Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (University College London); Dr. Mohammad Hassannezhad (University College London); Dr. Manoj Ravi (University of Leeds).

Topic: Complex systems competencies.

Title: Understanding complex systems competencies required in engineering graduates. 

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Systems thinking; Problem-solving; Critical thinking; Digital literacy; Modelling and simulation; Design; Project management; Life cycle; Risk; Collaboration; Communication; Professional conduct; Social responsibility.

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.

Learning and teaching resources:

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating complex systems in engineering education. 

Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded. 

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4). 

 

Premise:

This article outlines the core competencies required for engineering students to effectively engage with complex systems. Such systems involve a range of technical and non-technical components that interact in non-linear and unpredictable ways. Working effectively with such complex systems requires collaboration across engineering disciplines, as well as other fields and stakeholder groups.  

Within AHEP4, complex problems are referred to as those which “have no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs that can be addressed through creativity and the resourceful application of engineering science” (p.26). The ability to work productively with complex systems is therefore essential for engineers and helps them address problems increasingly experienced in business and society, which have many interdependent components and lack clear or stable solutions.  

The aim of this article is to provide a foundational framework that integrates the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for undergraduate and graduate engineering students to navigate complexity. In so doing, it serves educators, curriculum designers, and students seeking to develop the mindset and skills required to tackle the challenges of the 21st century within an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world (SEFI, 2025).  

This knowledge article, informed by the INCOSE Competency Framework for Systems Engineering (INCOSE, 2018), categorises complex systems competencies into eight core competencies. These competencies encompass mindset and foundations, technical methods and tools, management and delivery, and attributes and behaviours. The description of each competency references learning outcomes (LOs) outlined in AHEP4 (Engineering Council, 2025) and the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Attributes (2021) to establish a common baseline for all engineering graduates (see Appendix for mapping).  

 

The eight core complex systems competencies:

1. Systems thinking and problem framing 

The ability to take a holistic approach, to consider a problem from multiple perspectives and to understand how a system’s parts interact to produce emergent behaviour.  

Students must be able to understand what makes a system ‘complex’ and move beyond narrow problem-solving to identify root causes. This involves understanding fundamental Systems thinking concepts including hierarchies and interfaces (structural dimension), holism and cause-effect (dynamic dimension), lifecycles (time dimension), and multiple perspectives (perception dimension).  

Systems thinking enables engineers to anticipate ripple effects, emergent behaviours, and trade-offs, designing solutions that remain robust under uncertainty. AHEP4 requires students to “formulate and analyse complex problems to reach substantiated conclusions” (LO2) and to “apply an integrated or systems approach to the solution of complex problems” (LO6).  

2. Critical thinking 

The ability to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, apply logical reasoning, and justify decisions based on reasoned arguments and evidence.  

Navigating complex systems involves working with a variety of (often conflicting) goals, information, and data types from across discipline and stakeholder groups. Critical thinking is thus necessary to enable engineers to identify biases, avoid oversimplification and flawed reasoning, and to make ethical, transparent and evidence-informed decisions with consideration for unintended consequences. AHEP4 requires graduates to “critically evaluate technical literature and other sources of information to solve complex problems” (LO4). 

3. Simulation, modelling and data literacy 

The ability to apply scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles to model, test, and improve complex systems.  

Working with complex systems involves a range of resources including people, data and information, tools and appropriate technologies. Students must be able to create, apply and validate system models (as physical, mathematical, or logical representation of systems) and demonstrate competence in simulation and data literacy to address uncertainty and complexity at scale. This may involve using models and data to justify assumptions, explore scenarios, predict the consequences of actions, solve difference equations, conduct sensitivity and stability analysis, and predict the probability of risk.  

This aligns with several AHEP4 outcomes: “apply mathematics, statistics, and engineering principles to solve complex problems” (LO1); “apply computational and analytical techniques while recognising limitations” (LO3); and “select and critically evaluate technical literature and other data sources” (LO4).  

4. Design for complexity and changeability 

The ability to design adaptable, robust, and resilient systems across their lifecycle.  

Changes (both planned and unplanned) are inherent in complex systems. Long-term success of a system therefore requires design for resilience to first hand/internal (by the system), second hand/external (to the system) or third hand (around the system) change. Design for complexity and changeability ensures systems can evolve and integrate new capabilities across their lifecycle.  

AHEP4 requires engineers to be able to innovatively “design solutions that meet a combination of societal, user, business and customer needs” (LO5). This may involve designing systems that deliver required functions over time, including evolution, adaptability, and integration across subsystems (capability engineering), and supports evaluation of alternatives, balance competing objectives, and justify transparent decisions (decision management).  

5. Project and lifecycle management 

The ability to plan and deliver engineering activities across the system lifecycle, ensuring outcomes are delivered on time, on cost, and with integrity.  

Complex systems involve many subsystems with various purposes and lifecycles. This necessitates effective coordination and delivery processes and a focus on early planning and lasting systemic impacts. Project and lifecycle management allows for concurrent engineering (parallelisation of tasks), and verification and validation of tasks in dynamic environments. Graduates must “apply knowledge of engineering management principles, commercial context, project and change management” (AHEP4, LO15).  

This aligns with the Engineering Attribute of Project Management and Teamwork and the INCOSE Framework competencies in Lifecycle Processes, Integration, and Project Management, emphasising coordinated delivery and long-term value creation across socio-technical systems. Lifecycle awareness prevents short-term optimisation and emphasises aspects such as maintainability, whole-life value delivery and total expenditure (TOTEX) thinking, all of which support efforts towards sustainability and net-zero.  

6. Risk and uncertainty management 

The ability to identify, assess, and manage technical, social, environmental, and ethical risks at multiple levels of complex systems.  

Complex systems are inherently uncertain, with cascading risks that must be anticipated and managed proactively. Risk management enables students to quantify source and impact of uncertainties where possible and apply precaution where uncertainty is irreducible, ensuring safety, sustainability, and governance.  

AHEP4 requires graduates to “use a structured risk management process to identify, evaluate and mitigate risks (the effects of uncertainty)” (LO9), ranging from project-specific challenges to systemic threats, which need to “adopt a holistic and proportionate approach to the mitigation of security risks” (LO10).  

7. Collaboration and communication 

The ability to work effectively across disciplines, boundaries, and cultures, while conveying complex insights clearly to technical and non-technical audiences. 

Complex systems challenges cannot be solved by individuals alone and include consideration for stakeholders across industry, policy and society. Such collaborative processes involve participatory problem-solving, learning from others, inclusive communication, and negotiation and persuasion strategies, all of which necessitate emotional intelligence.  

AHEP4 expects graduates to “function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader of a team, being able to evaluate own and team performance” (LO16). They must be able to influence stakeholder decisions, foster alignment, and shape outcomes across industry, policy, and society (AHEP4, LO17).  

8. Professional responsibility 

The ability to apply professional and societal responsibilities in decision-making, with awareness of ethical implications and long-term impacts and unintended consequences of engineered systems.  

Engineers increasingly work on complex systems that shape lives, societies, and ecosystems. Ethical responsibility ensures that technical competence aligns with social good and involves consideration for trade-offs between factors including environmental impact, affordability and social acceptance. This aligns with AHEP4, IEA, and INCOSE principles on ethics, professionalism, and leadership, ensuring engineers act responsibly within complex systems and contribute positively to society and sustainability. AHEP4 requires graduates to “identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct” (LO8) and “evaluate the environmental and societal impact of solutions to complex problems” (LO7).  

