Abstract: The case study looks at how we use guest lecturers from industry (and academia) at Cranfield University. In the case study we examine why and how module leaders use guest lecturers in their modules. Furthermore, we also cover the student perspective. How do students perceive this form of industry collaboration and what are their expectations from guest lectures? The case study will benefit the EPC community by giving insight and advice on how to include guest lecturers in the curriculum. While many universities use guest lecturers from industry, very little research has been conducted into module leadersâ and studentsâ experience with guest lectures. The case study provides good practice examples based on studentsâ and module leadersâ feedback.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Ian Hobson (Senior Lecturer and Academic Mentor for Engineering Leadership Management at Swansea University and former Manufacturing Director at Tata Steel) and Dr Vasilios Samaras (Senior Lecturer and Programme Director for Engineering Leadership Management at Swansea University)
Keywords: Academia, Industry
Abstract: Throughout the MSc Engineering Leadership Management program, the students at Swansea University develop theoretical knowledge and capability around leadership in organisations. Working alongside our industry partner Tata Steel, they deploy this knowledge to help understand and provide potential solutions to specific organisational issues that are current and of strategic importance to the business. The output of this work is presented to the Tata Steel board of directors along with a detailed report.
Aims of the program
In todayâs world, our responsibility as academics is to ensure that we provide an enabling learning environment for our students and deliver a first-class education to them. This has been our mantra for many years. But what about our responsibility to the employing organisations? Itâs all well and good providing well educated graduates but if they are not aligned to the requirements of those organisations then we are missing the point. This may be an extreme scenario, but there is a real danger that as academics we can lose touch with the needs of those organisations and as time moves on the gap between what they want and what we deliver widens.
In todayâs world this relationship with the employment market and understanding the requirement of it is essential. We need to be agile in our approach to meet those requirements and deliver quality employees to the market.
How did we set this collaborative approach?
In reality the only way to do this is by adopting a collaborative approach to our program designs. Our aim with the MSc Engineering Leadership Management (ELM) at Swansea University is to ensure that we collaborate fully with the employment market by integrating industry professionals into our program design and delivery processes. In this way we learn to understand the challenges that organisations face and how they need strength in the organisation to meet those challenges. This of course not an easy task to accomplish.
In our experience professionals within organisations are often overrun with workload and trying to manage the challenges that they face. A university knocking the door with an offer of collaboration is not always top of their priority list, so how do we make this happen? You need to have a balance of academics and experienced industry leaders working within the program who understand the pressures that business faces. They also often have networks within the external market who are willing to support such programs as the ELM. The power of collaboration is often overlooked. Itâs often a piece of research, dealing with a specific technical issue, it is rarely a continuum of organisational alignment. If the collaboration is designed for the long-term benefit of improving employability, then organisations will see this as a way to help solve the increasing challenge of finding âgoodâ employees in a market that is tightening. So overall this becomes a win-win situation.
How was the need for the program identified?
Our program was developed following feedback to the university from the market that graduates were joining organisations with good academic qualifications but lacked an understanding of how organisations work. More importantly how to integrate into the organisation and develop their competencies. This did come with time and support, but the graduates fell behind the expected development curve and needed significant support to meet their aspirations.
Swansea University developed the ELM to provide education on organisations and how they work and develop the skills that are required to operate in them as an employee. These tend to be the softer skills, but also developing the studentâs competence in using them. Examples include working as teams and providing honest feedback via 1-1s and 360s and team reviews.
In our experience the ability to challenge in a constructive way is a competency that the students donât possess. All our work is anchored in theory which provides reference for the content. The assignments that we set involve our industry partners and provide potential solutions to real issues that organisations face. Â The outcome of their projects is presented to senior management within the host organisation. This is often the high point of the year for the students. This way the students get exposure to the organisations which extends their comfort zones preparing them for the future challenges.
What are the program outcomes?
September 2022 will be our fifth year. The program is accredited by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET). Our numbers have increased year on year, and we are running cohorts of up to 20 students. Itâs a mix of UK and international students. The program requires collaboration between the university faculties which has brought significant benefits and provided many learning opportunities. The collaboration between the engineering and business schools has made us realise that working together we provide a rounded program that is broad in content, but also deep in areas that are identified as specific learning objectives.
The feedback from the University is that students on the ELM program perform well and they have a more mature approach to learning and have confidence in themselves and are proactive in lectures. From our industry partners they feed back that the ELM students are ahead of the curve and are promoted into positions ahead of their peers.
What have we learned from the program?
