Author: Dr Salma .M.S. Al Arefi (University of Leeds)
Keywords: Science and Social Capitals, Sense of Belonging, Intersectionality, Student Success
Abstract: Being in a marginalised position due to feeling of otherness because of oneâs gender as well as intersecting identity can create psychological hidden barriers. Coupled with science and social capitals such variables are key determines of studentâs self-concept of engineering self-efficacy, competencies, and abilities. The impact of being othered may not only be limited to interest for participation in engineering but could extend beyond and significantly affect student engagement, success, and affiliation with engineering. This could impact students’ sense of belonging to their degree programme, university, and discipline, leading to adverse impacts ranging from low engagement to low attainment, or discontinuations. Such experiences can be greatly exacerbated for students with intersecting identities (âdouble, triple, jeopardyâ), e.g., a female student who identifies as a first-generation, working-class, disabled, commuter, carer, neurodiverse or mature student. This report presents work on progress on a student-centred interventional case study on exploring the impact of the intersectional lived experiences of underrepresented, disadvantaged and minoritised student groups in engineering beyond obvious gender and pre-university qualifications characteristics.
1.    Problem Statement
Initiatives on closing the technical skills gap remain limited to access to either engineering education or the workplace. Identifying and supporting students facing barriers to continuation can be key to enhancing student success in a way that bridges the gap between the ignition of interest and transition to the engineering industry. Early but sustained engagement throughout the life cycle of an engineering student is however vital to cultivate students’ sense of belonging to their modules, degree programmes and the wider industry. That would in turn support the formation of their engineering identity.
Gendered identity, as well as pre-university qualifications, are yet perceived to exert the strongest force for marginalisation and underrepresentation in engineering education and the workplace. The impact intersecting identities can have in relation to ignition of interest, participation, as well as the formation of engineering identity, also need consideration. Along with gender, characteristics such as race, class, age, or language can have an added impact on already minoritized individuals (the âdouble, triple, quadrant…. jeopardyâ), whereby the experience of exclusion and otherness can be exacerbated by overlapping marginalised identities. Coupled with the self-concept of own science capital, efficacies, and competencies [1-2], the formation of engineering identity could be expressed as a direct function of a sense of inclusion or otherwise exclusion [3]. Within this context, such an inherent feeling of connectedness describes the extent to which the lived experience of individuals is acknowledged valued and included [4], which is a healthy fertilizer for the formation of engineering identity. Perceived threats to oneâs belonging due to a feeling of exclusion or rejection could on the contrary negatively impact oneâs perception of self-efficacy and hence affiliation with engineering.
2.    Project Aims
The role of effect in learning to foster a sense of belonging and enhance a coherent sense of self and form the engineering identity has attracted growing pedagogical research interest. In academia, a sense of belonging has been shown to excrete the largest force on oneâs intent to participate in engineering and to be the key sustainable vehicle for successful progressions. Because engineering learning activities are pursued in complex social interactions, acknowledging, and understanding the role of belonging in academic success is key to fostering an inclusive culture that encourages and recognises contributions from all. It is hoped that the project outcomes can advise on understanding to support underrepresented, marginalised and minoritised students overcome self-perceived psychological barriers to their degree programme, university, or engineering workplace. The intersectional lens of the project is aimed to uncover key culprits that impact engineering identity formation for traditionally underrepresented, disadvantaged and minoritised students beyond obvious gender and pre-university education characteristics.
Outcomes will role model fostering an inclusive culture where engineering students from all backgrounds feel that they belong in an effort to support engineering higher education institutions to adhere to the changes introduced by the Engineering Council to the U.K. Standards for Professional Engineering Competency and Commitment around recognising inclusivity and diversity. This should be applicable to other STEM-related disciplines.
3.    Decolonial partnership
The project centres on students’ voices through a decolonial participation approach that acknowledges participants as co-researchers and enables them to take an active role in the co-creation of the project deliverables. Participation will be incentivised through recognition (authorship, certifications) as well as financial incentives. The use of evidence-based active listening to enable students to share their lived experiences of belonging through storytelling and story sharing is hoped to create a safe space to empower and acknowledge student voices so that every student feel that they matter to their degree programme, university, and discipline. That in turn would cultivate authentic learner identity and a sense of belonging.
4.    Outcomes and future work
The findings are hoped to advise on a sustainable support approach whereby early and sustained engagement (throughout the student lifecycle from access to continuation, attainment, and progression) are prioritised to facilitate the transition of students into and from Engineering. Co-created artefacts from the project will be used to support access and continuation by providing examples of lived experiences for prospective students to associate with. Fostering a sense of belonging is hoped to have a direct impact on learner engagement, success, and attainment as well as enhancing studentsâ ability to progress towards achieving their unique goals beyond their degree.
The second phase of the 2-year project will involve student recruitment and selection, interventional listening, storytelling-based approaches and co-creation of artefacts.
Acknowledgement
The work is carried out as part of the fellowship of the Leeds Institute for Teaching Excellence in partnership with Dr Kendi Guantai, from Leeds Business School, Marketing Division and Dr Nadine Cavigioli Lifelong Learning Centre at the University of Leeds.
References
H. M. Watt, “The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational trajectories related to maths,” Educational Research and Evaluation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 305-322, 2006.
F. Pajares, Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
M. Ong, C. Wright, L. Espinosa, and G. Orfield, “Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 172-209, 2011.
T.L. Strayhorn, 2018. College studentsâ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge.