 

Conclusions:

This article defines a set of eight integrated competencies that prepare engineering graduates to navigate complex systems. Together, they combine knowledge (what graduates must know), skills (what they can do), and attitudes (how they behave and think). Embedding these competencies requires project-based learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and reflective exercises, while assessment should include portfolios, teamwork, and scenario analysis. Employers and professional bodies can reinforce these competencies through mentoring, internships, and early career development. 

By aligning with INCOSE, AHEP4, and IEA GA frameworks (see Appendix for mapping), this guidance provides an internationally consistent foundation that can be adapted to local contexts, equipping engineering graduates to address complex, interdependent challenges of the 21st century with competence, integrity, and resilience.  

 

Appendix:  

Mapping between Eight Core Competencies and Standard frameworks 

Proposed Core Competency   INCOSE * AHEP4 ** IEA GA *** 
Systems Thinking & Problem Framing ST LO2, LO6 WA2
Critical Thinking   CT LO4 WA4, WA11 
Simulation, Modelling & Data Literacy  IM, SM  LO1, LO3, LO4  WA1, WA4, WA5
Design for Complexity & Changeability  CP, DM, DF LO5  WA3 
Project & Lifecycle Management   LC, PL, CE, CP  LO15  WA10 
Risk & Uncertainty Management  CE, PL, RO  LO9, LO10 –
Collaboration & Communication   CC, TD, TL, EI  LO16, LO17  WA8, WA9 
Professional Responsibility  EI, EP  LO7, LO8  WA6, WA7 

 

* INCOSE Competency Framework, 2nd edition (2018) 

** AHEP4 Learning Outcome (LO) (2025) 

*** International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Attributes (GA) (2021) 

 

CC = Communications 

CE = Concurrent Engineering  

CP = Capability Engineering 

CT = Critical Thinking 

DF = Design For … 

DM = Decision Management 

EI = Emotional Intelligence 

EP = Ethics and Professionalism 

IM = Information Management 

 LC = Life Cycle 

LO = Learning Outcome 

PL = Planning 

RO = Risk and Opportunity Management 

TD = Team Dynamics 

TL = Technical Leadership 

SM = Systems Modelling and Analysis 

ST = Systems Thinking 

WA = Washington Accord 

 

References:

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. Rhythima Shinde (KLH Sustainability).

Topic: Applying Cynefin framework for climate resilience.  

Title: Managing floods in urban infrastructure.

Resource type: Teaching – Case study.

Relevant disciplines: Civil engineering; Environmental engineering; General engineering.

Keywords: Systems thinking; Climate change; Sustainability; Risk; Decision-making; Problem-solving; Disaster mitigation.

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness.  A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.

This resource relates to the Systems Thinking, Requirements Definition, Communication, Design For, and Critical Thinking INCOSE Competencies. 

AHEP4 mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4):  Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses the themes of Sustainability and Communication. 

Educational level: Beginner; intermediate.

 

Acknowledgement: 

The case study underpinning this teaching activity was developed by Prof. Kristen MacAskill (University of Cambridge). The Module was ​first ​developed and implemented in teaching by TEDI- London, led ​by a team​ of learning technologists, Ellie Bates, Laurence Chater, Pratishtha Poudel, and academic member, Rhythima Shinde. This work was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering through its Engineering X programme — a global partnership that supports safer, more sustainable engineering education and practice worldwide. With critical support from Professor Kristen MacAskill and involvement of Ana Andrade and Hazel Ingham, Aisha Seif Salim. This was a collective effort involving many individuals across TEDI-London and RAEng (advisors and reviewers), and while we cannot name everyone here, we are deeply grateful for all the contributions that made this module possible. 

 

Learning and teaching notes: 

This case study introduces a structured, systems-thinking–based teaching resource. It provides educators with tools and frameworks—such as the Cynefin framework and stakeholder mapping—to analyse and interpret complex socio-technical challenges. By exploring the case of the Queensland, Australia floods, it demonstrates how engineering decisions evolve within interconnected technical and social systems, helping students link theory with practice. 

The Cynefin framework (Nachbagauer, 2021; Snowden, 2002), helps decision-makers distinguish between different types of problem contexts—simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disordered. In an engineering context, this framework guides learners to recognise when traditional linear methods work (for simple or complicated problems) and when adaptive, experimental approaches are required (for complex or chaotic systems). 

Within this teaching activity, Cynefin is used to help students understand how resilience strategies evolve when facing uncertainty, incomplete information, and changing stakeholder dynamics. By mapping case study events to the Cynefin domains, learners gain a structured way to navigate uncertainty and identify appropriate modes of action. 

This case study activity assumes basic familiarity with systems concepts and builds on this foundation with deeper application to real-world socio-technical challenges.  

 

Summary of context:

The activity focuses on a case study of 2010–2011 floods in Queensland, Australia, which caused extensive damage to urban infrastructure. The Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) initially directed resources to short-term asset repairs but subsequently shifted towards long-term resilience planning, hazard management, and community-centred approaches. 

The case resonates with global engineering challenges, such as flood, fire, and storm resilience, and can be easily adapted to local contexts. This case therefore connects systems thinking theory directly to engineering and governance decisions, illustrating how frameworks like Cynefin can support engineers in navigating uncertainty across technical and institutional domains. 

 

Learning objectives:

Aligned with AHEP4 (Engineering Council, 2020) – Outcomes 6, 10, and 16 on systems approaches, sustainability, and risk – this activity emphasises systems thinking, stakeholder engagement, problem definition, and decision-making under uncertainty. 

This teaching activity introduces learners to the principles and practice of systems thinking by embedding a real-world case study into engineering education (Godfrey et al., 2014; Monat et al.,2022). The objectives are to: 

 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Downloads: 

 

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Time required: 

The teaching activity is designed for 4–6 hours of structured learning, delivered across three modules: 

1. Context (1–2 hours) 

2. Analysis and insights (1–2 hours) 

3. Discussion and transferable learning (1–2 hours) 

 

Materials required:

1. Open access online learning platform: Engineering for a complex world

This dedicated platform hosts the interactive modules designed for this teaching activity. Students progress through three modules — Context, Analysis and Insights, and Discussion and Transferable Learning. Each module includes animations, narrative-driven content, scenario prompts, and interactive tasks. The platform ensures flexibility: it can be used in fully online, hybrid, or face-to-face settings. All necessary digital assets (readings, maps, videos, and quizzes) are embedded, so learners have a “one-stop” environment.

2. Case study pack: Queensland Reconstruction Authority flood response

The core teaching narrative is anchored in this Engineering X case study. It documents the evolution of the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) from a short-term flood recovery body to a long-term resilience institution. This resource provides students with authentic socio-technical detail — including stakeholder conflicts, institutional learning, and systemic barriers — which they then interrogate using systems thinking frameworks.

3. Facilitator’s guide: (Appendix A)

This guide equips educators to deliver the course consistently and effectively. It includes:

4. Timeline touchpoints: (Appendix B)

This resource provides a suggested delivery schedule for facilitators. It maps when live sessions, asynchronous tasks, and group discussions should occur, ensuring students remain engaged over the course. It also indicates where key reflective points and assessments (both formative and summative) can be integrated.

5. Pre- and post-module assessment form: (Appendix C)

This tool evaluates students’ systems thinking learning outcomes. It includes:

The form provides both quantitative data (Likert scales) and qualitative insights (open-ended reflections), enabling robust evaluation of teaching impact. 

