USNA ADOPTION OF CDIO SYLLABUS

1
USNA ADOPTION OF CDIO SYLLABUS

• DARYL G. BODEN
• CHAIR, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
• U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY

2
USNA - CDIO

• Who are we?
• Why CDIO for us?
• How are we adopting CDIO?
• Questions?

3
USNA Enduring Mission

• To develop midshipmen morally, mentally , and
  physically and to imbue them with the highest
  ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to
  provide graduates who are dedicated to a career
  of naval service and have potential for future
  development in mind and character to assume the
  highest responsibilities of command, citizenship,
  and government.

4
U.S. Naval Academy Education and Training
Organization
5
Degree Requirements

• Complete or Validate ( In four years)
• Course work for Core Curriculum Major
• Minimum of 140 semester hours
• Minimum grade of C overall and in major
• Prescribed Summer Training
• Required standards of performance in
• Military Performance
• Honor
• Conduct
• Physical Education
• Accept a Commission in the U.S. Navy or U.S.
  Marine Corps

6
Academic Majors

• Students choose major in spring semester of
  freshman year
• Begin majors courses in sophomore year
• Limited opportunities to change major because of
  requirement to graduate in four years

7
2000-2002 SERVICE ASSIGNMENT
Community 2000 2001
2002 Surface Warfare (Conv) 207 211
228 Surface Warfare (Nuclear) 44 43
45 Submarine Warfare 123 149
130 Navy Pilot 233 241
258 Navy NFO 100 60
88 Special Warfare (SEALs) 16
16 16 Special Operations 11 10
11 USMC Ground 99 96 106 USMC
Pilot 45 48 54 USMC NFO 13 10
5
8
2000-2002 SERVICE ASSIGNMENT
Community 2000 2001 2002 Aviation
Maintenance 0 1 1 Civil Engineer Corps
6 1 5 Cryptology 3 4
6 Intelligence 4 4 3 Supply Corps
10 9 8 Medical Corps 13 15 10 Air
Force 2 1 2 Total Commissions 930 9
13 979 Notes for 2002 - 96 received their 1st
or 2nd choice - 2 not physically qualified for
warfare assignment (23 total)
9
USNA FACULTY

• Civilian Military
• Engineering Weapons 68 68
• Math Science 110 47
• Humanities Social Sciences 95 44
• Professional Development 7 60
• Physical Education 26 23
• Administrative/Staff 16 10
• TOTAL 322 252

10
Aerospace Mission

• To provide the Navy and Marine Corps with
  engineering graduates capable of growing to fill
  engineering, management and leadership roles in
  the Navy, government, and industry - maturing
  their fascination with Air and Space flight
  vehicles.

11
Students

• 60-90 per class
• Evenly divided between aeronautics and
  astronautics tracks
• gt75 fly navy

12
Curriculum

• ASTRO TRACK
• Astrodynamics
• Space Power Comm
• Space Environment
• Space Systems Lab
• S/C Attitude Dynamics
• Space Propulsion
• Aerospace Structures

• AERO TRACK
• Aerodynamics I
• Aerodynamics II
• Applied Aero
• Wind Tunnel
• Stability Control
• Flight Propulsion
• Aerospace Structures

Design Class
Design Class
Internal/External Review
13
Aerospace Faculty

• 4 Tenure-track Civilians
• 4 Military
• - 3 have Ph.D./ 1 Masters
• - 3 Permanent/ 1 Rotational
• 3 Visiting Professors
• 1 Endowed Chair
• 1 Pending Endowed Chair

14
Facilities

• Fluids Lab
• Structures Lab
• Simulation lab
• Propulsion Lab
• Satellite Ground Station
• Bonanza A/C

15
CDIO Initiatives in Department

• USNA Small Satellite Program
• AIAA Design, Build, and Fly competition
• Strong emphasis throughout Naval Academy on
  operations

16
Small Satellite Program

• Six current projects being pursued by midshipmen
• In 2003 every USNA astronautics major is engaged
  in
• actual spacecraft design
• Negotiating launch services through DoD Space
  Test Program

