LEARNING THROUGH DESIGN-IMPLEMENT EXPERIENCES

– A LITERATURE REVIEW

Jonte Bernhard1, 2, Kristina Edström2, Anette Kolmos2, 3

1
Linköping University, Department of Science and Technology,
2
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Education and Communication in
Engineering Science,
3
Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning

ABSTRACT

In this paper we introduce some literature relevant for design-based learning, in particular for
design-implement experiences in line with CDIO Standard 5. The aim is to inform the
development of such learning experiences and to indicate some areas where new research
would be of relevance to educators.

KEYWORDS

Design-based learning, design-implement experiences, literature review, engineering

education research, Standards: 5.

INTRODUCTION

“Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that never has been.”
Theodore von Kármán (NSF, 2013)

The CDIO approach to engineering education reform advocates a sequence of design-

implement experiences through the curriculum, as expressed in CDIO Standard 5 (CDIO,
2010). The purpose of design-based learning is not that students should design something; it
is that they should learn from designing something. Design-implement experiences are the
main site for the teaching, learning and assessment of competence in conceiving, designing,
implementing and operating. In addition, the intended learning outcomes can cover a wide
range of underpinning disciplinary knowledge (e.g. applying and integrating knowledge from
different disciplines), personal and interpersonal skills (e.g. teamwork, project planning and
communication) and attitudes (e.g. responsibility for the use of technology and taking
sustainable development into account). Therefore the role of design-implement experiences
in the curriculum is not only about learning to design, it is equally about learning through
design.

In this paper we set out to introduce some literature on design-based learning relevant to
faculty engaged in design-implement experiences. The aim is to support educational
development in accordance with CDIO Standard 5. While there is a vast body of literature on
design processes per se, our perspective here is exclusively on student design projects as
learning activities. This considerably narrows down the task of surveying the field.

In the next section we will discuss the aims of design-based education as a background
before continuing to our review.

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
AIMS OF DESIGN-BASED EDUCATION

Intended Learning Outcomes

Designing is a complex process that involves numerous variables, constraints and conflicting
values, as has previously been discussed by Schön (1987, pp. 41-42):
Designing, in its broader sense involves complexity and synthesis. In contrast to analysts
or critics, designers put things together and bring new things into being, dealing in the
process with many variables and constraints, some initially known and some discovered
through designing. Almost always, designers’ moves have consequences other than
those intended for them. Designers juggle variables, reconcile conflicting values, and
manoeuver around constraints – a process in which, although some design products
may be superior to others, there are no unique right answers.
The role of design-implement experiences is to provide early experiences in a sequence of
projects increasingly resembling engineering practice (Crawley, Malmqvist, Östlund, Brodeur,
& Edström, 2014). Students can potentially learn many different things within this framework,
and during the sequence of such learning experiences through the program, there can be
progression along several dimensions. For instance, the intended learning outcomes can be
in these categories:
• Reinforce disciplinary understanding through repetition, integration and application,
and to provide opportunity for specialization and just-in-time acquisition of new
knowledge
• Develop skills and abilities, both personal (e.g. initiative and self-reflection) and
interpersonal (e.g. collaboration and communication)
• Experience authentic problems, i.e. complex and open-ended problems, embedded in
realistic contexts, and containing ambiguity and trade-offs
• Practice product, process and system building skills, i.e. conceiving, designing,
implementing and operating
• Experience professional working modes, habits and practices
• Reflect on ethics and responsibility of engineers, the potential and limitations of
technology, and its contribution to sustainable development of society

Other possible aims, not directly related to learning particular things, could be to increase
student motivation for continuing in the program and seeing the relevance of new theoretical
courses. Further, as activities like these can be highly visible inside and outside the
institutions, they can serve to demonstrate that engineering is creative and fun.

We note that there can be a number of different aims for this type of learning activity, and
different priorities will be reflected in each particular implementation.