As lecturers, over the years it has become very clear that the content that we deliver must change year on year. We cannot deliver the same content as it quickly becomes out of date. The theory changes very little, but the application changes significantly, in line with the general market challenges. It is almost impossible to predict and if we sit back and look at the past 4 years this pattern is clear. We also need to refresh our knowledge and we have as much to learn from our students as they do from us. We treat them as equals and have a very good learning relationships and have open and honest debates. We always build feedback into our programs and discus how we can improve the content and delivery of the program. Without exception feedback from a yearâs cohort will modify the program for the following year.
Looking ahead
We are being approached by organisations interested in the University delivering a similar program to their future leaders on a part time basis which is something we are considering. We do however recognise that this program is successful because of the experience and knowledge of the lecturers and the ability to work with small cohorts which enables a tailored approach to the program content.
We believe that collaboration with the market keeps the ELM aligned with its requirements. Equally as importantly is the collaboration with our students. They are the leaders of the future and if the market loses sight of the expectations of these future leaders, then they will fail.
The ELM not only aligns its programs with the market, it keeps the market aligned with future leaders.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Steve Jones (Siemens), Associate Prof David Hughes (Teesside University), Prof Ion Sucala (University of Exeter), Dr Aris Alexoulis (Manchester Metropolitan University) and Dr Martino Luis (University of Exeter)
Abstract: Siemens have worked together with university academics from 10 institutions to develop and implement holistic digitalisation training and resources titled the âConnected Curriculumâ. The collaboration has proved hugely successful for teaching, research and knowledge transfer. This model and collaboration is an excellent example of industry informed curriculum development and the translational benefits this can bring for all partners.
Collaboration between academic institutions and industry is a core tenet of all Engineering degrees; however its practical realisation is often complex. Academic institutions employ a range of strategies to improve and embed their relationships with industry. These approaches are often institution specific and do not translate well across disciplines. This leaves industries with multiple academic partnerships, all operating differently and a constant task of managing expectations on both sides. The difference about Siemens Connected Curriculum is that it is an industry-led engagement which directly seeks to address and resource these challenges.
In 2019 Siemens developed the âConnected Curriculumâ, a suite of resources (see fig1) to support and enable academic delivery around the topic of âIndustry 4â. A novel multi-partner network was formed between Siemens, Festo Didactic and universities to develop and deliver the curriculum using real industrial hardware and software. Siemens is uniquely positioned to support on Industry 4 because it is one of the few companies that has a product portfolio that spans the relevant industrial hardware and software. As a result, Siemens is more able to bring together the cyber-physical solutions that sit at the heart of Industry 4.
Figure 1 – Core resources of Siemens Connected Curriculum
Connected Curriculum Aims
The scheme set out with a number of designed aims for the benefit of both Siemens and the partner universities.
Increase the ability of graduates to have an impact on complex Industry 4 topics
Develop graduate employability/recruitment through real world understanding nurtured through industrial case studies and problem-based engagement with industry.
Expanding the market with engineers familiar with Siemens’ industrial hardware and software
Develop and keep current the skills of academics in a rapidly changing technical landscape
A model that supported sustained industrial investment in academic capability
A model that was scalable to engage future institutions
Connected Curriculum Implementation
In 2019, four universities agreed with Siemens to create a pilot programme with a common vision for where Siemens could add value, how the university partners could collaborate, and how the network could scale. The initial pilot programme included Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), The University of Sheffield (UoS), Middlesex University (Mdx), and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). Since the success of its pilot programme, as of Jan 2022 Connected Curriculum now has ten UK university partners with the addition of Teesside University, Coventry University, Exeter University, Salford University, Sheffield Hallam University and The University West of England. The consortium continues to grow and is now expanding internationally. The university academics and the Connected Curriculum team at Siemens have worked together to develop holistic digitalisation training and resources.
Siemens developed a specific team to resource Connected Curriculum, which now includes a full-time Connected Curriculum lead and two Engineering support staff. In addition to the direct team, the initiative also relies on input from a range of experts across the multiple Siemens business units.
The collaboration between multiple institutions and Siemens has proved hugely successful for teaching, research and knowledge transfer. We feel this model and collaboration is an excellent example of industry informed curriculum development and the translational benefits this can bring for all partners. Evidential outcomes of these benefits are demonstrated through the following examples.
Multi-disciplinary delivery
In 2020 Teesside Universityâs School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies completed a module review including the embedding of digitalisation, resourced through Connected Curriculum, across its Engineering degrees. A discipline specific, scaffolded approach was developed, enabling students to build on previous learning. This includes starting at a component level and building towards fully integrated cyber-physical systems and plants. Connected Curriculum resources are used to inform and resource new modules including Robotics Design and Control and Process Automation. Due to the inherent need for multi-disciplinary working on digitalisation projects many of these have been structured as shared modules. As Siemens work across such a broad range of industries we are able to embed case studies and tasks which are relevant and foster collaborative working. The need for these digital skills and collaborative approaches has been highlighted by a number of studies including the joint 2021 IMechE/IET survey report: The future manufacturing engineer – ready to embrace major change?
