interdisciplinary-1024x247.png
Posted on by petert

PBL vs CDIO

I have been working with CDIO implementation (Wikberg Nilsson et al 2017) in the Industrial Design Engineering programme that I am responsible for at Luleå University of Technology, and even that it feels like I am quite familiar with PBL I wanted a second opinion on the difference between CDIO and PBL.
So first I went to Kristinas and Anettes paper, (Edström & Kolmos 2014) written by two very experienced authors that have worked with both CDIO and PBL for many years.

When comparing two models for reforming engineering education they state that there is much more variation in the PBL interpretation and implementation and that there are multiple definitions and perspectives compared to CDIO.

“PBL is applied in different cultural settings, subject areas and at different levels in the educational system ranging from schools to universities and continuing education. The scope of implementation ranges from the institutional, to programme and single course level.” (Ibid p. 544)

“a multitude of definitions exist for PBL, and there is arguably no forum where consensus could be established. On the other hand, the CDIO Standards express a more formal definition, codified and controlled by the CDIO Initiative, but with much room for variation in collaborating institutions’ practice.” (Ibid p. 545)

 However, they conclude that the three leading principles are fundamental to PBL. 

  • Collaborative learning approach, there must be a team aspect. And the learning process is a social act that where learning takes place through dialogue and communication. 
  • Cognitive learning approach, problems are the starting point for learning processes; they are placed in a context and based on the learner’s experience.
  • Content is interdisciplinary and should have a mix between theory and practice
Here I think it’s interesting that they use interdisciplinary, I have tried to find a good scholarly definition and explanation of these areas, but I tend to lean to a blog post from Alexander Refsum Jensenius (2012) for as one of the best short explanations:

Different types of disciplinarities (Jensenius, 2012)
  • Intradisciplinary: working within a single discipline.
  • Crossdisciplinary: viewing one discipline from the perspective of another.
  • Multidisciplinary: people from different disciplines working together, each drawing on their disciplinary knowledge.
  • Interdisciplinary: integrating knowledge and methods from different disciplines, using a real synthesis of approaches.
  • Transdisciplinary: creating a unity of intellectual frameworks beyond the disciplinary perspectives.

The differences 

Although some of the underlying philosophy in the two approaches are very similar, there are some differences.

“The PBL principles form a broad philosophy of teaching and learning focusing exclusively on the learning process, that is, how students should learn, and not on what they should learn.” (Ibid p. 545)

“CDIO takes its starting point in the learning outcomes of higher engineering education, and how learning should be facilitated is mainly a consequence of what students should learn.”  (Ibid pp. 545-546)

Also when comparing courses and curriculum there are some interesting differences, as CDIO is essentially is a model for curriculum development, it is not applicable to say that a single course is a CDIO course. And vice versa, it’s easy to say that a single course is a PBL course, but the PBL generally don’t imply a curriculum model at all.

Engineering projects

In CDIO one of the defining elements is the Design-Implement Experiences, that has many similarities with PBL. In the Design-Implement Experiences students design and implement products, processes, or systems. Projects concern increasingly complex and open-ended problems.

Design-Implement Experiences –  (CDIO Standard 5)
A curriculum that includes two or more design-implement experiences, including one at a basic level and one at an advanced level
Description

The term design-implement experience denotes a range of engineering activities central to the process of developing new products and systems.  Students develop product, process, and system building skills, as well as the ability to apply engineering science, in design-implement experiences integrated into the curriculum. 

When comparing the CDIOs Design-Implement Experiences with PBL

 “it is obvious that PBL comprises a broader scope of problems and projects, and that the PBL mode carries a greater part of the learning in the PBL curriculum. CDIO is born out of an engineering design environment and thus design projects and the near-professional engineering projects are important.“ (Ibid p. 552)

At the same time, PBL pedagogy is a defining feature of the CDIOs Design-Implement Experience.

Conclusions

Edström and Kolmos conclude that:

“The two approaches for reforming engineering education share the main underlying values and goals – the emphasis on development of professional skills through learning processes that are similar to authentic practice. The difference is that PBL emerged from rethinking the process, while CDIO was developed from rethinking the outcomes” (Ibid p. 551)

For me, the big difference is that:

  • CDIO is developed to support curriculum development in engineering programmes
  • CDIO focuses on what students should learn, PBL on how students should learn,
  • Is not possible to implement CDIO without PBL pedagogy, but PBL works fine by itself.

References

PBL vs CDIO