Authentic Problems

When setting the project tasks for the students, it is worth considering the nature of the
challenges that practicing engineers will encounter. In a highly readable paper, Jonassen,
Strobel, and Lee (2006) report on a study in which they interviewed 106 practicing engineers.
They identified the following attributes of workplace engineering problems:
A. Workplace problems are ill-structured
B. Ill-structured problems include aggregates of well-structured problems
C. Ill-structured problems have multiple, often conflicting goals
D. Ill-structured problems are solved in many different ways
E. Success is rarely measured by engineering standards
F. Most constraints are non-engineering
G. Problem solving knowledge is distributed among team members
H. Most problems require extensive collaboration

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 I. Engineers primarily rely on experiential knowledge
J. Engineering problems often encounter unanticipated problems
K. Engineers use multiple forms of problem representation
L. Engineers recommend more communication skills in engineering curricula

The conclusion by Jonassen et al. (2006) is that students need to encounter problems in
their education that require them to:
• Analyze and solve combinations of well-structured problems
• Manage multiple sub-problems
• Deconstruct multiple, often conflicting goals from a problem statement and analysis
• Reconcile multiple, conflicting constraints and criteria
• Analyze and select from a variety of solutions to various problems and to justify their
selected solutions
• Identify and reconcile methods for achieving non-engineering criteria for solving problems
• Communicate and collaborate with a variety of professional and paraprofessional team
members on all aspects of the problem-solving process
• Anticipate and reconcile intervening problems and perturbations to the problem-solving
process
• Adapt to changing project conditions and unanticipated problems
• Use multiple tools and formalisms (visual, verbal, quantitative) to represent problems

We suggest allowing these dimensions to be increasingly present in the problems that

students encounter throughout the education, i.e. they can all be seen as dimensions of
progression.

REVIEW METHODOLOGY

Our aim in this paper is to present an overview of educational research papers published in
scholarly journals investigating topics related engineering students’ design-based learning.
This means that we did not search for papers presented at conferences. We searched for
papers in education research, engineering education research, science education research
and design research journals. As a first search with the intention to get an overview of the
field our search was exploratory. To be included a paper should be based on empirical
research using a sound methodology, study engineering students at university level and
investigate a topic related design-based learning. Thus, we excluded papers in which only
primary or secondary school students or practicing engineers were studied, and non-
empirical papers such as position papers or papers only describing a new approach.

REVIEW RESULTS

We found relevant papers in Australasian Journal of Engineering Education; CoDesign;

Design Studies; European Journal of Engineering Education; Instructional Science;
International Journal of Engineering Education; International Journal of Technology and
Design Education; Journal of Engineering Education; Journal of Mechanical Design; Journal
of Research in Science Teaching; Mind, Culture, and Activity; and Research in Engineering
Design. This list demonstrates the difficulty in reviewing the field; research is published in
journals with quite disparate aims.

Time and space only allow us to present brief reviews in this paper and not all papers we
found in our exploratory search are included. What we present here are some of the
empirical research papers found in research journals, selected according to what we

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
consider offer the most valuable insights related to student learning in design-implement
experiences. Others would probably have made slightly different priorities.

Students’ design learning

Investigating student design tasks in mechanical engineering Samuel and Lewis (1991, p.
314) argued that “[analytical approaches] where there is heavy emphasis on solving
problems with unique answers … will fail in engineering design problems which have no
unique answers” However, they also argued that it would be a mistake to conclude that
knowledge of science does not matter. Indeed, Samuel and Lewis noted that in a relatively
simple design task (by professional standards) used in educational content a total of 96
concepts needed to be utilized by the students’ for successful task completion. Hence, they
conjectured that robust understanding of concepts and fluency in their use as well as
flexibility in crossing boundaries of knowledge domains are essential for an effective
engineering designer.

Accordingly, Cynthia Atman and her co-workers found that skilled designers scoped
problems more effectively than less skilled or experienced designers, by considering more
objects and making more transitions back-and forth among design steps Generally, they
found that professional engineering designers made higher quality designs than students
(Atman et al., 2007), senior students made higher quality designs than first year students
(Atman, Cardella, Turns, & Adams, 2005; Atman, Chimka, Bursic, & Nachtmann, 1999) and
that the design skills of individual students developed during their studies (Cardella, Atman,
Turns, & Adams, 2008). Furthermore, students typically solve design problems in a linear
sequence, while experts move frequently across domains simultaneously (Atman et al., 2007;
Atman et al., 2008).

Thus, it is important to bridge the “design-science gap” (e.g. Vattam & Kolodner, 2008) but in
design tasks students often have difficulties in relating their knowledge of basic principles
from engineering science or applying mathematics to the task at hand (Carberry & McKenna,
2014; Silva, Fontul, & Henriques, 2014). Accordingly, Kittleson and Southerland (2004)
observed that such “concept negotiations” were exceedingly rare even in a senior year
design project. Indeed, it has been proposed that design thinking should be seen as a
“threshold concept” (Johnson, Bull, & Osmond, 2013; Taboada & Coombs, 2013).