Impact on Industry
In May 2021, Exeter’s Engineering Management group and a manufacturer of electric motors, generators, power electronics, and control systems (located in Devon, UK) collaborated to create digital twins for the assembly line of the Internal Permanent Magnet Motor. With the support from Siemens, we implemented Siemens Tecnomatix Plant Simulation to develop the models. The aim was to optimise assembly line performance of producing the Internal Permanent Magnet Motor such as cycle time, resource utilisation, idle time, throughput and efficiency. What-if scenarios (e.g. machine failure, various material handling modes, absenteeism, bottlenecks, demand uncertainty and re-layout workstations) were performed to build resilient, productive and sustainable assembly lines. Two MSc students were closely involved in this collaborative project to carry out the modelling and the experiments.  Our learners have experienced hands-on engineering practice and action-oriented learning to implement Siemens plant simulation in industry.
Industrially resourced project-based learning
In 2020 Siemens was involved in the Ventilator Challenge UK (VCUK) consortium that was formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. VCUK was tasked with ramping up production of ventilators from 10/week to 1500/week to produce a total of 13500 in just 12 weeks. Inspired by this very successful project, academics at MMU approached the Connected Curriculum team asking if the project could be replicated with a multidisciplinary group of 2nd year Engineering students. MMU Academics and Engineers from Siemens codeveloped a project pack using an open-source ventilator design from Medtronic. The students were tasked with designing a manufacturing process that would produce 10000 ventilators in 12 weeks. The students had 6 weeks to learn how to use the industry standard tools required for plant simulation (Siemens Tecnomatix) and to carry out the project successfully. The project attracted media attention and was featured in articles 1 and 2.
Keys to Success
So, what made the Connected Curriculum so successful? Digitalisation is clearly a current trend and so timing has played an important role. One of the most significant reasons is that Siemens not only led the scheme but resourced it. This has been key to supporting the rapidly growing need for relevant academic expertise. The on-going support from Siemens is also key for issue resolution and to support implementation for universities in adopting new curriculum. Engaging academic partners early in the process was key to ensuring the content was relevant and appropriately pitched.
Siemens breadth and depth of technological expertise across numerous technologies has been a key factor in the success of this initiative. Combined with its global engineering community, this has facilitated a rich integrated curriculum approach which covers a range of aligned technologies. Drawing on internal experts across its global community has allowed the initiative to benefit from a wealth of existing knowledge and resources. Having reached critical mass the initiative is now financially self-sustaining. Without reaching this milestone continued engagement would have been impossible.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Bob Tricklebank (Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology) and Sue Parr (WMG, University of Warwick).
Keywords: Partnerships, Academic, Industry
Abstract: This case study illustrates how, through a commitment to established guiding principles, open communication, a willingness to challenge and be challenged, flexibility and open communication, itâs possible to design and deliver a degree apprenticeship programme that is more than the sum of its parts.Â
Introduction
Dyson is driven by a simple mission: to solve the problems that others seem to ignore. From the humble beginnings of the worldâs first bagless vacuum cleaner, Dyson is now a global research and technology company with engineering, research, manufacturing and testing operations in the UK, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. The company employs 14,000 people globally including 6,000 engineers and scientists. Its portfolio of engineering expertise, supported by a ÂŁ3 million per week investment into R&D, encompasses areas from solid-state batteries and high-speed digital motors to machine learning and robotics.
Alongside its expansive technology evolution, Dyson has spent the past two decades supporting engineering education in the UK through its charitable arm, the James Dyson Foundation. The James Dyson Foundation engages at all stages of the engineering pipeline, from providing free resources and workshops to primary and secondary schools to supporting students in higher education through bursaries, PhD funding and capital donations to improve engineering facilities.
It was against this backdrop of significant investment in innovation and genuine passion for engineering education that Sir James Dyson chose to take a significant next step and set up his own higher education provider: the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology.
The ambition was always to establish an independent higher education provider, able to deliver and award its own degrees under the New Degree Awarding Powers provisions created by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. But rather than wait the years that it would take for the requisite regulatory frameworks to appear and associated applications to be made and quality assurance processes to be passed, the decision was made to make an impact in engineering education as quickly as possible, by beginning delivery in partnership with an established university.
Finding the right partner
The search for the right university partner began by setting some guiding principles; the non-negotiable expectations that any potential partner would be expected to meet, grounded in Dysonâs industrial expertise and insight into developing high-calibre engineering talent.
1.An interdisciplinary programme
Extensive discussions with Dysonâs engineering leaders, as well as a review of industry trends, made one thing very clear: the engineers of the future would need to be interdisciplinarians, able to understand mechanical, electronic and software engineering, joining the dots between disciplines to develop complex, connected products. Any degree programme delivered at the Dyson Institute would need to reflect that â alongside industrial relevance and technical rigour.