 

Assessment:

 

Narrative of the case:

Learners are introduced to the case via a fictional guide, “Bernice,” who frames the scenario and supports navigation through the material. Students work through three stages that progressively apply the Cynefin framework and other systems tools to understand how resilience emerges through evolving governance and engineering responses: 

1. Context module: 

2. Analysis & insights module: 

3. Discussion & transfer learning module: 

 

Interactive learning design:

The teaching activity integrates multiple interactive elements to immerse students in systems thinking: 

 

Why this approach adds value: 

Although rooted in social-technical interactions, the activity explicitly connects systems thinking to core engineering design competencies—problem framing, stakeholder analysis, and iterative solution development under uncertainty 

 

Guided questions and activities: 

Facilitators can use these prompts to stimulate inquiry and structured reflection: 

 

Opportunities for extension: 

In addition to the Queensland floods and Sakura Cove examples, educators may draw parallels with urban heat planning in London, wildfire adaptation in Australia, or storm resilience in the Netherlands. These comparative cases allow learners to generalise systems insights beyond one event or geography. 

The activity is designed to be scalable and adaptable: 

This flexibility allows educators to tailor the activity to their students’ level of expertise, institutional context, and disciplinary focus. 

 

References:

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Mariam Makramalla, PhD, FRSA (New Giza University).

Topic: Integrating complex systems learning outcomes in engineering curricula.

Title: How to scaffold complex systems learning outcomes across a curriculum.

Resource type: Guidance article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Learning outcomes; Pedagogy; Curriculum; Curriculum map; Critical thinking; Problem-solving; Life cycle; Decision-making . 

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Downloads:

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate complex systems topics into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.   

 

Premise:  

Teaching and learning engineering carries with it a double layer of complexity. On the one hand, this complexity is connected to the growing interdisciplinary nature of engineering itself. On the other hand, the complexity is connected to the growing diversity of engineering students that are often present in one project team. This multifaceted complexity requires a re-envisioned understanding of the role and purpose of the engineering educator.  

With the growing trend of a global classroom reality, we often find that learners in the classroom are representing different cultures, which in turn are rooted in them unconsciously carrying historical and socio-cultural baggage relating to these cultures. Thus, it becomes crucial to unpack the challenge and potential that such a diverse collective intelligence can offer to an engineering learning experience.  

As our understanding of the engineering discipline gets more rooted and interconnected with the precarious reality that our world is witnessing today, it becomes essential that the engineering education community would take up a proactive role in actively contributing to the formation of engineering citizenship. In other words, every engineering student should be educated as a citizen that has mastered the engineering cross-cutting fields in such a way that they are free to create and solve problems of the present and the future.  

With this in mind, it becomes very clear that the one-size-fits all model of a single discipline engineering classroom can no longer sustain itself. It does not factor in the richness that a diverse student body can offer, and it dilutes the value and potential of an engineering learner to think clearly or solve problems. It is therefore imperative that engineering educators grasp the complex reality of an integrated engineering discipline and address it in a way that fosters scaffolding of diverse knowledge. Some students might specialise in one core technical discipline. Yet, future projections for most students showcase the need to have a wide level of exposure to broader competency development. Students need to learn to understand the field of engineering at large and to develop system thinking skills that enable them to exist, challenge and have an impact on the system that they are a part of.  

 

How to scaffold learning outcomes in a complex engineering curriculum:

The below table has been designed for embedding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across an engineering curriculum. It maps against competencies and suggests scaffolding techniques across educational levels. It is also important to note, that efforts need to be made to align to the relevant AHEP requirements or other accreditation standards. Table 1 presents the different strands of the Complex Systems Engineering Curriculum, colour coded in line with the INCOSE Competency Framework outline (INCOSE, 2025). Table 2 presents a practical guide for educators to scaffold Complex Systems learning outcomes across a curriculum. The intention is for the scaffolding framework to compare the trade-offs between different elements of the competency group. For example, system modelling and analysis as an element from the core competency and planning from the management competency. The table suggests activities that would integrate different competencies together in a scaffolded approach.  

Table 1. Competency Areas for Complex Systems (INCOSE, 2025).

Table 1 presents Competency Areas for Complex Systems. As mentioned, the skills range to include a wide variety of competencies, thereby enabling a solid and grounded systems thinking approach for students. As students approach their learning, they go through a series of development stages that gradually build up student level of expertise until they reach the stage of what the INCOSE competency framework refers to as a lead practitioner role. Building on the competencies of the complex system toolkit presented in Table 1, Table 2 presents a potential outline for a scaffolding framework that maps varying threads of the framework in a way that enables scaffolded activities at every developmental stage for learners. Depending on the learning context and educational level, educators can choose which level of attainment is appropriate to their curriculum.  

Table 2. Scaffolding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across the curriculum 

 

Discussion and next steps:

As we are approaching the fuzzy front end to complexity in engineering pedagogy, as educators we need to be constantly toggling between devising frameworks, being informed by literature, contextualising ideas, validating these in our classrooms and repeating this cycle to continually fine-tune our complex teaching navigational complexity framework. The invitation is open for all educators who would like to connect as we continue to explore different ways of developing responsible engineers who leave a lasting and sustainable mark transforming their stationed realities.  

 

References:

   

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

 

Authors: Siara Isaac; Valentina Rossi; Joelyn de Lima.

Topic: Transversal skills that promote sustainability.

Tool type: Teaching (Experiential learning activity guide).

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Negotiation Skills; Perspective taking; Role-play.

Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Critical thinking.

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy); SDG 9 (Industry innovation and infrastructure); SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 13 (Climate action).

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active Pedagogies and Mindset Development; More Real-World Complexity; Cross-Disciplinarity.

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate ESD into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.

Link to resource: How to support students to develop skills that promote sustainability

 

Learning and teaching notes:

This experiential activity aims to incorporate sustainability reflections into students’ group work. It uses a selection of materials with different properties to engage participants in building a wind turbine prototype based on a contextualised negotiation of multiple facets of sustainability.

Taking a disciplinary standpoint, participants first assume one of four engineering roles to identify specific sustainability priorities based on their role’s responsibilities and expertise. Next, they represent the perspective of their assigned role in an interdisciplinary group to optimise sustainability in the design of a wind turbine.

Throughout the activity, students are given targeted and short theoretical input on a selection of transversal skills that facilitate the integration of sustainability in group work: systems thinking, negotiation skills and perspective taking.

This activity guide provides the outline and material to assist the facilitator to prepare, and the slides and handouts for teaching the activity in approximately 75min. It can be facilitated with tangible objects (e.g. LEGO) as well as online. We invite you to adapt this activity to your context and tangibles availability.

 

Click here to access the activity guide

 

Supporting resources on the development of transversal skills:

https://zenodo.org/communities/3tplay/records

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.  

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

Authors: The Lemelson Foundation; Cynthia Anderson, Sarah Jayne Hitt and Jonathan Truslove (Eds.) 

Topic: Accreditation mapping for sustainability in engineering education. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Engineering disciplines:  Any.

Keywords: Accreditation and standards; Learning outcomes; AHEP; Student support; Sustainability; Higher education; Students; Teaching or embedding sustainability.

Sustainability competency: Critical thinking; Systems thinking; Integrated problem-solving; Collaboration.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4). See details about mapping within the guide. 

Related SDGs: SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production). 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; More real-world complexity; Cross-disciplinarity.

 

Learning and teaching notes:

This guide, currently under review by the Engineering Council, maps the Engineering for One Planet (EOP) Framework to AHEP4. The EOP Framework is a practical tool for curricular supplementation and modification, comprising 93 sustainability focused learning outcomes in 9 topic areas. 

