hững thách thức trong việc thực hiện chương trình giảng dạy dựa trên cdio tại bốn trường đại học do bộ giao thông vận tải việt nam quản lý từ quan điểm của giảng viên

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF EDUCATION MANAGEMENT
Journal of Education Management, 2022, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 110-119
This paper is available online at

DOI: 10.53750/jem22.vl4.n3.110

THE CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING CDIO-BASED CURRICULA
AT FOUR UNIVERSITIES ADMINISTERED BY THE VIETNAM MINISTRY
OF TRANSPORT FROM THE LECTURERS’ PERSPECTIVES

Vu Thi Lan Anh*1, Nguyen Thi Thu Hang2, Nguyen Loc3
Abstract. This article reports a quantitative study using a close-ended questionnaire to survey the lecturers'
perspectives of the challenges in implementing the CDIO-based curriculum at the four universities
administered by the Vietnam Ministry of Transport. By analyzing the data collected from the responses
of 317 lecturers working for the four universities in the study with percentages, the study finds that the
challenges relating to students impact the implementation of the CDIO-based curricula from the strongest
down are students’ having no clear direction for work, students’ not responding to lecturers’ suggestions
in class, students’ lack of team working skills, students’ lack of critical thinking skills in practice skills,
students’ being passive in learning, and students’ having no information concerning the CDIO-based training
program. With the challenges relating to the university, the impacts, from the strongest down, are the lack of
workspace to practice, the large scall class, unclear assessment instructions, and unclear syllabi for practising
engineering skills. On the lecturers’ part, four challenges are, from the strongest down, the lack of seminars
for lecturers to deeply study the new training program, few interactions in the lecturer community to find,
lecturer's constancies of the traditional teaching methods, and lecturers’ having no information concerning
the CDIO philosophy. With 317 respondents for the survey, accounting for 16.55% of the lecturer community,
the results are statistically significant with a confidence level of 95% and a margin error of 0.05 to generalize
the community of 1,915 lecturers working for the four universities in the study.

Keywords: Challenges in implementing CDIO curricula; CDIO training program; CDIO standards;
lecturers’ perspectives of CDIO implementation; CDIO change management.

1.

Introduction

The current system of higher education, these days, has been inevitably undergoing changes caused
by the emergence of the demands of our digital society. Students nowadays are well equipped with
electronic gadgets together with a good internet connection to have better access to reliable and attractive
information and have less interest in learning through the conventional method due to its unattractiveness
and time-consuming process (Muhammad et al., 2018). More importantly, work requirements put on the
engineers are also "innovating", graduates are now facing increased process complexity, new processes,
integrated industrial projects, and more multidisciplinary projects (Platanitis & Pop-Iliev, 2011). In addition,
policy and management attempts to govern innovation processes have also broadened the scope and shifted
the focus from technological development and breakthroughs to a broader focus on market demands,
strategic issues, and the use of technologies (Jorgensen, 2007, p. 233). Due to the role of engineers in
technology and innovation is often taken for granted (Jorgensen, 2007, p. 233), changing the delivery of
the engineering program to students is necessary to address these needs. The CDIO philosophy of teaching
Received February 10, 2022. Accepted March 22, 2022.
1 Hochiminh City University of Transport
e-mail: vn
2 National Institute of Education Management
3 Thu Dau Mot University

110


PRACTICE

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

and learning came into existence in such requirements (Bates, 2001; Oppenheimer, 2003; Oliver & Trigwell,

2005; Salmon, 20)5; Chester et al., 2006; Sharpe & Roberts, 2006; Means et al., 2010; Belland et al., 2013).