2. Delivered entirely on the Dyson Campus
It was essential that delivery of the degree programme took place on the same site on which learners would be working as Undergraduate Engineers, ensuring a holistic experience. There could be no block release of learners from the workplace for weeks at a time: teaching needed to be integrated into learnersâ working weeks, supporting the immediate application of learning and maintaining integration into the workplace community. Â
3. Actively supported by the Dyson Institute
This would not be a bipartisan relationship between employer and training provider. The fledgling Dyson Institute would play an active role in the experience of the learners, contributing to feedback and improvements and gaining direct experience of higher education activity by shadowing the provider.
WMG, University of Warwick
Dyson entered into discussions with a range of potential partners. But WMG, University of Warwick immediately stood out from the crowd.
Industrial partnership was already at the heart of WMGâs model. In 1980 Professor Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya founded WMG to deliver his vision to improve the competitiveness of the UKâs manufacturing sector through the application of value-adding innovation, new technologies and skills development. Four decades later, WMG continues to drive innovation through its pioneering research and education programmes, working in partnership with private and public organisations to deliver a real impact on the economy, society and the environment.
WMG is an international role model for how universities and businesses can successfully work together; part of a Top 10 UK ranked and Top 100 world-ranked university.
WMGâs expertise in working with industrial partners meant that they understood the importance of flexibility and were willing to evolve their approach to meet Dysonâs expectations â from working through the administrative challenge of supporting 100% delivery on the Dyson Campus, to developing a new degree apprenticeship programme.
Academics at WMG worked closely with Dyson engineers, who offered their insight into the industrial relevance of the existing programme â regularly travelling to WMG to discuss their observations in person and develop new modules. This resulted in a degree with a decreased focus on group work and project management, skills that learners would gain in the workplace at Dyson, and an increased focus on software, programming and more technically focused modules.
Importantly, WMG was supportive of Dysonâs intention to set up an entirely independent higher education provider. Rather than see a potential competitor, WMG saw the opportunity to play an important part in shaping the future of engineering education, to engage in reciprocal learning and development alongside a start-up HE provider and to hone its portfolio for future industrial partnerships.
The programme
In September 2017, the Dyson Institute opened its doors to its first cohort of 33 Undergraduate Engineers onto a BEng in Engineering degree apprenticeship, delivered over four years and awarded by the University of Warwick.
Two days per week are dedicated to academic study. The first day is a full day of teaching, with lecturers from WMG travelling to the Dyson Campus to engage in onsite delivery. The second day is a day of self-study, with lecturers available to answer questions and help embed learning. The remaining three days are spent working on live engineering projects within Dyson.
The first two years of the programme are deliberately generalist, while years three and four offer an opportunity to specialise. This academic approach is complemented in the workplace, with Undergraduate Engineers spending their first two years rotating through six different workplace teams, from electronics and software to research and product development, before choosing a single workplace team in which to spend their final two years. Final year projects are based on work undertaken in that team.
The Dyson Institute enhances WMGâs provision in a variety of ways, including administration of the admissions process, the provision of teaching and learning facilities, pastoral support, health and wellbeing support, social and extra-curricular opportunities, monitoring of student concerns and professional development support. Â
Key enhancements include the provision of Student Support Advisors (one per cohort), a dedicated resource to manage learnersâ workplace experience, quarterly Wellbeing and Development Days and the Summer Series, a professional development programme designed to address the broader set of skills engineers need, which takes the place of academic delivery across July and August.
Continuous improvement Â
The collaborative partnership between Dyson, the Dyson Institute and WMG, the University of Warwick did not end when delivery began. Instead, the focus turned to iteration and improvement.
Dyson Institute and WMG programme leadership hold regular meetings to discuss plans, progress and challenges. These conversations are purposefully frank, with honesty on both sides allowing concerns to be raised as soon as they are noted. An important voice in these conversations is that of the student body, whose âon the ground experienceâ is represented not only through the traditional course representatives, but through stream and workplace representatives.
Even as the Dyson Institute has begun independent delivery (it welcomed its first Dyson Institute-registered Undergraduate Engineers in September 2021), both partners remain dedicated to improving the student experience. The current focus is on increasing WMGâs onsite presence as well as the regularity of joint communications to the student body, with a view to supporting a more streamlined approach to challenge resolution.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: Dr Laura Fogg-Rogers (University of the West of England, Bristol).
Case-study team: Wendy Fowles-Sweet; Maryam Lamere; Prof. Lisa Brodie; Dr Venkat Bakthavatchaalam (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Abel Nyamapfene (University College London).
