【正文】 iversity and external faculty development programs, forums for sharing ideas and best practices, and emphasis in performance reviews and hiring on effective teaching skills.Rationale: If faculty members are expected to teach and assess in new ways, as described in Standards 7 8, and 11, they need opportunities to develop and improve these skills. Many universities have faculty development programs and services that might be eager to collaborate with CDIO program faculty. In addition, if CDIO programs want to emphasize the importance of teaching, learning, and assessment, they must mit adequate resources for faculty development in these areas.Evidence: majority of faculty with petence in teaching, learning, and assessment methods, demonstrated, for example, by observation and selfreport university39。s acceptance of effective teaching in its faculty evaluation and hiring policies and practices mitment of resources for faculty development in these skills. Standard 11 CDIO Skills Assessment*Assessment of student learning in personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills, as well as in disciplinary knowledgeDescription: Assessment of student learning is the measure of the extent to which each student achieves specified learning outes. Instructors usually conduct this assessment within their respective courses. Effective learning assessment uses a variety of methods matched appropriately to learning outes that address disciplinary knowledge, as well as personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills, as described in Standard 2. These methods may include written and oral tests, observations of student performance, rating scales, student reflections, journals, portfolios, and peer and selfassessment.Rationale: If we value personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills, set them as learning outes, and design them into curriculum and learning experiences, then we must have effective assessment processes for measuring these skills. Different categories of learning outes require different assessment methods. For example, learning outes related to disciplinary knowledge may be assessed with oral and written tests, while those related to designbuild skills may be better measured with recorded observations. Using a variety of assessment methods acmodates a broader range of learning styles, and increases the reliability and validity of the assessment data. As a result, determinations of students39。 achievement of the intended learning outes can be made with greater confidence.Evidence: assessment methods matched appropriately to CDIO learning outes successful implementation of assessment methods high number of instructors using appropriate assessment methods determination of student achievement based on reliable and valid dataStandard 12 CDIO Program EvaluationA system that evaluates programs against these twelve standards, and provides feedback to students, faculty, and other stakeholders for the purposes of continuous improvementDescription: Program evaluation is a judgment of the overall value of a program based on evidence of a program39。s progress toward attaining its goals. A CDIO program should be evaluated relative to these 12 CDIO Standards. Evidence of overall program value can be collected with course evaluations, instructor reflections, entry and exit interviews, reports of external reviewers, and followup studies with graduates and employers. The evidence can be regularly reported back to instructors, students, program administrators, alumni, and other key stakeholders. This feedback forms the basis of decisions about the program and its plans for continuous improvement.Rationale: A key function of program evaluation is to determine the program39。s effectiveness and efficiency in reaching its intended goals. Evidence collected during the program evaluation process also serves as the basis of continuous program improvement. For example, if in an exit interview, a majority of students reported that they were not able to meet some specific learning oute, a plan could be initiated to identify root causes and implement changes. Moreover, many external evaluators and accreditation bodies require regular and consistent program evaluation. Evidence: a variety of program evaluation methods used to gather data from students, instructors, program leaders, alumni, and other key stakeholders a documented continuous improvement process based on results of the program evaluation datadriven changes as part of a continuous improvement process References[1] Crawley, E. F. The CDIO Syllabus: A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Engineering Education, MIT CDIO Report 1, 2001.. Available at 12 April 2004 CDIO Initiative page 9 of