To respond to the professional and social demands, in October 2000, four universities, comprised of the
Royal Institute of Technology, Linkoping University, and Chalmers University of Technology, of Sweden,
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of the US, under the sponsorship of the Knut and Alice
Wallenberg Foundation, developed a new ungraduated engineering education to improve the quality of the
training program The "innovation" education provides students with an education stressing engineering
education fundamentals set in the context of conceiving - designing - implementing - operating, CDIO
in abbreviation, real-world systems and products to make students become successful engineers—technical
expertise, social awareness, and a bias toward innovation (Berggren et al. 2003; Crawley, 2003). Applying
the CDIO philoscphy, the education institutions promptly have been reaching benefits both educational and
practical. Crawley et al. (2007) noted that the CDIO teaching and learning philosophy has changed the
moving-down trend of students’ creative thinking to have had a trade-off curve since the 2000s. Edstrom
et al., 2007 affirmed that the CDIO approach has deepened - not diminished - students’ understanding
of engineering disciplines as well as has widened the variety of teaching and assessment methods than
they were previously. Practically, Edstrom et al. (2007) signified that student self-report data indicate high
student satisfaction with their learning experiences and longitudinal studies of students in CDIO programs
show increases in program enrollment, decreasing failure rates, particularly among female students. As a
consequence, not only has the CDIO approach been adopted by engineering programs around the world but
by other degree programs as well (Platanitis & Pop-Iliev, 2011). One of the important requirements of the
CDIO philosophy is the participation of key stakeholders (Crawley et al., 2007). When establishing seven
principles to ensure an effective process for carrying out changes to a CDIO curriculum, Brink et al. (2020)
ranked stakeholder involvements in the first place. According to Crawley et al. (2007), the participation of
key stakeholders by giving evidence of the program’s progress towards attaining the goals will evaluate
effectively the program. Among the contributions that the key stakeholders make to the training program,
the contributions made by lecturers are most significant when these people are the ones who directly bring
the curriculum to students via various pedagogies.
Since 2010, Vietnam has imported the CDIO philosophy into higher education (www.vnuhcm.edu.vn,
2017). The benefits that the new method of teaching and learning bring to both the students and the
institutions have been continuously proved. Upon the trend, the four universities administered by the

Vietnam Ministry of Transport have decided to approach the CDIO philosophy. However, implementing
CDIO-based curricula is not, inevitably, without challenges. The study in this article, by surveying lecturers’
perspectives of he challenges in implementing CDIO-based curricula, is conducted as a part of the
preparatory steps for implementing the CDIO approach in teaching and learning. The study, therefore, aims
to address the following research question:

What are the challenges in implementing the CDIO-based curricula at the four universities administered
by the Vietnam Ministry of Transport from the lecturers’ perspectives?
2.

2.1.

Literature review
The CDU) philosophy

The input from academics, industry, engineers, lecturers, alumni, and students were the sources for
the CDIO Initiative was developed in such a manner that the CDIO philosophy is universally adaptable
to all engineering programs and for all academic institutions (Lynch et al., 2007). The philosophy of the
CDIO approach to engineering education captures the essential features of modern engineering education
- excitement about what engineers do, deep learning of the fundamentals, skills, and the knowledge of
how engineers c antribute to society and is taught in a way that captures our students’ passion (Crawley et
al., 2007). With such philosophy, a training program approaching CDIO philosophy is designed to provide

111


Vu Thi Lan Anh, Nguyen Thi Thu Hang, Nguyen Loc

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

students with an education that the engineering fundamentals are stressed in the context of Conceiving Designing - Implementing - Operating (CDIO in abbreviation) and comprised of four following themes
(Berggren et al., 2003; Lynch et al., 2007):

To ensure students have opportunities to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to conceive and
design complex systems and products;
To improve levels of teaching and learning necessary for a deep understanding of technical information
and skills;