Keywords: Education for Sustainable Development; Climate Emergency; Net Zero; Sustainable Development Goals.
Abstract: The University of the West of England (UWE Bristol) has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency, along with all regional councils in the West of England. In order to meet the regional goal of Net-Zero by 2030, sustainability education has now been embedded through all levels of the Engineering Curriculum. Current modules incorporate education for Sustainable Development Goals alongside citizen engagement challenges, where engineers find solutions to real-life problems. All undergraduate engineers also take part in immersive project weeks to develop problem-based learning around the Engineers without Borders international challenges.
Engineering Education for Sustainable Development
The environmental and health impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss are being felt around the world, from record high temperatures, drought, wildfires, extreme flooding, and human health issues (Ripple et al., 2020). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that urgent action is required to mitigate catastrophic impacts for billions of people globally (IPCC, 2022). The UK Government has pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050, with a 78% drop in emissions by 2035 (UK Government, 2021). Following IPCC guidance, regional councils such as Bristol City Council and the West of England Combined Authority, have pledged to reach Net Zero at an earlier date of 2030 (Bristol City Council, 2019). In parallel, UWE Bristol has embedded this target within its strategic plan (UWE Bristol, 2019), and also leads the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC), an Alliance for Sustainability Leadership in Education (UWE Bristol, 2021b). All UWE Bristol programmes are expected to embed the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within curricula (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021), so that higher education degrees prepare graduates for working sustainably (Gough, 2021).
Bourn and Neal (2008) draw the link between global sustainability issues and engineering, with the potential to tackle complex sustainability challenges such as climate change, resource limitations, and extreme poverty. The SDGs are therefore particularly relevant to engineers, showing the connections between social, environmental, and economic actions needed to ensure humanitarian development, whilst also staying within planetary boundaries to support life on earth (Ramirez-Mendoza et al., 2020). The engineering sector is thus obligated to achieve global emissions targets, with the work of engineers being essential to enable the societal and technological change to reach net zero carbon emissions (Fogg-Rogers, L., Richardson, D., Bakthavatchaalam, V., Yeomans et al., 2021).
Systems thinking and solution-finding are critical engineering habits of mind (Lucas et al., 2014), and so introducing genuine sustainability problems provides a solid foregrounding for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in engineering. Indeed, consideration for the environment, health, safety, and social wellbeing are enshrined in the UK Specification for Professional Engineers (UK SPEC) (Engineering Council, 2021). âReal-worldâ problems can therefore inspire and motivate learners (Loyens et al., 2015), while the use of group projects is considered to facilitate collaborative learning (Kokotsaki et al., 2016). This aligns with recommendations for creating sustainability-literate graduates published by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA and Advance HE, 2021) which emphasise the need for graduates to: (1) understand what the concept of environmental stewardship means for their discipline and their professional and personal lives; (2) think about issues of social justice, ethics and wellbeing, and how these relate to ecological and economic factors; and (3) develop a future-facing outlook by learning to think about the consequences of actions, and how systems and societies can be adapted to ensure sustainable futures (QAA & HEA, 2014). These competencies are difficult to teach, and instead need to developed by the learners themselves based on experience and reflection, through a student-centred, interdisciplinary, team-teaching design (Lamere et al., 2021). Â
The need for engineers to learn about the SDGs and a zero carbon future is therefore necessary and urgent, to ensure that graduates are equipped with the skills needed to address the complex challenges facing the 21st Century. Lamere et al., (2021)describe how the introduction of sustainability education within the engineering curriculum is typically initiated by individual academics (early adopters) introducing elements of sustainability content within their own course modules. Full curricula refresh in the UWE Bristol engineering curricula from 2018-2020 enabled a more programmatic approach, with inter-module connections being developed, alongside inter-year progression of topics and skills.
This case study explores how UWE Bristol achieved this curriculum change throughout all programmes and created inter-connected project weeks in partnership with regional stakeholders and industry.Â
Case Study Methods – Embedding education for sustainable development
The first stage of the curricula transformation was to assess current modules against UK SPEC professional requirements, alongside SDG relevant topics. A departmental-wide mixed methods survey was designed to assess which SDGs were already incorporated, and which teaching methods were being utilized. The survey was emailed out to all staff in 2020, with 27 module leaders responding to highlight pedagogy in 60 modules, covering the engineering topics of: Aerospace; Mechanical and Automotive; Electrical, Electronic, and Robotics; Maths and Statistics; and Engineering Competency.
