it will be listed here in its entirety. We have chosen to list it
alongside the old version of the rubric for comparison.

Table 1 Rubric for standard 1

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Evaluation groups recognize that CDIO is Evaluation groups where all relevant
the context of the engineering program stakeholders are represented endorse
and use this principle as a guide for CDIO as the context of the engineering
continuous improvement. program and use this principle as a guide
for continuous improvement.
4 There is documented evidence that the There is documented evidence that the
CDIO principle is the context of the CDIO principle is the context of the
engineering program and is fully engineering program and is implemented
implemented. in all years of the program.
3 CDIO is adopted as the context for the CDIO is implemented in one or more
engineering program and is implemented years of the program.
in one or more years of the program.
2 There is an explicit plan to transition to a There is an explicit plan to transition to a
CDIO context for the engineering CDIO context for the engineering
program. program.
1 The need to adopt the principle that There is a willingness to adopt the
CDIO is the context of engineering principle that CDIO is the context of
education is recognized and a process to engineering education.
address it has been initiated.
0 There is no plan to adopt the principle There is no plan to adopt the principle
that CDIO is the context of engineering that CDIO is the context of engineering
education for the program. education for the program.

Table 2 Rubric for standard 2

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Internal and external groups regularly Internal and external groups regularly
review and revise program learning review and revise program learning
outcomes, based on changes in outcomes and/or program goals based
stakeholder needs. on changes in stakeholder needs.
4 Program learning outcomes are aligned NO CHANGE
with institutional vision and mission, and
levels of proficiency are set for each
outcome.
3 Program learning outcomes are validated Course and/or program learning
with key program stakeholders, including outcomes are validated with key program
faculty, students, alumni, and industry stakeholders, including faculty, students,
representatives. alumni, and industry representatives and
levels of proficiency are set for each
outcome.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 2 A plan to incorporate explicit statements A plan to incorporate explicit statements
of program learning outcomes is of learning outcomes at course/module
accepted by program leaders, level as well as program outcomes is
engineering faculty, and other accepted by program leaders,
stakeholders. engineering faculty, and other
stakeholders.
1 The need to create or modify program The need to create or modify learning
learning outcomes is recognized and outcomes at course/module level and
such a process has been initiated. program outcomes are recognized and
such a process has been initiated
0 There are no explicit program learning There are no explicit learning outcomes
outcomes that cover knowledge, at course/module level nor program
personal and interpersonal skills, and outcomes that cover knowledge,
product, process and system building personal and interpersonal skills, and
skills. product, process and system building
skills.

Table 3 Rubric for standard 3

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Internal and external stakeholders NO CHANGE.
regularly review the integrated curriculum
and make recommendations and
adjustments as needed.
4 There is evidence that personal, There is evidence that the students have
interpersonal, product, process, and achieved the intended learning outcomes
system building skills are addressed in all
concerning personal, interpersonal,
courses responsible for their
product, process and system building
implementation. skills.
3 Personal, interpersonal, product,
The approved integrated curriculum
process, and system building skills are concerning personal, interpersonal,
integrated into one or more years in the product, process, and system building
curriculum. skills is in use.
2 A curriculum plan that integrates The curriculum that integrates learning
disciplinary learning, personal, inter- outcomes of personal, interpersonal,
personal, product, process, and system product, process, and system building
building skills is approved by appropriateskills is approved and a process has
groups. been initiated to implement the
curriculum.
1 The need to analyze the curriculum is NO CHANGE.
recognized and initial mapping of
disciplinary and skills learning outcomes
is underway.
0 There is no integration of skills or The curriculum has no courses known to
mutually supporting disciplines in the integrate learning outcomes of personal,
program. interpersonal, product, process, and
system building skills.