The Lemelson Foundation, VentureWell, and Alula Consulting stewarded the co-development of the EOP Framework with hundreds of individuals mostly situated in the United States. Now, in collaboration with the EPC and Engineers Without Borders UK, the EOP Framework’s student learning outcomes have been mapped to AHEP4 at the Chartered Engineer (CEng) level to ensure that UK educators can more easily align these outcomes and corresponding resources with learning activities, coursework, and assessments within their modules.  

 

Click here to access the guide

 

Supporting resources: 

EOP Comprehensive Teaching Guide 

EOP’s 13 Step-by-Step Ideas for Integrating Sustainability into Engineering Modules 

EOP Quickstart Activity Guide 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.  

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

Author: Mike Murray BSc (Hons) MSc PhD AMICE SFHEA (Senior Teaching Fellow in Construction Management, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde). 

Topic: Links between education for sustainable development (ESD) and intercultural competence. 

Tool type: Teaching.  

Engineering disciplines: Civil; Any. 

Keywords: AHEP; Sustainability; Student support; Local community; Higher education; Assessment; Pedagogy; Education for sustainable development; Internationalisation; Global reach; Global responsibility; EDI. 

Sustainability competency: Self-awareness; Collaboration; Critical thinking.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.  

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 16 (Peace, justice, and strong institutions). 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Authentic assessment.

Educational level: Beginner. 

 

Learning and teaching notes:  

This resource describes a coursework aligned to three key pedagogical approaches of ESD. (1) It positions the students as autonomous learners (learner-centred); (2) who are engaged in action and reflect on their experiences (action-oriented); and (3) empowers and challenges learners to alter their worldviews (transformative learning). Specifically, it requires students to engage in collaborative peer learning (Einfalt, Alford, and Theobald 2022; UNESCO 2021). The coursework is an innovative Assessment for Learning” (AfL) (Sambell, McDowell, and Montgomery, 2013) internationalisation at home (Universities UK, 2021) group and individual assessment for first-year civil & environmental engineers enrolled on two programmes (BEng (Hons) / MEng Civil Engineering & BEng (Hons) / MEng Civil & Environmental Engineering). However, the coursework could easily be adapted to any other engineering discipline by shifting the theme of the example subjects. With a modification on the subjects, there is potential to consider engineering components / artifacts / structures, such as naval vessels / aeroplanes / cars, and a wide number of products and components that have particular significance to a country (i.e., Swiss Army Knife).

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Learning and teaching resources:  

 

Rationale: 

There have been several calls to educate the global engineer through imbedding people and planet issues in the engineering curriculum (Bourn and Neal, 2008; Grandin and Hirleman 2009). Students should be accepting of this practice given that prospective freshers are ‘positively attracted by the possibility of learning alongside people from the rest of the world’ (Higher Education Policy Unit, 2015:4). Correspondingly, ‘international students often report that an important reason in their decision to study abroad is a desire to learn about the host country and to meet people from other cultures’ (Scudamore, 2013:14). Michel (2010:358) defines this ‘cultural mobility’ as ‘sharing views (or life) with people from other cultures, for better understanding that the world is not based on a unique, linear thought’.  

 

Coursework brief summary extracted from the complete brief:

Civil Engineering is an expansive industry with projects across many subdisciplines (i.e. Bridges, Buildings, Coastal & Marine, Environmental, Geotechnical, Highways, Power including Renewables. In a group students are required to consult with an international mentor and investigate civil engineering (buildings & structures) in the mentor’s home country. Each student should select a different example. These can be historical projects, current projects or projects planned for the future, particularly those projects that are addressing the climate emergency. Students will then complete two tasks: 

 

Time frame and structure: 

1. Opening lecture covering:

a. Reasoning for coursework with reference to transnational engineering employers and examples of international engineering projects and work across national boundaries. 

b. Links between engineering, people, and planet through the example of biomimicry in civil engineering design (Hayes, Desha, & Baumeister, 2020) or nature-based solutions in the context of civil engineering technology (Cassina and Matthews ,2021). 

c. Existence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as RedR UK (2023) Water Aid (2023) and Bridges to Prosperity (2023). 

d. The use of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to address problematic issues such as human rights abuses (Human Rights Watch, 2006) and bribery and corruption (Stansbury and Stansbury) in global engineering projects.  

 

2. Assign students to groups:

a. Identify international mentors. After checking the module registration list, identify international students and invite them to become a mentor to their peers.  Seek not to be coercive and explain that it is a voluntary role and to say no will have no impact on their studies. In our experience, less than a handful have turned down this opportunity. The peer international students are then used as foundation members to build each group of four first-year students. Additional international student mentors can be sourced from outside the module to assist each group. 

b. Establish team contracts and group work processes using the Carnegie Mellon Group Working Evaluation document

 

3. Allow for group work time throughout the module to complete the tasks (full description can be found in the complete brief). 

 

Assessment criteria: 

The coursework constitutes a 20% weighting of a 10-Credit elective module- Engineering & Society. The submission has two assessed components: Task 1) a group international poster with annotated sketches of buildings & structures (10% weighting); and Task 2) A short individual reflective writing report (10% weighting) that seeks to ascertain the students experience of engaging in a collaborative peer activity (process), and their views on their poster (product). Vogel et al, (2023, 45) note that the use of posters is ‘well-suited to demonstrating a range of sustainability learning outcomes’. Whilst introducing reflective writing in a first-year engineering course has its challenges, it is recognised that  reflective practice is an appropriate task for ESD- ‘The teaching approaches most associated with developing transformative sustainability values stimulate critical reflection and self-reflection’ (Vogel et al, 2023, 6). 

Each task has its own assessment criteria and process. Assessment details can be found in the complete coursework brief.  

 

Teaching reflection: 

The coursework has been undertaken by nine cohorts of first-year undergraduate civil engineers (N=738) over seven academic sessions between 2015-2024. To date this has involved (N=147) mentors, representing sixty nationalities. Between 2015-2024 the international mentors have been first-year peers (N=67); senior year undergraduate & post-graduate students undertaking studies in the department (N=58) and visiting ERASMUS & International students (N =22) enrolled on programmes within the department.  

Whilst the aim for the original coursework aligns with ESD (‘ESD is also an education in values, aiming to transform students’ worldviews, and build their capacity to alter wider society’ -Vogel et al ,2023:21) the reflective reports indicate that the students’ IC gain was at a perfunctory level. Whilst there were references to ‘a sense of belonging, ‘pride in representing my country’, ‘developing friendships’, ‘international mentors’ enthusiasm’ this narrative indicates a more generic learning gain that is known to help students acquire dispositions to stay and to succeed at university (Harding and Thompson, 2011). The coursework brief fell short of addressing the call ‘to transform engineering education curricula and learning approaches to meet the challenges of the SDGs’ (UNESCO,2021:125). Indeed, as a provocateur pedagogy, ‘ESD recognises that education in its current form is unsustainable and requires radical change’ (Vogel et al ,2023, 4).  

Given the above it is clear that the coursework requirement for peer collaboration and reflective practice aligns to three of the eight key competencies (collaboration, self-awareness, critical thinking) for sustainability (UNESCO, 2017:10). Scudamore (2013:26) notes the importance of these competencies when she refers to engaging home and international students in dialogue- ‘the inevitable misunderstandings, which demand patience and tolerance to overcome, form an essential part of the learning process for all involved’. Moreover, Beagon et al (2023) have acknowledged the importance of interpersonal competencies to prepare engineering graduates for the challenges of the SDG’s. Thus, the revised coursework brief prompts students to journey ‘through the mirror’ and to reflect on how gaining IC can assist their knowledge of, and actions towards the SDG’s. 