Two sub-themes were identified: âDirectâ and âIndirectâ embedding of SDGs; direct being where the engineering designs explicitly reference the SDGs as providing social or environmental solutions, and indirect being where the SDGs are achieved through engineering education e.g. quality education and gender equality. Direct inclusion of the SDGs tended to focus on reducing energy consumption, and reducing weight and waste, such as through improving the efficiency of the machines/designs. Mitigating the impact of climate change through optimal use of energy was also mentioned. The usage of lifecycle analysis was implemented in several courses, especially for composite materials and their recycling. The full analysis of the spread of the SDGs and their incorporation within different degree programmes can seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Number of Engineering Modules in which SDGs are Embedded
Project-based learning for civic engagement in engineering
Following this mapping process, the modules were reorganized to produce a holistic development of knowledge and skills across programmes, starting from the first year to the final year of the degree programmes. This Integrated Learning Framework was approved by relevant Professional Bodies and has been rolled out annually since 2020, as new learners enter the refreshed degree programmes at UWE Bristol. The core modules covering SDG concepts explicitly are Engineering Practice 1 and 2 (at Level 1 and 2 of the undergraduate degree programme) and âEngineering for Societyâ (at Level 3 of the undergraduate degree programme and Masters Level). These modules utilise civic engagement with real-world industry problems, and service learning through engagement with industry, schools, and community groups (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2017).
As well as the module redevelopment, a Project-Based Learning approach has been adopted at department level, with the introduction of dedicated Project Weeks to enable cross-curricula and collaborative working. The Project Weeks draw on the Engineering for People Design Challenge (Engineers without Borders, 2021), which present global scenarios to provide university students with âthe opportunity to learn and practice the ethical, environmental, social and cultural aspects of engineering designâ. Critically, the challenges encourage universities to develop partnerships with regional stakeholders and industry, to provide more context for real-world problems and to enable local service learning and community action (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2017).
A collaboration with the innovation company NewIcon enabled the development of a âdesign thinkingâ booklet which guides students through the design cycle, in order to develop solutions for the Project Week scenarios (UWE Bristol, 2021a). Furthermore, a partnership with the initiative for Digital Engineering Technology and Innovation (DETI) has enabled students to take part in the Inspire outreach programme (Fogg-Rogers & Laggan, 2022), which brings together STEM Ambassadors and schools to learn about engineering through sustainability focussed activities. The DETI programme is delivered by the National Composites Centre, Centre for Modelling and Simulation, Digital Catapult, UWE Bristol, University of Bristol, and University of Bath, with further industry partners including Airbus, GKN Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, and Siemens (DETI, 2021). Industry speakers have contributed to lectures, and regional examples of current real-world problems have been incorporated into assignments and reports, touching on a wide range of sustainability and ethical issues.
Reflections and recommendations for future engineering sustainability education
Students have been surveyed through module feedback surveys, and the project-based learning approach is viewed very positively. Students commented that they enjoyed working on âreal-world projectsâ where they can make a difference locally or globally. However, findings from surveys indicate that students were more inclined towards sustainability topics that were relevant to their subject discipline. For instance, Aerospace Engineering students tended to prefer topics relevant to Aerospace Engineering. A survey of USA engineering students by Wilson (2019) also indicates a link between studentsâ study discipline and their predilection for certain sustainability topics. This suggests that for sustainability education to be effective, the content coverage should be aligned, or better still, integrated, with the topics that form part of the studentsâ disciplinary studies.
The integration of sustainable development throughout the curricula has been supported at institutional level, and this has been critical for the widescale roll out. An institution-wide Knowledge Exchange for Sustainability Education (KESE) was created to support staff by providing a platform of knowledge sharing. Within the department, Staff Away days were used to hold sustainability workshops for staff to discuss ESD and the topics of interest to students. Â In the initial phase of the mapping exercise, a lack of common understanding amongst staff about ESD in engineering was noted, including what it should include, and whether it is necessary for student engineers to learn about it. During the Integrated Learning Framework development, and possibly alongside growing global awareness of climate change, there has been more acceptance of ESD as an essential part of the engineering curriculum amongst staff and students. Another challenge has been the allocation of teaching workload for sustainability integration. In the initial phases, a small number of committed academics had to put in a lot of time, effort, and dedication to push through with ESD integration. There is now wider support by module leaders and tutors, who all feel capable of delivering some aspects of ESD, which eases the workload.
This case study outlines several methods for integrating ESD within engineering, alongside developing partnership working for regionally relevant real-world project-based learning. A recent study of UK higher education institutions suggests that only a handful of institutions have implemented ESD into their curricula in a systemic manner (Fiselier et al., 2018), which suggests many engineering institutions still need support in this area. However, we believe that the engineering profession has a crucial role to play in ESD alongside climate education and action, particularly to develop graduate engineers with the skills required to work upon 21st Century global challenges. To achieve net zero and a low carbon global economy, everything we make and use will need to be completely re-imagined and re-engineered, which will require close collaboration between academia, industry, and the community. We hope that other engineering educators feel empowered by this case study to act with the required urgency to speed up the global transition to carbon neutrality.
