Application of the CDIO Approach in Developing Student’s Chemistry Experimentation Competencies: Theory and Practice

Background/purpose. The current trend of training Chemistry teachers focuses on innovating pedagogical methods and developing students’ holistic competencies, particularly their chemistry experimentation competencies (CEC). The CDIO (Conceive - Design - Implement - Operate) framework effectively combines theoretical knowledge with practice and enhances professional skills and teamwork skills, thereby developing experimental competency for students. The primary purpose of this study is to learn the principles of CDIO workspace design, provide the process of building the student’s CEC framework according to the CDIO approach, publish the CEC framework built and conduct pedagogical experiments on the effectiveness of the CDIO workspace in improving students' CEC.

Materials/methods. The research employs expert surveys and pedagogical experiments with students to assess the impact of CDIO-aligned workspaces on students’ CEC. These methods allow for the evaluation of both theoretical and practical aspects of the CDIO framework’s integration into chemistry laboratory settings.

Results. The study finds that integrating CDIO-based workspaces into university chemistry laboratories significantly enhances students’ practical laboratory skills. This integration was shown to support ongoing educational reforms and align with broader efforts to improve educational standards.

Conclusion. The research concludes that CDIO workspaces play a critical role in advancing students' CEC and contribute positively to the quality of teacher training in chemistry. The findings highlight the potential of the CDIO framework to foster more effective and holistic educational practices in the sciences.

Keywords: Higher education, chemical education, CDIO approach, CDIO workspaces, chemical experiment practice

References

Boden, D. (2007). Adapting And Implementing A Cdio Approach. In: Rethinking Engineering Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38290-6_8

Campbell, D., Boles, W., Murray, M., Hargreaves, D., & Keir, A. (2007). Balancing Pedagogy and Student Experience In First-Year Engineering Courses, Proceedings of the International CDIO Conference, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 11-14.

Chuchalin, A., Tayurskaya, M., & Malmqvist, J. (2015). Faculty development programme based on CDIO framework. 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), 441-447. https://doi.org/10.1109/icl.2015.7318070

Crawley, E. F., & Brodeur, D. (n.d.). Program evaluation aligned with the CDIO standards. 2005 Annual Conference Proceedings, 10.1028.1-10.1028.18. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--15474

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). The CDIO syllabus: Learning outcomes for engineering education. Rethinking Engineering Education, 47-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9_3

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Dinh, B. T., Le, H. B., & Tran, D. T. (2012). The process of applying for CDIO in the Faculty of Information Technology, University of Science, Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh City over more than 2 years. Proceedings of the National CDIO Conference, Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh City.

Dinh, X. K., Thai, V. T. & Nguyen, X. B. (2016). The development of learning outcomes and training programs for the pedagogy major follows the CDIO approach at Vinh University. Journal of Education (Special Issue), 8-16.

Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: Complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.895703

Tran, N. H., & Van, P. N. (2020). Evaluating the CDIO-based business administration training program using the CDIO self-evaluation rubrics at Ha Tinh University in Vietnam. (2020). Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(03). https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.03.68

Giac, C. C., An, D. T., Hiep, L. T., Hoang, L. H., & Duc, N. M. (2024). Organizing activities for students of chemistry pedagogy to research according to the CDIO approach in Vietnam. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 11(2), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v11i2.5451

Huang, Y. (2015). Exploration and practice of CDIO engineering education mode. Proceedings of the 2015 3rd International Conference on Management Science, Education Technology, Arts, Social Science and Economics. https://doi.org/10.2991/msetasse-15.2015.199

Lattuca, L., Terenzini, P., & Volkwein, J. (2006). Panel session - Engineering change: Findings from a study of the impact of EC2000. Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2006.322520

Le, T. P. (2019). Integrating Rubrics and CDIO in designing university course syllabi. Journal of Education, (446), 51-57.

Le, T. T. H. (2024). Enhancing laboratory practice competence in chemistry pedagogy students using the CDIO approach. Doctoral thesis in educational sciences, 64-67.

Le, P. T. (2022). Student self-assessment regarding the learning outcome achievement level when using the CDIO approach at the University of Information Technology - Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Journal of Education, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.165

Malmqvist, J. (2012). A comparison of the CDIO and EUR-ACE quality assurance systems. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(2), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijqaete.2012040102

Martseva, L. A., Movchan, L. H., Vakaliuk, T. A., & Antoniuk, D. S. (2021, June). Applying CDIO-approach at technical universities. In Journal of Physics: Conference series (Vol. 1946, No. 1, p. 012013). IOP Publishing.

Nguyen, H. L. (2018). Training based on the CDIO approach. Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh City Press.

Nguyen, T. T., & Tran, Q. C. (2012). Applying the CDIO approach in developing the training program for the Control and Automation Engineering Technology major at Viettronics College of Technology. Journal of Education, (286), Issue 2-5/2012, 30-32.

Nguyen, V. K. (2012). Developing training programs for technical education disciplines in Vietnam following the CDIO-oriented approach. Journal of Education, (298), Issue 2-11/2012, 32-35.