The use of theories, models, representations, concepts, and other tools is also important in
designing: as observed by Cardella, Atman, and Adams (2006, p. 18) “most participants
allocated the greatest percent of time to … modeling”. Modelling involves analytic as well as
synthetic processes, and connecting symbolic content, i.e. theory and models, with real
content, i.e. objects and events (Bucciarelli, 2002). However, Carberry and McKenna (2014)
found that students generally applied models only “to visualize and test their solutions”, and
failed to use predictive modelling as a tool in the design process. In contrast, Juhl and
Lindegaard (2013) found that engineering students they monitored during a second semester
design project materialized their discussions, thinking and decision making through work with
different representations. Representations, especially drawings, transcended the boundaries
of the individuals and became elements in the group’s collaborative thinking, thereby
fostering connection between individual cognition and collective re-cognition.

The above discrepancy may be understood in terms of contextual factors (Goncher & Johri,
2015) and lack of constructive alignment between the intended object of learning, teaching
approach and focus of assessment (Biggs, 1996). Juhl and Lindegaard (2013) focused on
students engaged in a project that was part of a fairly recently designed engineering program
with (presumably) favourable contextual factors and good alignment, while Goncher and
Johri reported that the students they studied saw their design project as yet another
academic exercise, and learning as “learning how to pass”. In a similar vein, Newstetter

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
(1998) and Kittleson and Southerland (2004) found that groups used a “divide and conquer
approach” to complete design projects “efficiently”, resulting in individual team members
missing valuable learning opportunities in efforts to finish tasks as quickly as possible.
Although the instructors in both cases wanted the students to collaborate, the assessment
practices drove the students to take an instrumental task-oriented approach. This is hardly
surprising as the quality of the finished design is sometimes used as a measure, or even the
sole measure, of a student design team’s success (Agogino, Song, & Hey, 2007; Oxman,
2001). Students’ learning in design projects is not only framed by how a student design
project is devised by teachers, but also by how students experience assessment. The
intended object of learning can be counteracted by grading procedures and other contextual
factors.

Empirical research methods in engineering design education research

The dominant empirical method to investigate students’ design process seem until recently to
have been variants of “think-aloud” exercises with verbal-protocol-analysis (Craig, 2001)
mostly of individuals in simulated settings (e.g. Atman et al., 2007; Atman et al., 1999;
Cardella et al., 2008).

More recently an emerging trend with an increasing number of studies using different forms
of ethnomethodology investigating students’ process of learning to design in naturalistic
settings can be observed. For example Gilbuena, Sherrett, Gummer, Champagne, and
Koretsky (2015) used audio-recordings, interviews and collection of artefacts, Goncher and
Johri (2015) used video-recordings, field-notes and interviews, Juhl and Lindegaard (2013)
photos, field-notes and collection of artefacts and Kittleson and Southerland (2004) used
audio-recordings and field-notes together with discourse-analysis. Early examples are
Newstetter (1998) using participant observations and Smith and Leong (1998) using video-
recordings and interaction-analysis.

Another emerging approach in engineering design education research is the use of

intervention studies using some kind of pre- and post-test to evaluate the effect of the
intervention 1 . Examples are Biggio, Vázquez, and García (2015) addressing students’
graphical skills and Booth, Taborda, Ramani, and Reid (2016) addressing sketching skills.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

An important conclusion from reading the literature is that successful designing is not a linear
process, rather it is important that students’ learn to scope problems effectively and are able
to go back and forth among design steps (Atman et al., 2007; Atman et al., 2008). Thus it is
important that CDIO is not (mis-)interpreted as advocating a linear design process with
discrete steps: Conceive → Design → Implement → Operate.