Table 4 Rubric for standard 4

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric
5 The introductory course is regularly The introductory course is regularly
evaluated and revised, based on evaluated and revised as needed, based
feedback from students, instructors, and on feedback from students, instructors,
other stakeholders. and other stakeholders.
4 There is documented evidence that NO CHANGE
students have achieved the intended
learning outcomes of the introductory
engineering course.
3 An introductory course that includes NO CHANGE
engineering learning experiences and
introduces essential personal and
interpersonal skills has been
implemented.
2 A plan for an introductory engineering A plan for an introductory engineering
course introducing a framework for course introducing a framework for
practice has been approved. practice has been approved and a
process to implement the plan has been
initiated.
1 The need for an introductory course that The need for an introductory course that
provides the framework for engineering provides the framework for engineering
practice is recognized and a process to practice is recognized and a planning
address that need has been initiated. process initiated.
0 There is no introductory engineering NO CHANGE
course that provides a framework for
practice and introduces key skills.

Table 5 Rubric for standard 5

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 The design-implement experiences are NO CHANGE
regularly evaluated and revised, based
on feedback from students, instructors,
and other stakeholders.
4 There is documented evidence that NO CHANGE
students have achieved the intended
learning outcomes of the design-
implement experiences.
3 At least two design-implement NO CHANGE
experiences of increasing complexity are
being implemented.
2 There is a plan to develop a design- NO CHANGE
implement experience at a basic and
advanced level.
1 A needs analysis has been conducted to NO CHANGE
identify opportunities to include design-
implement experiences in the curriculum.
0 There are no design-implement NO CHANGE
experiences in the engineering program.
Table 6 Rubric of standard 6

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric
5 Internal and external groups regularly The program leaders, students, teachers
evaluate the impact and effectiveness of and external stakeholders regularly
workspaces on learning and provide evaluate the functionality and
recommendations for improving them. purposefulness of workspaces on
learning and provide recommendations
for improving them.
4 Engineering workspaces fully support all NO CHANGE
components of hands-on, knowledge,
and skills learning.
3 Plans are being implemented and some Development plans of engineering
new or remodelled spaces are in use. workplaces are being implemented and
some new or remodelled spaces are in
use.
2 Plans to remodel or build additional Workspaces, their functionality and
engineering workspaces have been purposefulness for teaching are being
approved by the appropriate bodies. evaluated by internal groups including
stakeholders
1 The need for engineering workspaces to NO CHANGE
support hands-on, knowledge, and skills
activities is recognized and a process to
address the need has been initiated.
0 Engineering workspaces are inadequate NO CHANGE
or inappropriate to support and
encourage hands-on skills, knowledge,
and social learning.

Table 7 Rubric of standard 7

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Courses are regularly evaluated and Courses are regularly evaluated and
revised regarding their integration of revised regarding their integration of
learning outcomes and activities. learning experiences and the impact of
these experiences.
4 There is evidence of the impact of There is evidence of the impact of the
integrated learning experiences across implementation of integrated learning
the curriculum. experiences according to the integrated
curriculum plan.
3 Integrated learning experiences are Integrated learning experiences are
implemented in courses across the being implemented in courses across
curriculum. the curriculum according to the
integrated curriculum plan.
2 Course plans with learning outcomes and NO CHANGE
activities that integrate personal and
interpersonal skills with disciplinary
knowledge has been approved.
1 Course plans have been benchmarked NO CHANGE
with respect to the integrated curriculum
plan.
0 There is no evidence of integrated NO CHANGE
learning of disciplines and skills.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
Table 8 Rubric of standard 8

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Internal and external groups regularly Internal and/or external groups regularly
review the impact of active learning review active learning activities on
methods and make recommendations for outcome based learning across the
continuous improvement. curricula and make recommendations for
continuous improvement
4 There is documented evidence of the There is documented evidence that
impact of active learning methods on active learning has been implemented
student learning. suitably all across the curriculum
3 Active learning methods are being NO CHANGE
implemented across the curriculum.
2 There is a plan to include active learning There is a plan and process to include
methods in courses across the active learning methods in courses
curriculum. across the curriculum.
1 There is an awareness of the benefits of There is an awareness of the benefits of
active learning, and benchmarking of active learning and it is encouraged to
active learning methods in the curriculum introduce it across the curricula.
is in process.
0 There is no evidence of active NO CHANGE
experiential learning methods.