To provide students’ experimental learning environments with laboratories and workshops; and
To determine the quality and improve the learning process by applying effective assessment methods.
Ostlund et al. (2007) considered CDIO training programs as being “managed by means”, which means
that the development work is driven not by explicit preconceived targets, but by common values and
principles. Such a “management by means” concept is in contrast with the traditional “management by
results” concept that the current training programs have applied. Oriented by common values and principles,
training programs approaching CDIO philosophy aims to create a platform and give the involved persons
in the organization the possibility to reflect on their work situation and why and how to improve as in the
following model of an educational house (Ostlund et al., 2007). As Figure 1 illustrates, the three common
values for a CDIO training program are 1) engineering and science for the betterment of society, 2) respect
for individuals and nature, and 3) eliminate waste, and five principles are 1) the individual student in the
flow of learning, 2) knowledge and skills for appropriate action, 3) follow reality, 4) visualization, and
5) reflection. From such common values and principles, the "educational house" is built up under the
CDIO philosophy to make students aware of the "state of normality" and understand abnormal states to
standardize their way of learning and, in the future, working. The “educational” house roof, to a certain
extent, summarizes the philosophy of the CDIO approach, that is “continuous improvement”, which means
that “everyone involved in the program should always strive for continuous improvements, and which is
highly important to stress, no improvement is too small to be neglected” (Õstlund et al., 2007). Additionally,
Ostlund et al. (2007) emphasized that improvements should be frequent and small in order not to move away
too far from the state of normality.

Correct from me

CDIO

training programs

Requirements
based output

Figure J. The educational house model of values and principles (source: Ôstlund et al., 2007

2.2.

Challenges in implementing CDIO-based curricula

To implement CDIO-based curricula, the stakeholders, chiefly the lecturers, engineering teachers,
faculty officers, are being faced with many challenges, which can be classified into three types: a) relating
to the university, b) relating to lecturers, and c) relating to students.
112


PRACTICE

2.2.1.

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

Challenges relating to the university

Objections to the reformation: The reformations to CDIO-based curricula are always being lodged with
unwillingness, inertia, doubt or resistance arising from faculty members with the advocacy stating that the

current training program has proved certain effectiveness (Edstrom et al., 2007; Gu et al., 2006).
Changing the structure of the current curriculum: The reformation, inevitably, forces to reject or change
some subjects of the current curriculum, which is easy to raise conflicts among officers and lecturers
responsible for designing the training program approaching the CDIO philosophy (Platanitis & Pop-Iliev,
2011).

Lack of connections among the subjects: CDIO-based training programs advise reducing the mass of
lessons putting the theories on students (Crawley et al., 2007; Boden, 2007). However, in some cases,
subsequent subjec ts, which depend on the full coverage of topics, are affected by the amount of material
covered in their courses removed from the previous courses (Edstrom et al., 2007, p. 149).
Lack of competence in system building skills: Many engineering departments of the university
have competence in engineering science and applied engineering subjects but lack competence in
cross-disciplinary activities related to, for example, product development and system building (Edstrom
et al., 2007). Therefore, the design-build experiences in the curriculum do not have the expected learning
outcomes. On anc ther dimension, the balance between rigorous training and hands-on experience can easily
be lost when a training program is designed by lack-of-experience expertises (Gu et al., 2006) or lack of
time for preparati )ns.

Requiring a high budget: CDIO-based training programs require a high investment to improve the
workspace and upgrade laboratories (Lee et al., 2015) as well as a new panoply of textbooks (Crawley
et al., 2007). More importantly, with the courses of marine industry or aviation, the facilities which are
similar to the WOI kspace are almost unable to be responded, especially when those facilities are required to
be upgraded over time (Crawley et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2015; Young & Hallstrom, 2007).
Assessment a id evaluation unconvincing: Due to the vague standards related to students’ characteristics,
a perceived conflict by some faculty and students between technical content and the learning of personal,
interpersonal, and product and system building skills is existed, making the methods of the new training
program’s assessment and evaluation unconvincing (Chuchalin, 2014; Lee et al., 2015; Edstrom et al., 2007,
Gray, 2007.

2.2.2.