 

References: 

Beagon, U., Kövesi, K., Tabas, B., Nørgaard, B., Lehtinen, R., Bowe, B., Gillet, C & Claus Spliid, C.M .(2023). Preparing engineering students for the challenges of the SDGs: what competences are required? European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1): 1-23 

Bourn, D and Neal, I. (2008). The Global Engineer: Incorporating Global Skills within the UK Higher Education of Engineers. Engineers against Poverty and Institute of Education. 

Einfalt, J., Alford, J & Theobald, M.(2022). Making talk work: using a dialogic approach to develop intercultural competence with students at an Australian university, Intercultural Education, 33(32):211-229 (Grandin and Hirleman 2009). 

Harding, J and  Thompson, J. (2011). Dispositions to stay and to succeed, Higher Education Academy, Final Report 

Higher Education Policy Unit .(2015). What do prospective students think about international students 

Human Rights Watch. (2006). Building Towers, Cheating Workers: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in the United Arab Emirates  

Michel, J. (2010). Mobility of engineers; the European experience, In UNESCO, Engineering: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Development, pp 358-360 

Sambell, K, McDowell, L and Montgomery, C.(2013). Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge. 

Scudamore, R. (2013). Engaging home and international students: A guide for new lecturers, Advance HE 

Stansbury, C. and Stansbury, N. (2007) Anti-Corruption Training Manual: Infrastructure, Construction and Engineering Sectors, International Version, Transparency International UK. Online.  

UNESCO. (2021). Engineering for Sustainable Development, delivering on the sustainable development goals,  

Universities UK. (2021). Internationalisation at home – developing global citizens without travel: Showcasing Impactful Programmes, Benefits and Good Practice,   

Vogel, M., Parker, L., Porter, J., O’Hara, M., Tebbs, E., Gard, R., He, X and  Gallimore,J.B .(2023).  Education for Sustainable  Development: a review  of the literature 2015-2022, Advance HE 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

To view a plain text version of this resource, click here to download the PDF.

Authors: Dr Jonathan Truslove MEng PhD and Emma Crichton CEng MICE (Engineers Without Borders UK). 

Topic: Assessing sustainability competencies in engineering education. 

Type: Knowledge. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

Keywords: Assessment; Design challenges; Global responsibility; Learning outcomes; Sustainability; AHEP; Higher education; Pedagogy. 

Sustainability competency: Integrated problem-solving, Critical thinking.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.  

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 13 (Climate action). 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Authentic assessment; Active pedagogies and mindset development.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate sustainability into curriculum design. It may also be of interest for students practising lifelong learning to articulate and explore how their learning translates into competency development as they embark on their careers. 

 

Premise: 

Today we know that how we engineer is changing – and this change is happening at a quicker pace than in previous decades. The decisions engineers make throughout their careers shape the world we all inhabit. Consequently, the education of engineers has a profound impact on society. Ensuring our degrees are up to date is of pressing importance to prepare all future practitioners and professionals. Arguably, it is especially important for engineers to act sustainably, ethically and equitably. 

How do engineers understand their roles when sustainability becomes a key driver in the context of their work? What does sustainability look like in learning journeys, and how can it be incorporated into assessments? This article does not advocate for simply adding ‘sustainability’ to degrees; rather, it encourages the connection between sustainability competencies and engineering assessments. 

 

Developing 21st-century engineers 

Choosing to become an engineer is a great way to be useful to society. Studying an engineering degree can develop what people can do (skills), what they know (knowledge) and how they think (mindset), as well as open up a diverse range of career opportunities. 

The path to becoming an engineer can start at university (though there are other routes in). Weaving in a focus on globally responsible engineering throughout a degree course is about embracing the need to develop a broader set of competencies in engineers and expand the types of projects they practise on during their degree to reflect the problems they may encounter during their career. 

This doesn’t mean that engineering degrees as they are aren’t valuable or useful. It’s about strengthening the building blocks of degrees to ensure that 21st-century engineers have space to play their role in addressing 21st-century societal challenges. These building blocks are what learning outcomes are prioritised, what pedagogies are used, the types of projects students work on, who they work with and the way we assess learning. All of these elements can be aggregated to develop competence in sustainable engineering practice. 

 

What are sustainability competency frameworks saying? 

There are many frameworks exploring what are the competencies most needed today (such as UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development competencies, EU GreenComp, Inner Development Goals). Many frameworks are calling for similar things that allow us to shift focus, attention and energy onto how to truly develop a person over the three to five plus years of experience they might gain at university.  

By designing education to meet learning outcomes, you build and evidence a range of competencies, including developing the mindsets of learners. Practically, it is the use of different competency frameworks, and the associated updates to learning outcomes, and how we deliver education and assessment that really matters. The table below, in the second column, synthesises various competency frameworks to clearly articulate what it means a learner can then do. Rather than argue different frameworks, focusing on what a student can do as a result is really key.  

Figure 1. Competencies for sustainable development in Advance HE and QAA (2021) and UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development (2017). 

 

By reading through this table, you can see that this is more than just about ‘sustainability’ – these are useful things for a person to be able to do. Ask yourself, what if we don’t develop these in our graduates? Will they be better or worse off? 

Graduates can then build on this learning they have had at university to continue to develop as engineers working in practice. The Global Responsibility Competency Compass for example points practitioners to the capabilities needed to stay relevant and provides practical ways to develop themselves. It is made up of 12 competencies and is organised around the four guiding principles of global responsibility – Responsible, Purposeful, Inclusive and Regenerative.  

 

What needs to shift in engineering education? 

The shifts required to the building blocks of an engineering degree are:  

  1. To adapt and repurpose learning outcomes. 
  2. To integrate more real-world complexity within project briefs. 
  3. To be excellent at active pedagogies and mindset development. 
  4. To ensure authentic assessment. 
  5. To maximise cross-disciplinary experience and expertise.  

All of the above need to be designed with mechanisms that work at scale. Let’s spotlight two of these shifts, ‘to adapt and repurpose learning outcomes’ and ‘to integrate authentic assessment’ so we can see how sustainability competence relates. 

 

Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes. 

We can build on what is already working well within a degree to bring about positive changes. Many degrees exhibit strengths in their learning outcomes such as, developing the ability to understand a concept or a problem and apply that understanding through a disciplinary lens focused on simple/complicated problems. However, it is crucial to maintain a balance between addressing straightforward problems and tackling more complex ones that encourage learners to be curious and inquisitive.  

For example, a simple problem (where the problem and solution are known) may involve ‘calculating the output of a solar panel in a community’. A complex problem (where the problem and solution are unknown) may involve ‘how to improve a community’s livelihood and environmental systems, which may involve exploring the interconnectedness, challenges and opportunities that may exist in the system. 

Enhancing the learning experience by allowing students to investigate and examine a context for ideas to emerge is more reflective of real-world practice. Success is not solely measured by learners accurately completing a set of problem sets; rather, it lies in their ability to apply concepts in a way that creates a better, more sustainable system. 

See how this rebalancing is represented in the visual below: 

Figure 2. ​​​​Rebalancing learning within degrees to be relevant to the future we face. Source: Engineers Without Borders UK. 