References
Bourn, D., & Neal, I. (2008). The Global Engineer Incorporating global skills within UK higher education of engineers.
Bristol City Council. (2019). Bristol City Council Mayorâs Climate Emergency Action Plan 2019.
DETI. (2021). Initiative for Digital Engineering Technology and Innovation. https://www.nccuk.com/deti/
Engineers without Borders. (2021). Engineering for People Design Challenge. https://www.ewb-uk.org/upskill/design-challenges/engineering-for-people-design-challenge/
Fiselier, E. S., Longhurst, J. W. S., & Gough, G. K. (2018). Exploring the current position of ESD in UK higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(2), 393â412. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2017-0084
Fogg-Rogers, L., & Laggan, S. (2022). DETI Inspire Engagement Report.
Fogg-Rogers, L., Lewis, F., & Edmonds, J. (2017). Paired peer learning through engineering education outreach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1202906
Gough, G. (2021). UWE Bristol SDGs Programme Mapping Portfolio.
IPCC. (2022). Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – Summary for policymakers. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, WGII Sixth Assessment Report. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315071961-11
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Lamere, M., Brodie, L., Nyamapfene, A., Fogg-Rogers, L., & Bakthavatchaalam, V. (2021). Mapping and Enhancing Sustainability Literacy and Competencies within an Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum Implementing sustainability educationâŻ: A review of recent and current approaches. In The University of Western Australia (Ed.), Proceedings of AAEE 2021.
Loyens, S. M. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & van Gog, T. (2015). Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002
Lucas, Bill., Hanson, Janet., & Claxton, Guy. (2014). Thinking Like an Engineer: Implications For The Education System. In Royal Academy of Engineering (Issue May). http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/thinking-like-an-engineer-implications-summary
QAA and Advance HE. (2021). Education for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.21300/21.4.2020.2
Ramirez-Mendoza, R. A., Morales-Menendez, R., Melchor-Martinez, E. M., Iqbal, H. M. N., Parra-Arroyo, L., Vargas-MartĂnez, A., & Parra-Saldivar, R. (2020). Incorporating the sustainable development goals in engineering education. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00661-0
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., & Moomaw, W. R. (2020). World Scientistsâ Warning of a Climate Emergency. In BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
UK Government. (2021). UK enshrines new target in law to slash emissions by 78% by 2035. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-enshrines-new-target-in-law-to-slash-emissions-by-78-by-2035
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2021). The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
UWE Bristol. (2019). Climate and Ecological Emergency Declaration. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/values-vision-strategy/sustainability/climate-and-ecological-emergency-declaration
UWE Bristol. (2021a). Engineering Solutions to Real World Problems. https://blogs.uwe.ac.uk/engineering/engineering-solutions-to-real-world-problems-uwe-project-week-2020/
UWE Bristol. (2021b). Sustainability Strategy, Leadership and Plans. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/values-vision-strategy/sustainability/strategy-leadership-and-plans Wilson, D. (2019). Exploring the Intersection between Engineering and Sustainability Education. In Sustainability (Vol. 11, Issue 11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113134
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Although degree level qualifications have been offered as part of some apprenticeship programmes ( for example day release degree courses etc.) for many years, the term Degree Apprenticeship has recently been adopted to have a more tightly defined meaning, and requiring providers to follow a specific process to offer such awards.  Even in degree apprenticeships however the educational qualification represents only part of the apprenticeship process.
If you are considering bidding to develop a standard which you believe may be at level 6 or 7, there is an opportunity to include a degree in it. Degree Apprenticeships bring together the best of higher and professional and technical education, and see apprentices achieving a full bachelorâs or masterâs degree as part of their apprenticeship.
They will involve employers, universities and professional bodies working in partnership, with apprentices employed throughout, spending part of their time at university (with flexibility as to how this is structured â e.g. via day release or block release) and part with their employer.
Apprentices will complete a rigorous end-point assessment (EPA) which tests both the wider occupational competence and academic learning required for success in the relevant profession. The degree programme can be structured in one of two ways:
Employers, universities and professional bodies can come together to co-design a fully-integrated degree course specifically for apprentices, which delivers and tests both academic learning and on-the-job training. We think this will be the preferred approach for many sectors, as the learning is seamless and does not require a separate assessment of occupational competence.
Alternatively, sectors may wish to use existing degree programmes to deliver the academic knowledge requirements of that profession, combine this with additional training to meet the full apprenticeship requirements, and have a separate test of full occupational competence at the end of the apprenticeship.â
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Weâve pulled together a checklist of things for university departments to consider when proposing to get involved in degree apprenticeships.  Itâs still evolving so please do contact us if you have experience or advice you would like to add.