Challenges relating to lecturers

Affected by the traditional teaching methods: By being affected by the deeply-rooted culture of
the traditionally-aught method, many lecturers, who usually have a long teaching experience, have the
resistance to the reformation or change to the new teaching methods reluctantly to have only limited results
(Crawley et al., 2307).
Lack of cooperation in the lecturer community: In many universities, there is no or very limited
interaction among those responsible for different courses, especially when it comes to teaching issues;
in addition, lecturers typically have very strong opinions on the content and methods for teaching their
subjects.
Lack of ownership of personal and interpersonal skills: With most engineering programs, no individual
instructor is responsible for the teaching of personal and interpersonal skills as well as for instructing
active and experiential learning, and, consequently, the teaching methods of these skills are usually ad
hoc (Edstrom et al., 2007).

Reluctant to upgrade the knowledge and teaching skills: To align with CDIO requirements lecturers
have to participate in different training activities and update all of their syllabi. However, many lecturers,
especially those who are rather old and have a long length of service in teaching, usually refuse to follow
the requirement when the activities take their time as well as effort (Lee et al., 2015).
113


Vu Thi Lan Anh, Nguyen Thi Thu Hang, Nguyen Loc

2.2.3.

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

Challenges relating to students

Transforming students from passive listeners into active participants in the educational process is
considered the biggest challenge to the CDIO-based curricula (Chuchalin, 2014).

With the engineering universities, the number of students in large classes vigorously challenges lecturers
and faculty members to implement the training program approaching the CDIO philosophy, especially for
teaching of personal and interpersonal skills or for instructing active and experiential learning (Holmquist
et al., 2002; Dinh et al., 2012; Tran et al., 2012)
Besides the majority of students who have highly appreciated the new teaching and learning methods,
some students resist changes to the ways they are accustomed to teaching and learning (Edstrom et al., 2007).

Research methodology

3.

Scope of the study

This study was conducted from May 2021 to September 2021 at the four universities administered by
the Vietnam Ministry of Transport, comprised of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Vietnam
University of Transport Technology, Vietnam Maritime University, and Vietnam Aviation Academy.
Methodology

On the quantitative paradigm of research, this study used a close-ended questionnaire to survey the
lecturers’ perspectives of the challenges in implementing the CDIO-based curricula in the four universities
in the study. The Vietnamese version of the questionnaire was used to deliver to the respondents to ensure
the respondents completely understand the content of the questionnaire as suggested by Nemoto and Beglar
(2014).

Participants
With 400 emails sent by the researcher, three hundred and seventeen (317) lecturers, comprised of

197 males and 120 females, replied to the researcher’s email. The number of respondents takes account
for 16.55% of the lecturers working at the four universities in the study (1,915 lecturers), responding to
the sample requirements for a qualitative survey suggested by Dillman (2000), Roscoe (2004), Fox et al.
(2007), Taherdoost (2017), Gill and Johnson (2010). The number of respondents also offers the results
to be statistically significant with a confidence level of 95% and a margin error of 0.05 to generalize the
community of the lecturers working for the four universities in the study.

All of 317 lecturers are working at the four universities in the study, in which 87 lecturers, 50 males and
37 females, have under five years of length of service, 180 lecturers, 119 males and 61 females, have the
length of service from five to ten years, and 50 lecturers, 28 males and 22 females, have ten years and over
of teaching engineering education.

Questionnaire
This study used a close-ended questionnaire to survey lecturers’ perspectives. The questionnaire has two
parts, in which Part 1 is for the respondents’ demographic information and Part 2 is for the respondents'
perspectives of the challenges in implementing the CDIO-based curricula. Part 2 of the questionnaire,
thus, has a question with 14 statements mentioning the challenges, 13 of which are close-ended and the
last is open-ended, to which the respondents can add the challenges not mentioned in the question. The
questionnaire can be found in Appendix.

Thirteen close-ended statements in the questionnaire are constituted as follows: six statements for
the challenges relating to students’ attitudes in learning (statements 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7), four statements
for the challenges relating to the universities (statements 8, 9, 10, and 11) and three statements for the
challenges relating to lecturers (statements 1,12 and 13). The challenges mentioned in Entry 2.2 above are
referred to compose the statements in the questionnaire. The last statement suggests the respondents give
the challenge(s) which is/are not mentioned in the 13 previous statements.