 

Keeping up to date and meeting accreditation standards is another important consideration. Relating the intended learning outcomes to the latest language associated with accreditation requirements, such as AHEP4 (UK), ABET (US) or ECSA (SA), doesn’t mean you have to just add more in. You can adapt what you’ve already got for a new purpose and context. For instance, the Engineering for One Planet framework’s 93 (46 Core and 46 Advanced) sustainability-focused learning outcomes that hundreds of academics, engineering professionals, and other key stakeholders have identified as necessary for preparing all graduating engineers — regardless of subdiscipline — with the skills, knowledge, and understanding to protect and improve our planet and our lives. These outcomes have also been mapped to AHEP4. 

 

Integrate authentic assessment: 

It is important that intended learning outcomes and assessment methods are aligned so that they reinforce each other and lead to the desired competency development. An important distinction exists between assessment of learning and assessment as or for learning: 

  1. Assessment OF learning e.g. traditional methods of assessment of student learning against learning outcomes and standards that typically measure students’ knowledge-based learning.
  2. Assessment AS/FOR learning e.g. reflective and performance-based (e.g. self-assessments, peer assessments and feedback from educators using reflective journals or portfolios) where the learning journey is part of the assessment process that captures learners’ insights and critical thinking, and empowers learners to identify possibilities for improvement.  

Assessment should incorporate a mix of methods when evaluating aspects like sustainability, to bring in authenticity which strengthens the integrity of the assessment process and mirrors how engineers work in practice. For example, University College London and Kings College London both recognise that critical evaluation, interpretation, analysis, and judgement are all key skills which will become more and more important, and making assessment rubrics more accessible for students and educators. Authentic assessment can mirror professional practices, such as having learners assessed within design reviews, or asking students to develop a portfolio across modules.  

 

Engineers Without Borders UK | Assessing competencies through design challenges: 

Below is an example of what Engineers Without Borders UK has done to translate competencies into assessment through our educational offerings. The Engineering for People Design Challenge (embedded in-curriculum focuses on placing the community context at the heart of working through real-world project-based learning experiences) and Reshaping Engineering (a co-curricular voluntary design month to explore how to make the engineering sector more globally responsible). The competencies in the Global Responsibility Competency Compass are aligned and evidenced through the learning outcomes and assessment process in both challenges.  

Please note – the Global Responsibility Competency Compass points practitioners to the capabilities needed to stay relevant and provides practical ways to develop themselves. 

See below an example of the logic behind translating competencies acquired by participants to assessment during the design challenges.  

Figure 3. Example of the logic behind translating the Global Responsibility Competency Compass to assessment during the design challenges. Source: Engineers Without Borders UK.  

 

    1. The Competencies developed through the educational offering are orientated around the Global Responsibility Competency Compass to align with the learning journey from undergraduate to practising globally responsible individuals in learners’ future careers.
    2. We then align learning outcomes to the competency and purpose of the design challenge using simple and concise language.

  a. Useful resources that were used to help frame, align and iterate the learning outcomes and marking criteria are shared at the end of this article.

    1. The Marking Criteria draws on the assessment methods previously mentioned under ‘Assessment OF’ and ‘Assessment AS/FOR’ while aligning to the context of intended learning i.e. design focussed, individual journals reflecting on the learning journey, and collaborating in teams.
    2. We frame and align key action words from Competency to learning outcome to marking criteria using Bloom’s taxonomy (in Figure 2) to scale appropriately, the context of learning and what the intended outcome of learning/area of assessment would be.  

 

Conclusions: 

How your students think matters. How they engage in critical conversations matters. What they value matters. How we educate engineers matters.  

These may feel like daunting shifts to make but developing people to navigate our future is important for them, and us. Sustainability competencies are actually about competencies that are useful – the label ‘sustainability’ may or may not help but it’s the underlying concepts that matters most. The interventions that we make to instil these competencies in the learning journeys of future engineers are required – so degrees can be continuously improved and will be valuable over the long term. Making assessment mirror real practice helps with life-long learning. That’s useful in general, not just about sustainability. This is a major opportunity to attract more people into engineering, keep them and enable them to be part of addressing urgent 21st century challenges. 

  

“Sustainability is more than a word or concept, it is actually a culture, and if we aim to see it mirrored in the near future, what better way exists than that of planting it in the young hearts of today knowing they are the leaders of the tomorrow we are not guaranteed of? It is possible.” 

2021 South African university student (after participating in the Engineering for People Design Challenge during their degree course) 

 

Useful resources: 

There are some excellent resources out there that help us understand and articulate what sustainability competencies and learning outcomes look like, and how to embed them into teaching, learning and assessment. Some of them were used in the example above. Here are some resources that we have found useful in translating the competencies in the Compass into learning outcomes in our educational offerings: 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.  

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

To view a plain text version of this resource, click here to download the PDF.

Author: Dr Gill Lacey, SFEA, MIEEE (Teesside University). 

Topic: Calculating effects of implementing energy-saving standards. 

Tool type: Teaching. 

Relevant disciplines: Energy; Civil engineering; Construction; Mechanical engineering. 

Keywords: Built environment; Housing; Energy efficiency; Decarbonisation; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education; Pedagogy. 

Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Critical thinking; Integrated problem-solving.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and the following specific themes from Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.  

Related SDGs: SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production); SDG 13 (Climate Action). 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindsets; More real-world complexity.

Educational level: Beginner / intermediate. Learners are required to have basic (level 2) science knowledge, and ability to populate a mathematical formula and use units correctly. 

 

Learning and teaching notes: 

This activity allows students to consider the dilemmas around providing housing that is cheap to heat as well as cheap to buy or rent. It starts with researching these issues using contemporary news and policy, continues with an in-depth study of insulation, together with calculations of U values, heat energy and indicative costs.

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Supporting resources:  

To prepare for these activities, teachers may want to explain, or assign students to pre-read articles relating to heating a house with respect to: 

 

Introduction to the activity (teacher): 

Provide the stimulus to motivate the students by considering the dilemma: How do we provide affordable housing whilst minimising heating requirement? There are not enough homes in the UK for everyone who needs one. Some of the houses we do have are expensive to run, poorly maintained and cost a fortune in rent. How do we get the housing builders to provide enough affordable, cheap to run housing for the population? 

One possible solution is adopting Passivhaus standards. The Passivhaus is a building that conforms to a standard around heating requirements that ensures the insulation (U value) of the building material, including doors, windows and floors, prevents heat leaving the building so that a minimum heating requirement is needed. If all houses conformed to Passivhaus standards, the running costs for the householder would be reduced. 

 

Teaching schedule: 

Provide stimulus by highlighting the housing crisis in the UK:  

Students can then research and find the answers to the following questions using the following links, or other websites: 

 

Housing crisis in the UK: 

 

Students can work in groups to work on the extent of the problem from the bullet points provided. This activity can be used to develop design skills (Define the problem) 

 

1. Get the engineering knowledge about preventing heat leaving a house:

If you can prevent heat leaving, you won’t need to add any more, it will stay at the same temperature. Related engineering concepts are:   

 

2. Task:

a. Start with a standard footprint of a three-bed semi, from local estate agents. Make some assumptions about inside and outside temperatures, height of ceilings and any other values that may be needed.

b. Use the U value table to calculate the heat loss for this house (in Watts). The excel table has been pre-populated or you can do this as a group

  1. With uninsulated materials (single glazing, empty cavity wall, no loft insulation. 
  2. With standard insulation (double glazing, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation. 
  3. If Passivhaus standards were used to build the house. 

 c. Costs

  1. Find the typical cost for heating per kWh
  2. Compare the costs for replacing the heat lost.

 d. Final synoptic activity

  1. Passivhaus costs a lot more than standard new build. How do housebuilders afford it?
  2. Provide examples of the cost of building a Passivhaus standard building materials and reduced heating bills.
  3. Suggest some ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ that could be used to make sure housing in the UK is affordable to rent/buy and run.