Table 9 Rubric for standard 9

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Faculty competence in personal, NO CHANGE
interpersonal, product, process, and
system building skills is regularly
evaluated and updated where
appropriate.
4 There is evidence that the collective NO CHANGE
faculty is competent in personal,
interpersonal, product, process, and
system building skills.
3 The collective faculty participates in Where needed, the faculty participates in
faculty development in personal, faculty development in personal,
interpersonal, product, process, and interpersonal, product, process, and
system building skills. system building skills.
2 There is a systematic plan of faculty Where needed, there is a systematic
development in personal, interpersonal, plan of faculty development in personal,
product, process, and system building interpersonal, product, process, and
skills. system building skills.
1 A benchmarking study and needs The need of faculty competence
analysis of faculty competence has been development plan in personal,
conducted. interpersonal, product, process and
system building skills is recognized.
0 There are no programs or practices to NO CHANGE
enhance faculty competence in personal,

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 interpersonal, product, process, and
system building skills.

Table 10 Rubric for Standard 10

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Faculty competence in teaching, learning, NO CHANGE
and assessment methods is regularly
evaluated and updated where
appropriate.
4 There is evidence that the collective There is evidence that the faculty is
faculty is competent in teaching, learning, collectively working on their
and assessment methods. competences in teaching learning and
assessment methods
3 Faculty members participate in faculty Faculty members participate continously
development in teaching, learning, and in faculty development in teaching,
assessment methods. learning, and assessment methods.
2 There is a systematic plan of faculty A systematic plan of faculty development
development in teaching, learning, and in teaching, learning, and assessment
assessment methods. methods is developed and budgeted.
1 A benchmarking study and needs A need for enhancing teaching
analysis of faculty teaching competence competences is recognized and
has been conducted. accepted within the team
0 There are no programs or practices to NO CHANGE
enhance faculty teaching competence.

Table 11 Rubric of standard 11

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Internal and external groups regularly NO CHANGE
review the use of learning assessment
methods and make recommendations for
continuous improvement.
4 Learning assessment methods are used There are evidence of aligned learning
effectively in courses across the assessment methods
curriculum.
3 Learning assessment methods are Learning assessment methods are
implemented across the curriculum. aligned with the learning goals across
the curriculum.
2 There is a plan to incorporate learning There is a plan to align learning
assessment methods across the assessment methods with the
curriculum. curriculum.
1 The need for the improvement of learning The need for the improvement of
assessment methods is recognized and learning assessment methods is
benchmarking of their current use is in recognized.
process.
0 Learning assessment methods are Learning assessment methods are
inadequate or inappropriate. inadequate, inappropriate or not aligned

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
Table 12 Rubric of standard 12

Level Old version of the rubric New version of the Rubric

5 Systematic and continuous improvement There is documented evidence that
is based on program evaluation results systematic and continuous
from multiple sources and gathered by improvement is based on continuous
multiple methods. program evaluation results.
4 Program evaluation methods are being There is documented evidence that
used effectively with all stakeholder program evaluation methods are being
groups. used with key stakeholders including
students, faculty, program leaders,
alumni and working life representatives.
3 Program evaluation methods are being Program evaluation methods are being
implemented across the program to implemented across the program to
gather data from students, faculty, gather data from majority of including
program leaders, alumni, and other the stakeholders (such as students,
stakeholders. faculty, program leaders, alumni,
working life representatives)
2 A program evaluation plan exists. A continuous program evaluation plan
exists.
1 The need for program evaluation is NO CHANGE.
recognized and benchmarking of
evaluation methods is in process.
0 Program evaluation is inadequate or Program evaluation is non-existing.
inconsistent.