114

PRACTICE

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

Data analysis
Data collected from the questionnaire were inputted into an Excel file to statistically analyze the
responses in percentages to address the research question. The software of Microsoft Excel 2019 was also
used to produce the bar charts to illustrate the analysis.
4.

Results and Discussion

Figure 1 below illustrates the lecturers’ perspectives of the challenges in implementing the CDIO-based
(raining programs at the four universities in the study.
01
12.93% Having no information concerning CDIO
oi i^^Baaaai^MMBMBB 36.28% Sts’ passiveness in learning

#
#

# 0:
# 04

# 05

# 06
# 07
#
#

# 10
# 1L
# 1!
# 1!
Added

41.32% Sts’lack of team-working soft skills
36.59% StsTack of critical thinking skills in practice
aa^^™™a^^^«aa«^™a«ai^ 53.63% Sts’having no dứection forwork
34.07% Sts’having no knowledge of design-build experiences
43.53% Sts’not responding lecturers’suggestions
08
0ỉ ■^^^■aaaaa 14.20% Unclear syllabi for practising engineering skills
37.54% Unclear instructions for the assessment
62.46% Lack of workspace
41.01% Lecturers’ having no interaction
60.57% Lack of seminars
14.83% Lecturers’ failure to adapt themselves to new teaching methods

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

57.73% L

70.00%

Figure 2. Lecturers’ perspectives of the challenges in implementing the CDIO-based training program

As Figure 2 reports, with six challenges relating to students, statements 2, 3,4,5, 6, and 7, the challenges
that students have ino clear direction for work and their learning is just to face the individual subjects to have
the degree at the end of the course is thought by the lecturers to be the most important with 53.63% of the
lecturers agreeing! with the idea, accounting for 170 lecturers, 105 males and 65 females. The issue that
students refuse to respond to lecturers’ suggestions in class also is considered seriously by the respondents
with the agreeing dea of 138 lecturers, 77 males and 61 females, accounting for 43.53% of the respondents.
One hundred and thirty-one (131) lecturers, 96 males and 35 females and accounting for 41.32%, choose
students’ lack of team working soft skills as another challenge in deploying the CDIO standards to the
training program at the four universities in the study. The two challenges relating to students’ lack of critical
thinking skills in practice and students’ passiveness in learning share the two next places with a small
difference, 36.59% and 36.28% respectively. The remaining challenge stating students know nothing about
the design-build experiences in the training program reaches 34.07% of the respondents, accounting for 108
lecturers, 76 males and 32 females. The responses of the lecturers, to a certain extent, confirm Chuchalin’s
(2014) idea stating that the biggest challenge to the CDIO-based curricula is to transform students from
passive listeners into active participants in the educational process. As Tran Thai Son et al. claimed, after
12 years of learning passively in their high schools, students turn to be comfortingly familiar with the
traditional teaching and learning methods, in which teachers give and students write down the lessons.

With four challenges relating to the university, the issue of university facilities reaches the higher
consensus of the respondents with 62.46%, accounting for 198 lecturers, 139 males and 59 females. Coming
next is the challenge relating to large scale classes, which are popular in the four universities in the study,

with the agreement of 183 lecturers, 109 males and 74 females, accounting for 57.73% of the respondents.
The challenges relating to students’ soft skills as team working, critical thinking, responding to lecturers’
suggestions mentioned above usually cause the conflict between disciplinary content and the learning of
personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills (Edstrom et al., 2007),

115


Vu Thi Lan Anh, Nguyen Thi Thu Hang, Nguyen Loc

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

especially in assessment methods (Gray, 2007). Such a conflict inevitably results in unclear instructions
for evaluating students’ learning outcomes, challenging the implementation of the CDIO-based training
program with the agreement of 37.54% of the respondents. The last challenge, the syllabi state unclearly the
practising engineering skills, has only a small percentage of 12.93%.