 

3. Assessment:

The spreadsheet can be assessed, and the students could write a report giving facts and figures comparing different levels of insulation and the effects on running costs. 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

To view a plain text version of this resource, click here to download the PDF.

Author: Aditya Johri (George Mason University). 

Topic: Sustainability implications in mobility and technology development.   

Type: Teaching. 

Relevant disciplines: Electrical, Robotics, Civil, Mechanical, Computing. 

Keywords: Design; Accessibility; Technology Policy; Electric Vehicles; Mobility, Circularity; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education.

Sustainability competency: Normative; Self-awareness; Strategic; Critical thinking.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here  and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.  

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure), SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 13 (Climate action).   

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindset development.

Educational aim: The objective of this activity is to provide students with an understanding of the complexity of technology development and different considerations that need to be made by stakeholders in the design and implementation of a technology. The activity is set up as a role-play where students are assigned different roles as members of an expert panel providing feedback on the use of E-Scooters on a college campus. 

Educational level: Beginner. 

 

Learning and teaching notes: 

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Supporting resources: 

Several different ethical frameworks, codes, or guidelines can be provided to students to prepare for the discussion or to reflect upon during their discussion depending on the students’ disciplinary composition. Here are a few examples:  

 

Background readings and resources: 

One of the goals of this exercise is to motivate students to undertake their own research on the topic to prepare for the activity. But it is important to provide them with preliminary material to start their own research. Here are a few useful resources for this case:  

Readings: 

 

Videos: 

 

Role-play instructions: 

  1. Each student is assigned a role a week before the discussion.
  2. Students assigned to the role of Eva Walker serve as the moderator and lead the conversation based on the script below.
  3. The script provided below is there to guide the discussion, but you should leave room for the conversation to flow naturally and allow everyone to contribute.

One way to ensure students are prepared for the discussion is to assign a few questions from the script as a pre-discussion assignment (short answers). Similarly, to ensure students reflect on the discussion, they can be assigned the last question from the script as a post-discussion exercise. They can also be asked specifically about frameworks and concepts related to sustainability.  

 

Role-play scenario narrative and description of roles: 

Eva Walker recently started reporting about on-campus traffic issues for the student newspaper. She would have preferred to do more human-interest stories, but as a new member of the staff who had just moved from intern to full-time, she was happy to get whatever opportunity she could. Eva was studying both journalism and creative writing, and this was her dream on-campus job. She also realised that, even though many stories at first didn’t appear to her as though she would be interested in them, as she dug deeper she eventually found an angle with which she could strongly relate.  

One weekday morning, Eva was working on yet another story on parking woes when Amina Ali, one of the editorial staff members, texted her to say that there had been an accident on campus; she just passed it at the intersection of the library and the recreation building, and it might be worth covering. Eva was at the library, and within no time, reached the spot of the accident.  

When Eva arrived, a police vehicle, an ambulance, and a fire engine were all present at the scene, and near the accident site, an e-scooter lay smashed into a tree. It looked like the rider was sitting in the ambulance and was being treated by the medical staff. A little further away, Eva noticed the police speaking to a young woman in a wheelchair. Although Eva’s first instinct was to try to talk to the police or the medical staff to ascertain what had happened, she realised this probably wasn’t the best moment and she would have to wait until later for the official version of the event.  

She looked around and saw a group of four students leaning against a wall with drinks in their hands. A couple of them were vaping. Eva thought that they looked like they had been here for a while, and she walked over to ask them what had happened. From the account they gave her, it appeared as if the e-scooter rider was coming around the bend at some speed, saw the woman in the wheelchair a little too late to ride past her, and, to avoid hitting her, leapt off his e-scooter and let the vehicle hit the tree. Things happened very quickly and no one was exactly sure about the sequence of events, but this was the rough story she got.  

Later, she called the police department on campus and was able to speak with one of the officers to get an official account. The story was very similar to what she already knew. She did find out that nobody was seriously hurt and that the only injuries were to the e-scooter rider and were taken care of at the scene by the medical staff. When she asked about who was to blame or if any legal action was expected, she was told that there were no laws around the use of helmets or speeding for e-scooters yet and that she should reach out later for more information. Eva wrote up what she had so far, sent it over to the editorial staff, and considered her work done.  

But as she was walking back to her halls of residence that evening, her attention was drawn to the large number of e-scooters parked near the library. As she crossed the central campus, she noticed even more e-scooters lying about the intersections, and there was a litter of them around the residence hall. She wondered why she hadn’t noticed them before. Her attention was drawn today, she thought, because of the accident and also because she saw a good Samaritan remove an e-scooter from the sidewalk, as it was blocking the path of one of the self-driving food delivery robots. It’s a sign, Eva thought, this is what she needs to look for more in her next article, the use of e-scooters on campus.  

Eva recognised that, to write a balanced and informative article, as she had been taught to do, she would have to look at many different aspects of the use of e-scooters as well as look broadly at mobility on campus and the use of battery powered vehicles. She had also recently seen e-bikes on campus and, in addition to the food delivery robots, service robots in one of the buildings that she assumed was either delivering paperwork or mail. The accident had also made her realise that, when it came to mobility, accessibility was something that never crossed her mind but that she now understood was an important consideration. She hoped to learn more about it as her research progressed.  

As background research for the article, Eva started reading up on articles and studies published about e-scooters, e-bikes, and urban mobility and came across a range of concerns that had been raised beyond accessibility. First, there were reports that e-scooters are not as environmentally friendly as many service providers had made them out to be. This is related to the production of the battery as well as the short lifespan of the vehicles, and as of yet, there has been no procedure implemented to reuse them (Pyzyk, 2019). Second, there were reports of littering, where e-scooters are often left on sidewalks and other places where they restrict movement of other vehicles, pedestrians, and in particular, those in wheelchairs (Iannelli, 2021). Finally, it was also clear from the reports that accidents and injuries have increased due to e-scooters, especially since many riders do not wear safety gear and are often careless, even inebriated, as there were little to no regulations (2021). When she approached her editor with an outline for an article, she was advised to do some more reporting by talking with people who could shed more light on the issue.  

After some research, Eva shortlisted the following experts across fields related to e-scooters for an interview, and once she spoke with them, she realised that it would help her if she could get them to have a dialogue and respond to some of the questions that were raised by other experts. Therefore, she decided to conduct a focus group with them so that she achieved her goal of a balanced article and did not misrepresent any expert’s point of view.  

 

Experts/roles for discussion: 

1. Bryan Avery is co-founder and chief technology officer (CTO) of RideBy, an e-scooter company. RideBy is one of the options available on campus. Born in a small town, Bryan used to ride his bicycle everywhere while growing up, and for him, founding and leading an e-scooter company provided a chance to merge his interests in personal transportation and new forms of energy. He was a chemical engineer by training, and at a time when most of his friends ended up working for big oil companies, Bryan decided to work on alternative fuels and found himself developing expertise and experience with batteries. For most of the software- and mobile device-related development, RideBy outsourced the work and utilised ready-to-configure systems that were available. By only keeping the core device and battery functionality in-house, they could focus on delivering a much stronger product. Overall, he is quite happy with the success of RideBy so far and can’t help but extol the difference it can make for the environment.  