HOW TO WORK WITH THE LEVELS OF THE RUBRIC

There are six levels in the rubric describing levels of maturity. As shown in Table 13, the
levels range from 0: there is no documented plan or activity related to the standard, to 5:
evidence related to the standard is regularly reviewed and used to make improvements. In
general, in order to be at level n, level n-1 should also be fulfilled. In this sense the levels of
the rubric form a hierarchy, as described in Figure 1.

Table 13. A generic description of the CDIO rubric.

Level Rubric
5 Evidence related to the standard is regularly reviewed and used to make
improvements
4 There is documented evidence of the full implementation and impact of
the standard across the program components and constituents.
3 Implementation of the plan to address the standard is underway across
the program components and constituents.
2 There is a plan in place to address the standard.
1 There is an awareness of need to adopt the standard an a process is in
place to address it.
0 There is no documented plan or activity related to the standard.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

Level 0

Figure 1 A hierarchical view of the levels of the rubric

One problem with this view is that you could be tempted to view level 5 as a final state,
indicating that you in some way have “finished” your quality work when you self-assess
yourself at this level (as indicated in Figure 1). It can even be so that you run into trouble
when it comes to level 4: There is documented evidence of full implementation, which tells us
that we have reached a satisfactory implementation of the standard and you might be
tempted to stop the developing process there. At this point we must stress that the correct
interpretation of level 5 is that you have made sure you have a satisfactory level of
implementation (level 4) and that you have processes in place that guarantee continued
improvements, i.e. you can never state that you are finished when it comes to improving
yourself.

We suggest that it could be helpful to think about the levels of the self-assessment rubric as
shown in Figure 2: First we have to conceive what the standard is all about, during that
process we are at level 1. When we start designing how we should address the
implementation of the standard we are at level 2. When we start implementing the design we
are at level 3. After level 3, we leave the linear implementation phases and enter an
operation phase where we repeatedly assess that we have an accepted level of
implementation (level 4) but still systematically address the shortcomings of our
implementations (level 5). With this view of self-assessment it is obvious that we never will
be finished.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 Operate
Level 4 Level 5
Implement
Level 3
Design

Level 2
Conceive

Level 1

Level 0

Figure 2 Process focus of the levels of the rubric

THE RUBRIC VS. OTHER QUALITY ACCREDITATION SYSTEMS

Improving quality of the higher educational systems, its universities and programmes are
very much in focus all over the world. In many (most?) countries, accreditation bodies are in
place that will ensure the quality of a program or an institution. Such bodies exist in many
shapes and forms; private bodies like ABET (ABET, 2016), public bodies like the Danish
Accreditation agency (The Danish Accreditation Institution, 2016), bodies covering one
country like (CTI, 2016) and bodies covering many countries like EURACE (ENAEE, 2016).
All of these have their own accreditation system. For a description of accreditation systems
see (Bennedsen, Clark, Rouvrais, & Schrey-Niemenmaa, 2015)

The accreditation systems of today are mostly inspired by quality models like EFQM (EFQM)
or the Capability Maturity Model used for software development (Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis, &
Weber, 1993) where the focus is on process maturity and continuous improvement rather
than a measurement of the current status (although the evaluation of the current state is an
important part of the quality process).

Boele at al. (Boele, Burgler, & Kuiper, 2008) describe the EFQM model like this:

The EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) model basically looks at
an organization, its results, and the way the results lead to learning, improvement and
innovation. It was developed for firms but can be applied to any kind of organization.