Relating to the lecturers, two statements stating the challenges 12 and 13 have the average and high
agreements of the lecturers. Forty-one-point zero one per cent (41.01%) of the lecturers agree that few
interactions among the lecturer community challenge the lecturers in the study to master the CDIO-based
training program in terms of constructing effective teaching methods with design-build experiences. More
importantly, a high percentage of 60.57%, 192 lecturers with 111 males and 81 females, expresses that
the difficulties in performing theứ teaching methods with the new training program come from the fact
that few seminars and forums have been organized by the universities, making them have few opportunities
to deeply understand the new philosophy in teaching engineering students. Statement 1, the respondent
has no information concerning the reformation to the CDIO-based training program, takes the smallest
percentage of 12.93% by 41 lecturers (21 males and 20 females). However, the smallest percentage,
paradoxically, is the most important one when the percentage proves that the strategies for the reformation
that the four universities in the study have conducted in the preparatory stage of the reformation have
not performed successfully, leaving some lecturers to have no information about the reformation. Besides

the two previously mentioned challenges, the respondents also add one more challenge in implementing
the CDIO-based training program. The added challenge is that lecturers will find it difficult to change
their teaching methods which are under the deep-rooted culture of traditionally-taught lecture courses.
This challenge reaches a small percentage of 14.83% of the respondents, accounting for 47 lecturers, 38
males and 9 females, but it reflects the fact that some lecturers, who usually have a long length of service,
consistently resist and challenge the reformation, forcing the university to have an appropriate strategy.

5.

Conclusion

This article reports the quantitative survey to investigate the perspectives of the challenges in
implementing the CDIO-based curricula of 317 lecturers working for the four universities administered by
the Vietnam Ministry of Transport, comprised of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Vietnam
University of Transport Technology, Vietnam Maritime University, and Vietnam Aviation Academy. Upon
13 challenges mentioned by the study and one challenge added by the respondents, in which six relate to
students, four to the universities, and four, included of the added challenge, to the lecturers. Six challenges
relating to students have the respondents’ agreements of, in turn, 53.63% for students’ having no clear
direction for work, 43.53% for students’ not responding to lecturers’ suggestions in class, 41.32% for
students’ lack of team working skills, 36.59% for students’ lack of critical thinking skills in practice skills,
36.28% for students’ being passive in learning, and 34.07% for students’ having no information concerning
the CDIO-based training program. With four challenges relating to the university, the respondents agree
to the challenges with the percentages of, in turn, 62.46% for the lack of workspace to practice, 57.73%
for the large scall class, 37.54% for unclear assessment instructions, and 14.20% for unclear syllabi for
practising engineering skills. On the lecturers’ part, sixty-point fifty-seven per cent (60.57%) agrees that the
lack of seminars is the challenge while an average of 41.01% of the respondents think about the challenge
of lecturers’ having no interaction, 14.84% believes the lecturer’s constancy of the traditional teaching
methods is another challenge in implementing the CIDO-based curricula, and 12.93% lectures confess to
have no information concerning the CDIO philosophy.With a confidence level of 95% and a margin error
of 0.05, the above statistics are statistically significant to generalize the community of the lecturers working

for the four universities in the study.

116


JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

PRACTICE

REFERENCES
[1]

Bates, R. A., (2001). Equity, Respect, and Responsibility: An International Perspective,
g/10.1177/15234220122238184

[2]

Belland, B. R.; Kim, c. & Hannafin, M. J., (2013). A Framework for Designing Scaffolds that Improve
Motivation and Cognition, in Educational Psychologist, Vol. 48 (4), pp. 243 - 270

[3]

Berggren, K. F.; Brodeur, D.; Crawley, E. F.; Ingemarson, I.; Litant, w. T. G.; Malmquist, J. &
Ostlund, s., (2003). CDIO: An International Initiative for Reforming Engineering Education, in World
Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, Vol. 2. No. 1

[4]