17
(No Transcript)
18
AIAA Design/Build/Fly Contest
19
CHRONOLOGY

• Fall 2001 Received copy of CDIO Syllabus in
  mail
• Summer 2002 Visit to USNA by Ed Crawley
• Fall 2002 Prof Boden attended International
  collaborators' meeting Göteborg, Sweden
• Spring 2003 Invited to become a CDIO
  Collaborator, attended international meeting at
  MIT
• Summer 2003 Accepted invitation and began
  process of implementing CDIO syllabus into our
  program
• Fall 2003 Attended International Collaborators
  meeting at DTU and assembled CDIO team at USNA
• Fall 2003 Completed CDIO Syllabus Survey and
  began benchmarking curriculum
• Fall 2003 Assessed our current compliance with
  CDIO standards
• Fall 2003 Unplanned facilities changes

20
Why CDIO at the USNA?

• Initial interest ABET accreditation
• Desire to go beyond paper designs in capstone
  design courses
• Strong focus and the Naval Academy on operations
  our graduates become operators of systems
• CDIO provides us with the structure to make the
  changes in our program
• CDIO provides us with lessons learned from the
  original four schools
• Where do we begin?

21
1. Principle that CDIO is the Context
Existing faculty TL competence
Existing learning spaces
Existing curriculum
Existing assessment evaluation
2. CDIO Syllabus survey and learning objectives
Survey of assessment and program evaluation
Faculty survey on teaching, learning and
assessment
Curriculum benchmarking
Lab/workshop space survey
Identify best practice and possible innovation
Identifying opportunities to improve TL
Design curricular assignment of CDIO topics
Design workshops and usage mode
Design assessment evaluation framework
10. Enhance faculty competence in teaching and
learning, and in assessment
9. Enhance faculty competence in personal,
interpersonal and system building
6. Workshop development
12. Program evaluation
3. Curricular Design
7. Authentic learning experiences
4. Introductory course
8. Active learning
11. Student assessment
5. Design-build Courses
Program operation and student learning
22
Our Approach to Adopting the CDIO Syllabus

• Several faculty meetings to discuss adopting CDIO
  cost and benefits
• Faculty completed CDIO Syllabus survey and we
  compared results with MIT
• Recognition that we place high value on topics
  that we dont currently cover well in our program
• Began planning on future re-design of our lab
  facilities with CDIO guidelines in mind
  Hurricane Isabel 22accelerated those plans!

23
CDIO Assessment Theme Model
CDIO Capabilities and Attributes
CDIO Mission Statement.
Learning Outcomes.
Program Evaluation Feedback.
Curriculum and Instruction.
CDIO Standards
Assessment of Student Learning.
PJG/USNA (31-Dec-03)
24
Hurricane Isabel September 17, 2003 - 6B In
Damage to Maryland Alone
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Rickover Hall East Entrance
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Refurbished Areas And EE Studio Labs
36
New Engineering Project Spaces
37
Astronautics Conceive/Design Space
38
Astronautics Implement Space
39
Astronautics Operate Space
40
Aeronautics Build/Operate Space
41
Where are we now?Where are we going?

• Spring 2004
• Complete curriculum benchmarking
• Have stakeholders complete survey
• Continue restoring labs
• Summer 2004
• Begin program revision we will use our existing
  curriculum and overlay CDIO syllabus topics into
  existing courses
• Review CDIO Starter Kits for application in our
  program
• Long-Range Goal Be CDIO Self-Certified by
  summer 2006
• (ABET visit in Fall of 2005)

42
ADVICE FOR CDIO ADOPTERS

• Evaluate your program. What are your strengths
  and weaknesses relative to the CDIO Syllabus?
• Identify some early successes
• Easy to implement
• Quick payoff
• Visible results
• Generate buy-in from faculty
• Give them tools to help with changes (IRMs)
• Reward faculty who embrace CDIO (PT)
• Give them ownership in project
• Be ready to assess changes
• Identify resources needed before you embark on
  large changes especially project-based courses

43
QUESTIONS?