An accreditation system typically consists of an assessment model, an assessment process

and a measurement framework (Rouvrais & Lassudrie, 2014). The assessment process

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
describes how and when the assessment is done (how data is collected and validated and
how the planning is done). The process focuses on the roles and responsibilities of the
involved stakeholders, the inputs and the outputs. The assessment process is supported by
an assessment model. The assessment model is based on a reference model that defines a
set of best practices (or standards) related to the domain that needs to be assessed. It is
measurement against these standards that is important as this is then the basis for improving
quality. The measurement framework defines the maturity levels to be considered and
contains a set of assessment indicators which support the ratings against the various
standards. The CDIO rubric is therefore NOT an accreditation system; we have only
described the measurement framework and that even without a set of indicators that could
be used to indicate on what level a given programme/institutions is with respect to a given
standard.

We have chosen NOT to include these elements since the rubric’s main purpose is for
internal use. It is therefore not important that it is reliable (i.e. that the rubric gives the same
score when applied by different individuals on the same programme and/or that it is possible
to compare self-evaluations from different institutions)

THE METHOD, MATERIAL AND DATA OF UPDATING THE RUBRIC

The process for updating the rubric has had several cycles. At the beginning the authors
were discussing about CDIO self-evaluation and compared their experiences in using CDIO
standards for self-evaluation. It became obvious that CDIO standards with the rubrics were in
active use in the authors’ universities, but we all had noticed some challenges with the exact
definition of the rubric levels, usability of the rubrics as well as the coherence of the rubrics.
The discussion started a development process where each of the authors worked with four
standards and produced a new proposal of those rubrics. The standards were then cross-
checked and at the end first modified version of the rubrics was published in CDIO
conference in Barcelona (Bennedsen, Georgsson & Kontio, 2014). The feedback received in
Barcelona showed that rubrics still need modifications and especially opinions from other
CDIO collaborators were hoped. We ourselves shared this opinion and wanted to get
feedback from the CDIO community. The CDIO council asked the authors to continue this
development work aiming at new version of CDIO rubrics to the 12 standards. The goal was
set to produce CDIO standards with rubrics v. 2.1.

The next development cycle started with the aim of getting 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 two
phases: a web questionnaire and short semi-structured interviews with selected CDIO
collaborators. The web questionnaire was sent to all CDIO collaborators representing the
CDIO member universities at the end of 2014. In addition, more detailed comments were
acquired with a short semi-structured interview with selected CDIO collaborators and a
session at the 2014 fall meeting with experienced CDIO members. Based on the feedback
an improved version of CDIO rubrics was presented and processed in a workshop during the
CDIO conference in Chengdu 2015 (Georgsson, Kontio & Bennedssen, 2015). The
workshop in Chengdu once more processed, checked and provided input for final
improvements.

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
The third development cycle used the results of the Chengdu workshop and tuned the final
nuances of the rubrics. The final version of the rubrics was presented in CDIO council
meeting in Belfast 2015. The proposed changes were accepted as presented in this paper.
The whole process of rubrics development is shown in Figure 3.

CDIO
standards
Identified Barcelona Chengdu
Turku 2016 with
need 2014 2015
rubrics v.
2.1

• Process and • Collect • Collect • Present final

produce new feedback: feedback: version
versions survey & workshop
• Prepare paper interviews • Improve rubrics
• Improve rubrics
• Prepare paper

Figure 3. Overall process of rubrics development.

CONCLUSION

Based on the rubrics development the overall change process within CDIO-framework can
be generalized into following:
1. Have an idea on what to change
2. Find others that are willing to discuss it
3. Inform the council about the wish to change
4. Perform an analysis – that is analyze current presentation based on theory, existing
documents etc.
5. Conduct a survey or in some other way collect the opinion of the CDIO-members
6. Document including analysis and proposed changes, normally together with
additional CDIO collaborators that want to contribute. The style of the paper should
be to clearly compare what exist to what is proposed and for every change clearly
justify why it is proposed.
7. Present at CDIO conference, preferably in workshop-format where you collect
feedback on proposed changes in a structured comparative way.
8. Revise suggestion based on feedback and present to the council.
9. Once the change is accepted by the council, report the final version at a CDIO-world
conference.