Brink, s.; Cưlsson, c. J.; Enelund, M.; Georgsson, F.; Keller, E.; Lyng, Reidar, L. & McCartan, C.,
(2020). Assessing Curriculum Agility in a CDIO Engineering Education, in Proceedings of the 16th

Internationa CDIO Conference, hosted online by Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden

[5]

Chester, Andrea.; Buntine, A.; Hammond, K. & Atkinson, L., (2011). Podcasting in Education: Student
Attitudes, Behaviour and Self-Efficacy, in Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 236 247

[6]

Chuchalin, A. I., (2014). Modernization of Engineering Education Based on International CDIO
Standards, in Journal of Association for Engineering Education of Russia, Vol. 16, ISSN 1810-2883

[7]

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Brisbane: Wiley

[8]

Dinh B. T; Le H. B. & Tran D. T, (2012). Making Students Active in Large Classes, in Proceedings
of the 8th International CDIO Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2012

[9]

Edstrom, K ; Soderholm, D. H. & Wedel, M. K., (2007). Teaching and Learning, in Rethinking
Engineering Education: An CDIO Approach, edited by Crawley et al., published by Springer

[10] Fox, N. J.; Hunn, A. & Mathers, N. (2007). Sampling and Sample Size Calculation. The NIHR RDS
for the East Midlands I Yorkshire & the Humber
[11] Gill, J. & Johnson, p., (2010). Research Methods for Managers 4th edition, SAGE Publishing

[12] Gonzalez, 7)..; Patino, D.; Roldán, L, & Pena, J., (2019). Challenges in the Implementation of a CD1O
curriculum 'or a Program in Electronics Engineering, in Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO
Conference, Aarhus University, Denmark, pp. 25 - 27
[13] Gray, P. J., (2007). Student Learning Assessment, in Rethinking Engineering Education: An CDIO
Approach, edited by Crawley et al., published by Springer

[14] Gu, p.; Lu, X.; Xiong, G.; Li, s. & Shen, M., (2006). The development of design directed engineering
curriculum based on the CDIO framework, in World Transactions on Engineering and Technology
Education, Vol.5, No.2
[15] Holmquist, M.; Anderson, s.; Jansson, p. A. & Faldt, A., (2002). Large-class Teaching and Learning,
presented at Chalmers Grundutbildningskonferens, Lingatan, Bohuslăn. August 13-15, 2002

[16] Karhu, M.; Schrey-Miemenmaa, K.; Sirkjarvi, J. & Valmu, H., (2009). Challenges in Implementing
CDIO in a l Engineering Education Programmes, in Proceedings of the 5th International CDIO
Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore, pp. 25 - 27
117


Vu Thi Lan Anh, Nguyen Thi Thu Hang, Nguyen Loc

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

[17] Lee, L.; Lee, L. s.; Sripakagorn, A.; Kustasthien, N.; Dinh, B. T; Saad, N. H.; Cheah, s. M. & Leong,
H., (2015). Comparative Study on CDIO Implementation in Selected Asian Countries, in Proceedings
of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu,
Sichuan, P.R. China
[18] Lynch, R.; Seery, N. & Gordon, s., (2007). An Evaluation of CDIO Approach to Engineering
Education, available at
[19] Means, B.; Toyama, K.; Murphy, R.; Bakia, M. & Jones, K., (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based
Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, published by