Schedules of teaching and learning need to be agreed. These can take various forms:
Day release;
Block release;
Integration with some modules on some mainstream regular taught programmes.
There may also be periods of study on employersâ premises and at other institutions. These again have to be agreed and contracted.
Methods of grading, assessment and feedback need to be agreed and these will then be adhered to, in order to satisfy the exam board and other university regulations. The structures of assessment (presentations, experiments, lab work, practicals, as well as essays and exams) have also to be integrated throughout the programmes.
Agreeing employer-led content is vital from the above points of view. In employer led content, the university is required to have a position of âinternal external examinerâ and in some universities this may mean that designated employer staff are given the status of adjunct employee at the university in question.
Examining employer-led content and the means by which this is done has to be agreed and contracted. It is essential to recognise that this can lead to conflicts, where for example:
The work is of a satisfactory university standard but has no practical relevance to the employer;
The work is of a satisfactory standard for the employer but does not meet the standards required by the university.
University staff will therefore need to remain in close contact and regularly visiting employersâ premises in order that neither of these positions occurs. Where there are disputes over standards, there needs to be an agreed means of arbitration and reconciliation of grades and work.
Student registration is an issue because of the UK UCAS regulations that govern undergraduate admissions to programmes at this level. This may have to be agreed as a formality; if students are not to apply via UCAS then an alternative is required, that is agreed and contracted. There may be disputes also over:
A candidate that is deemed suitable by the employer but not the university;
A candidate that is deemed suitable by the university but not the employer;
Levels of school achievements prior to admissions;
Variations in the principle of equality and fairness of treatment which govern all admissions at this level.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Weâve pulled together a checklist of things for university departments to consider when proposing to get involved in degree apprenticeships.  Itâs still evolving so please do contact us if you have experience or advice you would like to add.
The length of contract will vary according to particular circumstances. It appears unlikely that any contract of less than 5-6 years is going to deliver the benefits sought by all. Universities need to have the stability. Employers do not want to give the impression that they are dipping into and out of the latest ideas. This kind of stability also informs the wider branding, confidence and substantive development that this initiative needs in the eyes of all concerned â and especially, as above, students and their advisors.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Weâve pulled together a checklist of things for university departments to consider when proposing to get involved in degree apprenticeships.  Itâs still evolving so please do contact us if you have experience or advice you would like to add.
As for all new programme proposals, numbers of students required in order to make a programme viable is crucial. This needs to be clearly stated and written into the contracts that will be signed. This is vital anyway; but particularly vital when offering a degree apprenticeship programme that is formed around a number of employers, consortia, trade federations and SMEs. If for example the university contracts to run such a programme for 20 students and there are only 17/18/19, then this can lead to all sorts of debates and discussions â and conflicts â if for example every employer except one has delivered the numbers promised. This must be clearly understood, and must also be recognised and addressed as a key part of the contract.  Close co-operation between the lead academic department and the HEIâs finance and planning services will be needed and, as we said earlier, a very different approach taken to evaluating viability than for a standard academic programme. The longer term and broader relationship to be developed with the company will need to be taken into account, for example, along with the opportunity to access a new funding source.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Weâve pulled together a checklist of things for university departments to consider when proposing to get involved in degree apprenticeships.  Itâs still evolving so please do contact us if you have experience or advice you would like to add.
The constitution of the programme is formed around the 80/20 principle and what is done and how then becomes a matter for agreement in the contract. There are two main approaches:
The university agrees with each employer a programme of education to be delivered at the university;
The university agrees a more generic programme which is suitable for a range of degree apprenticeships and then offers/agrees with a range of employers which have their own specific on the job demands and needs, but within which the university generic programme fits.
The âon the jobâ work then has to be fitted in with the requirements of the employers, and needs to be agreed and structured in ways that fit in with HEI schemes of award. This means particular attention to, and agreement on:
Programme award, the name and description of the degree, length and structure of study, and the different classifications of award;
Scheme of award, which will be through the universitiesâ own constitution;
Examination board and constitution: the names and roles and functions of those who participate and the nature of employer assessment and involvement and influence;
Examiners and external examiners, and especially whether the university constitution allows for non-academics on exam boards (and if not, then how to integrate the employer interests in the examination processes);
Classification of degree award, and the extent to which this fits in with existing practices, or whether the university and employers wish to design new classifications and structures;
Chair and constitution of exam board, which again needs to be formalised to the agreement of all;
Delivery of results, in accordance with programme specifications, degree awarding processes, and the constitution of the university;
Graduation, which needs also to be stated and formalised.
Interim awards may also be either offered by the university or demanded by the employers, and the issuing of certificates and diplomas at different stages of progress may be required or appropriate in some cases.
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 Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Theme: Collaborating with industry for teaching and learning