REFERENCES

ABET. (2016, February). ABET. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/

Bennedsen, J., Clark, R., Rouvrais, S., & Schrey-Niemenmaa, K. (2015). Using Accreditation
Criteria for Collaborative Quality Enhancement. Proceedings of 2015 International
Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL). Florence, Italy. Retrieved

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 from
http://www.weef2015.eu/Proceedings_WEEF2015/proceedings/papers/Contribution10
92.pdf
Bennedsen, J., Georgsson, F., & Kontio, J. (2014). Evaluating the CDIO self evaluation.
Proceedings of the CDIO World Conference. Barcelona.
Boele, E. B., Burgler, H., & Kuiper, H. (2008, Heft 1). Using EFQM in higher education: Ten
years of experience with programme auditing at Hanzehogeschool Groningen.
Beiträge zur hochschuleforschung, pp. 94-110.
CDIO. (2010, December 16). The CDIO Standards v 2.0 (with customised rubrics). Retrieved
January 19, 2016, from CDIO: http://www.cdio.org/knowledge-
library/documents/cdio-standards-v-20-customized-rubrics
CTI. (2016, February). Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur - La CTI est un organisme
indépendant chargé d’habiliter, de développer et de promouvoir la formation et le
métier d’ingénieur en France et à l’étranger. Retrieved from CTI (Commission des
Titres d’Ingénieur): http://www.cti-commission.fr/spip.php?page=sommaire-en
EFQM. (n.d.). The EFQM Excellence Model | EFQM. Retrieved from
http://www.efqm.org/the-efqm-excellence-model
ENAEE. (2016). EUR-ASE System. Retrieved from http://www.enaee.eu/eur-ace-system/
Georgsson, F., Kontio, J., & Bennedssen, J. (2015). Updating the CDIO self-evaluation
rubrics. Proceeding of the CDIO World Conference 2015. Chengdu: CDIO.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, M. B. (1993). Capability maturity model,
version 1.1. Software IEEE, 18-27.
Rouvrais, S., & Lassudrie, C. (2014). An Assessment Framework for Engineering Education
Systems. In A. Mitasiunas, T. Rout, R. V. O'Connor, & A. Dorling, Software Process
Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 250-255). Springer International
Publishing.
The Danish Accreditation Institution. (2016, January). The Danish Accreditation Institution.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://en.akkr.dk/

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Jens Bennedsen, Dr. Philos, Senior Associate Professor in engineering didactics. He

received the M.Sc. degree in Computer Science from the Aarhus University in 1988 and the
Dr. Philos degree in Computer Science from Oslo University in 2007.His research area
includes educational methods, technology and curriculum development methodology, and he
has published more than 40 articles at leading education conferences and journals. He is co-
leader of the European CDIO region.

Fredrik Georgsson, is a Doctor of Technology. He received his M.Sc. degree in Engineering

in Computing Science from Umeå University in 1996 and a Doctoral degree in Image
Analysis in 2001 also from Umeå. At the moment he is a senior lecturer in Computer Science
and appointed faculty subjects coordinator at the Faculty of Science and Technology at
Umeå University. He has presented and published over 45 papers. He is co-leaders of the
European CDIO region.

Juha Kontio, is a Doctor of Sciences in Economics and Business Administration. He

received the M.Sc. degree in Computer Science from the University of Jyväskylä in 1991 and
the D.Sc. degree in Information Systems from Turku School of Economics in 2004. At the
moment he is Dean at the Faculty of Business, ICT and Chemical Engineering in Turku
University of Applied Sciences. Previously he worked as Principal Lecturer and Degree
Program Manager in Business Information Systems. His research interest is in higher
education related topics. He has presented and published almost 100 papers. He is co-
leader of the European CDIO region.

Corresponding author

Jens Bennedsen
Aarhus University, School of Engineering
Inge Lehmanns Gade 10
This work is licensed under a Creative
DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
+45 4189 3090
NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
[email protected]

Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.