Center for Technology in Learning, U.S. Department of Education
[20] Muhammad, A.; Sanusi, s. N. A.; Jamaludin, s. I. s.; Buddin, M. M. H. s., (2018). Implementation
of CDIO laboratory activity in separation processes course in chemical engineering, in Journal of
Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 10(2S), 388-398
[21] Nemoto, T. & Beglar, D., (2014). Developing Likert-scale questionnaires. In N. Sonda & A. Krause
(Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT
[22] Oliver, M. & Trigwell, K., (2005). Can Blended learning be Redeemed, in E-learning and Media SAGE
Journals, />[23] Oppenheimer, T, (2003). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom
and How Learning can be Saved, Random House Publishing Group
[24] Platanitis, G. & Pop-Iliev, R., (2011). Self-evaluation for Compliance with the 12 CDIO
Standards, in Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), DOI:
10.24908/pceea. v0i0.3596
[25] Roscoe, J. T. (2004). Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Holt
Rinehart & Winston
[26] Salmon, G., (2005). Flying not Flapping: A Strategic Framework for E-learning and Pedagogical
Innovation in Higher Education Institutions, in Research in Learning Technology - October 2005,
DOI: 10.1080/09687760500376439
[27] Sharpe, R. J. & Roberts, G., (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning:
A review of UK literature and practice, in Technical Support January 2006, available at
/>[28] Taherdoost, H. (2017). Determining Sample Size: How to Calculate Survey Sample Size, in Journal
of Economics and Management Systems, available from />[29] Tran, T. s.; Huynh, T. B. T.; Tran, T. D.; Pham, N. c.; Dang, B. p.; Nguyen, D. T; Cao, D. T.; Dong,
T. B. T. & Le, H. B., (2012). Nhập môn Công nghệ Thông tin phát biểu tại Hội Nghị CDIO Toàn quốc
2019, ĐHQG Tp.HCM
[30] Young, p. w. & Hallstrồm, s., (2007). Design-Implement Experiences and Engineering Workspaces,
in Rethinking Engineering Education: An CDIO Approach, edited by Crawley et al., published by
Springer, DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-38290-6_5

118

PRACTICE

JEM., Vol. 14 (2022), No. 3.

APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear you;

i

We are in the process of conducting a study with the hope to improve the quality of the training program at the
universities administered by the Vietnam Ministry of Transport. This questionnaire is designed to study the challenges in
implementing the training program approaching the CDIO philosophy with the study "The challenges in implementing
CDIO-based curricula at four universities administered by the Vietnam Ministry of Transport from the lecturers’
perspectives”.

We hope that you will think carefully about your situation towards each statement in this questionnaire and give US
your responses. Please choose the statements that you think that they are right by ticking (□) in front of the relevant
statement.
Naturally, your responses will be and only be used in our study and will be not used in any other studies or for any
other purposes. You responses will be respected though anonymous and COMPLETELY NOT RELATED IN ANY
WAY TO YOUR JOB.

We hope to hav; your co-operation.

Code:.......... (fill in by researcher)
PART 1: Demographic information
1. Gender:

□ Male

□ Female

2. Your length of service:

□ below 5 years

□ from 5 years to 10 years

□ over 10 years

3. Class of lecturers:

□ Senior lecturer

□ Main lecturer

□ Lecturer

PART 2: Your perspectives
Question: In the process of implementing the CDIO-based curriculum in your university, have you perceived any
difficulties in performing your teaching?
[Noted: You can tick to agree as many following statements as you want]

□ I have no information concerning the reformation to the training program approaching the CDIO philosophy in
my university.
□

Students are passive in learning.

□

Students have lacked team-working soft skills.

□

Students lack critical thinking skills in practice learning.

□

Students have no clear direction for the work after graduating.

□ Students almost have had no knowledge about the design-build experiences of the training program; their learning
is chiefly to face individual subjects in the course.
□
Students rarely have voices in class to respond to lecturers’ suggestions
□

The number of students in every class is large, making me fail to follow their learning.

□

The syllabi iire not clear enough, mentioning nothing to the activities that engineering lecturers/instructors do.

□ The instruct: ons for assessments and evaluations are not clear enough for me to evaluate students’ learning results
in terms of the des gn-build experiences.
□

The current facilities of the university are not enough for students to practice.

□ Lecturers re sponsible for different courses, even with the courses in the design-build experiences, have no or very
limited interaction with one another to find a better method for students’ acquisition.
□ The forums or seminars have not been organized often enough for lecturers to express their experiences or to
learn something more about the CDIO-based training program.

□
Other challenge(s) [if applicable, please write down concretely]
Sincerely thank you for responding to the questionnaire.

119