The topic of this paper is the CDIO Standards, specifically the formulation of CDIO Standards version 3.0. The paper first reviews the potential change drivers that motivate a revision of the Standards. Such change drivers are identified both externally (i.e., from outside of the CDIO community) and internally. It is found that external change drivers have affected the perceptions of what problems engineers should address, what knowledge future engineers should possess and what are the most effective teaching practices in engineering education. Internally, the paper identifies criticism of the Standards, as well as ideas for development, that have been codified as proposed additional CDIO Standards. With references to these change drivers, five areas are identified for the revision: sustainability, digitalization of teaching and learning; service; and faculty competence. A revised version of the Standards is presented. In addition, it is proposed that a new category of Standards is established, “optional standards”. Optional Standards are a complement to the twelve “basic” Standards, and serve to guide educational development and profiling beyond the current Standards. A selected set of proposed optional Standards are recommended for further evaluation and possibly acceptance by the CDIO community @en

Sample alignment for neutron (and in some cases x-ray) refiectometry can be complicated due to a coupling between angle and position which occurs when slits are used to define the path of the beam. Misalignments in sample position or sample rotation angle give rise to systematic errors in the experiments. By measuring the reflectivity both from the back and from the front faces of the sample (twin refiectometry) these alignment errors can be detected and corrected for.

@en