 

2. Abiola Abrams is a professor of transportation engineering and an expert on mobility systems. Her work combines systems engineering, computer science, and data analytics. Her recent research is on urban mobility and micro-mobility services, particularly e-bikes. In her research, Dr. Abrams has looked at a host of topics related to e-bikes, many of which are also applicable to e-scooters, including the optimisation of hubs for availability, common path patterns of users, subscription use models, and the e-waste and end of lifecycle for these vehicles. Increasingly, she has become concerned about the abuse of some of these services, especially in cities that attract a lot of tourists, and about the rough use of the vehicles, so much so that many do not even last for a month. In a new project, she is investigating the effect of e-vehicles on the environment and has found that there is mixed evidence for how much difference battery-operated vehicles will actually make for climate change compared to vehicles that use fossil fuels.  

 

3. Marco Rodrigues works as transportation director for the local county government where the university is based. As part of a recent bilateral international exchange, he got the opportunity to spend time in different cities in Germany to learn about local transportation. He realised very quickly that local transportation was very different in Germany; residents had a range of public, shared options that were missing in the United States. However, he also realised that e-mobility services were being considered across both countries. He investigated this further and found that Germany waited until it could pass some regulations before allowing e-mobility operators to offer services; helmets were mandatory on e-scooters and e-bikes, and riders had to purchase a nominal insurance policy. He also learned that there were strict rules around the sharing of data generated by the vehicles as well as the apps used by riders.  

 

4. Judy Whitehouse is director of infrastructure and sustainability on campus and responsible for planning the long-term development of the campus from a space perspective, but also increasingly from a sustainability dimension. As the number of students has increased, so has the need for more infrastructure, including classrooms and halls of residence. This has also resulted in greater distances to be traveled on campus. Judy regards e-mobility options as a necessary component of campus life and has been a strong supporter for them. Lately, she has been called into meetings with safety and emergency management people discussing the issue of increased accidents on campus and the littering of e-vehicles across the campus. Not only is it bad for living on campus, but it is also bad for optics. A recent photo featured in the campus newspaper was a stark reminder of just how bad it can look. She is further divided on the use of e-scooters due to misgivings about the sustainability of battery use, as new research suggests that manufacturing batteries and disposing them are extremely harmful for the environment.  

 

5. Aaron Schneider heads Campus Mobility, a student interest group focused on autonomous vehicles development and use. The group members come from different degree programmes and are interested in both the technical dimensions of mobile solutions and the policy issues surrounding their implementation. Aaron himself is a computer science student with interests in data science, and with some of his fellow members from the policy school, he has been analysing a range of mobility-related datasets that are publicly available online. Of these, the data on accidents is quite glaring, as the number of accidents in which e-scooters are involved has gone up significantly. Aaron and his friends were intrigued by their findings and approached some of the companies to see if they would share data, but they were disappointed when they could not get access. Although the companies said it was due to privacy reasons, Aaron was not too convinced by that argument. He was also denied access to any internal reports about usage patterns of accidents. Ideally, he would have liked to know what algorithms were used for optimising delivery and access, but he knew he was not going to get that information.  

  

6. Sarah Johnson is the head of accessibility services on campus and is responsible for both technology- and infrastructure-related support for students, faculty, and staff. The growth of the physical campus and the range of technological offerings has significantly increased the workload for her office, and they are really strained in terms of people and expertise. The emphasis from the university leadership is largely on web and IT accessibility, as teaching and other services are shifting quickly online, but Sarah realises that there is still an acute need to provide physical and mobility support to many members of the community. Although all the new buildings are up to code in terms of accessibility, there is still work to be done both for the older buildings and especially for mobility. Campus beautification does not always go along with access. She is also worried about access to devices, as taking part in any campus activity requires not just a computer, but also access to mobile devices that are out of reach economically for many and not easy to use.  

 

Role-play script: 

To help get the dialogues started and based on her prior conversation with the group, Eva has prepared some initial questions:  

  1. What role are you playing and, from your perspective, what do you see as the biggest pros of using e-vehicles, especially e-scooters on campus?
  2. From your perspective, what do you see as the biggest downside of using e-vehicles, especially e-scooters on campus?
  3. Can you confidently say that e-scooters are an environmentally friendly option?
  4. What current accessibility accommodations would be impacted by the use of e-vehicles, and what new, potential accessibility accommodations might arise from increased use of e-vehicles?
  5. Would we be better off waiting for more regulations to come before deploying these vehicles on campus and, if so, what should those regulations look like?
  6. Should we use automatic regulation of speed on the vehicle based on where it is and/or inform authorities if it is violated?
  7. Can we control where it can go or penalise if not put back?
  8. What guidelines do you recommend for e-scooter usage on campus?  

 

Authorship and project information and acknowledgements: The scenarios and roles were conceptualised and written by Aditya Johri. Feedback was provided by Ashish Hingle, Huzefa Rangwala, and Alex Monea, who also collaborated on initial implementation and empirical research. This work is partly supported by U.S. National Science Foundation Awards# 1937950, 2335636, 1954556; USDA/NIFA Award# 2021-67021-35329. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. The research study associated with the project was approved by the Institutional Review Board at George Mason University. 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

To view a plain text version of this resource, click here to download the PDF.

Author: Dr. Sarah Jayne Hitt Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University). 

Topic: Building sustainability awareness. 

Tool type: Teaching. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

Keywords: Everyday ethics; Communication; Teaching or embedding sustainability; Knowledge exchange; SDGs; Risk analysis; Interdisciplinary; Social responsibility; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education. 

Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Critical thinking; Self-awareness, Normative.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.  

Related SDGs: Many SDGs could relate to this activity, depending on what students focus on. Teachers could choose to introduce the SDGs and dimensions of sustainability prior to the students doing the activity or the students could complete part one without this introduction, and follow on to further parts after an introduction to these topics. 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindset development.

Educational level: Beginner / Intermediate. 

 

Learning and teaching notes:  

This learning activity is designed to build students’ awareness of different dimensions of sustainability through reflection on their everyday activities. This activity is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. Educators could incorporate shorter or longer versions of the activity as fits their needs and contexts. This activity could be presented without a focus on a specific area of engineering, or, students could be asked to do this around a particular discipline. Another powerful option would be to do the activity once at the beginning of term and then again at the end of term, asking students to reflect on how their perceptions have changed after learning more about sustainability. 

This activity could be delivered as an in-class small group discussion, as an individual writing assignment, or a combination of both. Students could even make a short video or poster that captures their insights.  

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Supporting resources:  

 

Part one: 

Choose 3 activities that you do every day. These could be things like: brushing your teeth, commuting, cooking a meal, messaging your friends and family, etc. For each activity, consider the following as they connect to this activity: 

To help you consider these elements, list the “stuff” that is involved in doing each activity—for example, in the case of brushing your teeth, this would include the toothbrush, the toothpaste, the container(s) the toothpaste comes in, the sink, the tap, and the water.  

 

Part two: 

Teachers may want to preface this part of the activity through an introduction to the SDGs, or, they may want to allow students to investigate the SDGs as they are related to these everyday activities. Students could engage in the following: 

 

Acknowledgements: This activity is based on an Ethical Autobiography activity developed by Professor Sandy Woodson and other instructors of the “Nature and Human Values” module at the Colorado School of Mines. 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

To view a plain text version of this resource, click here to download the PDF.

Let us know what you think of our website