Bucciarelli (2001, p. 298) remind us that “the methods of reduction and abstraction… fail to
capture the collective nature of designing and design knowledge”. Accordingly, “we can’t
teach design like we teach science” (ibid., p. 306). However, Owen (2007, p. 22), reminds us
that “a combination of science thinking and design thinking is better than either alone”. Above
all, education can fail in forging a meaningful relationship between these different types of
knowledge, as when students “given an unstructured design task, often have difficulty
relating their analysis knowledge to the task at hand” Eastman (2001, p. 151). In line with
previous reasoning, (Steele, 2015) suggests that “systemic thinking, framing and the
application of first principles make up the primary abilities of the expert design engineer”.
The review results point to the importance that students in designing are skilled in modelling

1
This approach has, however, a long history in other fields of educational research.

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
and in the use of disciplinary knowledge, concepts, models, representations and sketches
(e.g. Carberry & McKenna, 2014; Cardella et al., 2006; Juhl & Lindegaard, 2013; Kittleson &
Southerland, 2004; Samuel & Lewis, 1991). The challenge is thus how science and design
thinking, i.e. how analytic and synthetic skills can be fostered in engineering education.

Figure 1. Conceptual representation of content and process factors in engineering, adapted

from Owen (2007).

Noteworthy are the results by, for example, Goncher and Johri (2015), Kittleson and
Southerland (2004), and Newstetter (1998) that clearly demonstrates that the intended object
of learning can be counteracted by assessment and grading procedures and other contextual
factors. This underlines the need for constructive alignment between the intended object of
learning, teaching approach and focus of assessment (Biggs, 1996) and the need for
development of constructive assessment and grading procedures that support the intended
object of learning. We hypothesise that design-implement experiences are too often thought
of merely as projects in which students achieve a design task. However, just as for any other
type of learning activity, engineering faculty need the teaching competence to make a good
course design that supports learning (in accordance with Standard 10).

As shown above, previous educational research indicates that there are complex interplays
between individual and collaborative learning, analysis and synthesis, learning and task
completion, as well as learning and assessment, leading to a complex set of tensions. From
our reading of the literature we identified several tensions displayed in Figure 2 that need to
be interpreted and handled by teachers, for example, when formulating intended learning
outcomes, when devising project tasks, and when planning the assessment of student
learning.

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
 Figure 2. Tensions present in the learning and assessment of design in student teams.

The enactment of these tensions in the learning environment, and in particular in the
assessment procedures, will be interpreted by students and frame their courses of actions
both as individuals and groups.

NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

As shown above, previous educational research indicates that there are complex interplays
between individual and collaborative learning, analysis and synthesis, learning and task
completion, as well as learning and assessment, leading to a complex set of tensions. There
is a need to understand how students can be encouraged to integrate knowledge and make
more constructive use of disciplinary knowledge, representations, models and modelling in
designing. Furthermore, there is a need to improve understanding of how instruction, design
tasks and assessment frame students’ learning in collaborative design projects, notably the
most salient aspects for students and how these aspects affect students’ courses of action.
Most importantly there have been few investigations of students’ collaborative processes of
learning in design projects in naturalistic educational settings, as earlier research has largely
focused on individual students in experimental settings.

REFERENCES

Agogino, A., Song, S., & Hey, J. (2007). Triangulation of indicators of successful student
design teams. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 617-625.

Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007).
Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of
Engineering Education, 96(4), 359-379. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x

Atman, C. J., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., & Adams, R. (2005). Comparing freshman and
senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies, 26(4),
325-357. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005

Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of
freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131-152.
doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00031-3

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
Atman, C. J., Yasuhara, K., Adams, R. S., Barker, T. J., Turns, J., & Rhone, E. (2008).
Breadth in problem scoping: A comparison of freshman and senior engineering students.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 234-245.

Biggio, M. N., Vázquez, S. M., & García, S. M. (2015). From representation to construction: A
study of graphic skills in students newly admitted to architecture and design courses.
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 95-102. doi:10.7158/D13-
013.2015.20.1

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education,

32(3), 347-364.

Booth, J. W., Taborda, E. A., Ramani, K., & Reid, T. (2016). Interventions for teaching
sketching skills and reducing inhibition for novice engineering designers. Design Studies, 43,
1-23. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.002

Bucciarelli, L. L. (2001). Design knowing & learning: A socially mediated activity. In C.

Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition
in Design Education (pp. 297-314). Oxford: Elsevier.

Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies,
23(3), 219-231. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00035-7

Carberry, A. R., & McKenna, A. F. (2014). Exploring student conceptions of modeling and
modeling uses in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 77-91.
doi:10.1002/jee.20033

Cardella, M. E., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. S. (2006). Mapping between design activities and
external representations for engineering student designers. Design Studies, 27(1), 5-24.
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.05.001

Cardella, M. E., Atman, C. J., Turns, J., & Adams, R. S. (2008). Students with differing
design processes as freshmen: Case studies on change. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 24(2), 246-259.

CDIO. (2010). The CDIO Standards v 2.0 (with customized rubrics). Retrieved from
http://www.cdio.org/files/document/file/CDIOStdsRubricsv2.0_2010Dec8.doc

Craig, D. L. (2001). Stalking homo faber: A comparison of research strategies for studying
design behavior. In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing
and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp. 13-36). Oxford: Elsevier.

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking
Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Cham.

Eastman, C. (2001). New directions in design cognition: Studies of representation and recall.
In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning:
Cognition in Design Education (pp. 147-198). Oxford: Elsevier.

Gilbuena, D. M., Sherrett, B. U., Gummer, E. S., Champagne, A. B., & Koretsky, M. D.
(2015). Feedback on professional skills as enculturation into communities of practice. Journal
of Engineering Education, 104(1), 7-34. doi:10.1002/jee.20061

Goncher, A., & Johri, A. (2015). Contextual constraining of student design practices. Journal
of Engineering Education, 104(3), 252-278. doi:10.1002/jee.20079

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
Johnson, C., Bull, K., & Osmond, J. (2013). Cooperative design and communities of practice.
In Y. Luo (Ed.), Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering (pp. 141-152). Berlin:
Springer.

Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering:
Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.

Juhl, J., & Lindegaard, H. (2013). Representations and visual synthesis in engineering
design. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 20-50. doi:10.1002/jee.20001

Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge
construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(3), 267-293. doi:10.1002/tea.20003

Newstetter, W. C. (1998). Of green monkeys and failed affordances: A case study of a

mechanical engineering design course. Research in Engineering Design, 10(2), 118-128.

Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design research quarterly,
2(1), 16-27.

Oxman, R. (2001). The mind in design: A conceptual framework for cognition in design
education. In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and
Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp. 269-295). Oxford: Elsevier.

Samuel, A. E., & Lewis, W. P. (1991). Evaluation of students' strategies for concept
application in engineering design. Instructional Science, 20(4), 311-329.
doi:10.1007/bf00043256

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silva, A., Fontul, M., & Henriques, E. (2014). Teaching design in the first years of a traditional
mechanical engineering degree: methods, issues and future perspectives. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 40(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.903227

Smith, R. P., & Leong, A. (1998). An observational study of design team process: A
comparison of student and professional engineers. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(4),
636-642.

Steele, C. (2015). Developing engineering design expertise – part 1: framing. Australasian

Journal of Engineering Education, 1-10. doi:10.1080/22054952.2015.1092649

Taboada, M. B., & Coombs, G. (2013, May 14-17). Liminal moments: designing, thinking and
learning. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference for Design Education
Researchers, Oslo.

Vattam, S. S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2008). On foundations of technological support for

addressing challenges facing design-based science learning. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2),
405-436.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Jonte Bernhard is Professor in Engineering Education at Linköping University and guest

professor at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. His current research focuses
on engineering students’ practical achievement of understanding, the materiality of learning

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.
in labs and design projects, modeling, and the development of learning environments
through design-based-research. He is currently member of the governing board of the
international Research in Engineering Education Network (REEN). He has published more
than 130 papers and book chapters in material science and in engineering education
research.

Kristina Edström is an Associate Professor in Engineering Education Development at the

School of Education and Communication in Engineering Sciences at KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, one of the founding members of the CDIO Initiative. Her
current research takes a critical approach to the “why”, “what” and “how” of engineering
education reform.

Anette Kolmos is Professor in Engineering Education and PBL and Chairholder for
UNESCO Chair in Problem Based Learning in Engineering Education, Aalborg University,
and guest professor at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. She is active in
developing the profile of Engineering Education Research in Europe and internationally. She
was President of SEFI 2009–2011. She has published more than 190 articles in various
books and journals.

Corresponding author

Jonte Bernhard
Linköping University
Department of Science and Technology (ITN)
This work is licensed under a Creative
SE-601 74 Norrköping
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
Sweden
NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
+4611-36 33 18
jonte.bernhard@liu.se

Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences,
Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.