Nguyen, N. T., Thai, T. V., Pham, H. T., & Nguyen, G. C. (2020). The CDIO approach in developing teacher training programs to meet the requirements of the Industrial Revolution 4.0 in Vietnam. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(18), 108. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i18.15517

Pham, H. L. (2015). Applying the CDIO approach in developing transfer programs to improve training quality in response to societal needs. Journal of Education, (367), 4–6.

Pham, H. L. (2016a). Developing training programs using the CDIO approach to enhance training quality in response to societal needs. Journal of Education, (381), 28–31.

Pham, V. H. (2016b). Some issues in implementing CDIO at Electric Power University. Journal of Education, (Special Issue), 268–269.

Pham, H. T., Nguyen, G. C., Nguyen, M. T., Nguyen, Q. A., & Che, L. H. (2021). Implementing the CDIO approach in teacher training programs: The Vietnamese case. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 11(5), 99. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2021-0109

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x

Qingfeng, W. (2012). Exploration of laboratory opening work in CDIO education reform. 2012 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 1852-1854. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccse.2012.6295432

Sirichai Torsakul, Anin Memon, Surat Triwanapong, & Natha Kuptasthien. (2021). CDIO- The framework for outcome-based engineering education for accreditation: A case study of Thai industrial engineering program. Asean Journal of Engineering Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.11113/ajee2019.3n1.24

Terano, H. J. (2019). Development of integrated curricula for the master of engineering programs using the CDIO framework. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 9(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i3.10112

The NSTA reader’s guide to a framework for K-12 science education, second edition: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (2013). https://doi.org/10.2505/9781938946196

Vo, V. T. (2011). Applying the CDIO approach to improve the quality of undergraduate education. Journal of Education, (268), Issue 2-8/2011, 1–6.

Wang, A. Y., & Maa, T. (2021). undefined. Competency-Based Teacher Education for English as a Foreign Language, 9-25. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003212805-2

CDIO Organization (2014). The CDIO program. http://www.CDIO.org/CDIO -organization.

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!

ANNOUNCEMENT

Message from the Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to inform our authors, reviewers, and stakeholders that EDUPIJ has entered Scopus’s re-evaluation process, as officially communicated (dated 2025-12-09). This assessment is a standard quality assurance practice applied to indexed journals and aims to ensure sustained editorial quality, ethical integrity, and alignment with Scopus’s evolving evaluation framework.

EDUPIJ welcomes this process and views it as an opportunity to further consolidate its editorial governance, strengthen publication ethics, and enhance peer-review rigor.

Strengthening Editorial and Ethical Standards

To ensure full compliance with international best practices and to proactively address Scopus evaluation criteria, the following measures have been formally implemented:

1. Selective Acceptance Policy for 2026 and Beyond

In response to increased submission volume in 2025 (see Journal Metrics: https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/18/journal-metrics), EDUPIJ will adopt a more selective acceptance policy starting in 2026 and continuing in the years ahead. In doing so, the geographic distribution of authors will also be taken into account to ensure that editorial decisions are informed by transparent, year-to-year submission and authorship patterns. Acceptance rates will be carefully aligned with editorial capacity to ensure a rigorous double-blind peer review process supported by active reviewer engagement and uncompromised editorial oversight. This policy reflects our commitment to quality-driven growth rather than volume-based expansion, and it directly addresses observations that the geographic spread of authors has changed significantly during the same period by ensuring that any such shifts are systematically monitored and considered within our quality assurance framework.

In line with this approach, we have adopted a Publication Volume Policy, enacted on 2025-12-07, which establishes clear upper limits on annual publication volume and defines a framework for maintaining EDUPIJ’s output at sustainable, long-term levels, comparable to pre-2025 volumes under normal conditions. This policy is also publicly available at https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/41/publication-volume-journal-metrics-policy.

From 2026 onwards, our objective is to maintain a moderate and stable annual volume, prioritising quality and selectivity rather than growth.

2. Enhanced Author and Manuscript Integrity Screening

All submissions now undergo mandatory integrity checks, including automated screening for retraction history and potential ethical risks prior to peer review. These procedures are designed to safeguard originality, research integrity, and transparency at every stage of the editorial process.

3. Establishment of a Publication Ethics Review Committee

A dedicated Publication Ethics Review Committee has been constituted to evaluate high-risk submissions, oversee ethical investigations when necessary, and ensure consistent adherence to COPE guidelines and internationally recognized publishing standards. All ethical decisions are documented and managed through a structured, transparent process.

Ongoing Commitment:

EDUPIJ remains firmly committed to rigorous double-blind peer review, transparent editorial policies, responsible scholarly communication, and the advancement of high-quality educational research at an international level.

Our journal continues to demonstrate steady progress in terms of international visibility, indexing coverage, and citation performance. We are confident that the Scopus re-evaluation process will further support the journal’s long-term sustainability and academic impact.

We sincerely thank our authors, reviewers, and the broader scholarly community for their continued trust and contribution to EDUPIJ.

Sincerely,
Prof. Turgut Karaköse, Editor-in-Chief

Posted: 2025-12-09