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: Dr Lisa Simmons (Manchester Metropolitan University), Dr Carl Diver (Manchester Metropolitan University), Dr Gary Dougill (Manchester Metropolitan University), Scott Pepper (GAMBICA), Paul Foden (NMCN) and Robin Phillips (Siemens Advanta Consulting).
Abstract: FutureMe is an event designed to enhance the aspirations, confidence and the graduate destinations of students. The series begins with an âindustry weekâ- a unique collaboration between University and Industry – during which industry delivers keynote talks on: professional engineering, graduate skills, internationalisation, graduate destinations, and the flagship one day industry challenge. This event has been recognised by IET, and IMechE as good practice, in working collaboratively to show students what it is like to work as a professional engineer.
What is the case study about?
Assessment centre recruitment activities form an employment barrier to entry for students and can be challenging to prepare for. A large body of research suggests that motivation to begin and complete a degree in engineering; knowledge of the engineering field and its practitioners; along with students being able to identify themselves as âbeing an engineerâ are all key drivers in student progression and graduate success. Through collaboration with industry partners, we have developed a range of events that not only give students much-needed preparation for the recruitment process but simultaneously allow them to explore their core identity and motivation.
This case study presents the development of the âFutureMeâ event, which grew from a pragmatic approach to assessment centre preparation and into a self-sustaining, collaborative community between academia and industry.
What were its aims?
The core aims of the âFutureMeâ activity are to:
Provide students with an immersive learning experience with industrial partners to enhance aspirations, confidence and understanding of graduate destinations
Provide industrial partners with the opportunity to work with students throughout their studies
Provide students with the opportunity to learn about how engineers work within a business
How did it come about?
Preparing students for the assessment centre recruitment process alongside studies can be challenging. These recruitment activities are difficult, adversarial, and often intimidating for students who have limited – if any – opportunities to gain experience before they face a real recruitment panel.
âFutureMeâ was established in the first instance to provide an opportunity for students to work with industrial partners on a challenge that replicated activities that are often given to applicants in an assessment centre. Â A key element of the challenge was that it should allow for multi-disciplinary and cross academic level working, and should not be overly technical to a particular discipline, rather it should give students an experience of how engineers work within business and the many functions within an organisation.
As the event was set up it grew to include keynote talks on; professional engineering, graduate skills, internationalisation, graduate destinations, and the flagship one-day industry challenge. Figure 1 illustrates the January 2022 schedule of events. Figure 2 provides further detail on the running order for the industry challenge session(s).
Figure 1 Example schedule of events
Figure 2 Industry Challenge Running Order
How was it set up?
Industrial partners were approached to take part in the event â the industry challenge – via the Department of Engineeringâs Industrial Advisory Board (IAB), GAMBICA, GM Chamber of Commerce and IET Enterprise partners.
Industrial partners were presented with
the rationale for the event
the running order of the challenge and requirements/commitments
learning requirements of the challenge
Interested parties then contacted the lead academic for a further meeting to discuss their challenge ideas and the event.
Figure 3 shows the process from initial email invites to industrial partners to the final challenge session
Figure 3 Step process showing how industrial partners develop a challenge to take part in the event
Who did it involve? (e.g., collaborating parties)
The rationale for the event was discussed for feedback with representatives from the Department of Engineering Industrial Advisory Board, GAMBICA and GM Chamber of Commerce.
All authors of this case study, worked collaboratively to develop the event, engage additional industrial partners, and feedback to the academic teams.
What were the outcomes?
FutureMe event has run in January 2021 and 2022.
In each event, there were 900 students invited, 50 supporting academics and 20+ industry representatives.
The event has led to additional opportunities for collaboration, for example, other employability events, and curriculum support in larger projects and guest lectures.
Are there any evidential outcomes?
Students were surveyed pre and post-event, on their understanding of their career readiness, their work experience, why they chose to take part in the event and what they gained from the event.
Reasons for taking part in the event were largely (75% of respondents) related to understanding how engineers work in industry and to learning more about graduate destinations for engineers.
Post-event students enjoyed the short period of time to complete the challenge, the breadth of access to industry representatives and learning about how engineers approach challenges in industry.
What lessons were learned, or what reflections can you provide? What might you do differently?
Challenge development is a collaborative exercise between academia and industry to develop content that meets the learning criteria
The event for 2023 will move to fully onsite
Students need to have the benefits of attending the event clearly stated to improve student engagement
There is an over-whelming amount of support from industry to support this event, such that there has been a need to develop new initiatives to provide further opportunities for collaboration
Feedback from Industry
The students who I spoke to excelled and performed better than several experienced engineers that I have been interviewing over the last few months.
I found the sessions very interesting, the discussions through the Q&A after the presentations were very good. It was great to be able to delve into more of the technology stack and see how they approach it. I also found it very interesting that the two groups chose different use cases/verticals for their research, and it tilted the result to slightly different outcomes. Really interesting to see that!
A brilliant process and a great opportunity for productive collaboration between MMU and industrialists in the interest of enhancing student employability. Without a doubt, the students were the stars of the show. Super job!
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.
In September 2015 the first university-business co-developed Degree Apprenticeship programmes were launched – having been designed and eligible for funding under the governmentâs new model for apprenticeship training (Apprenticeship Standards), and expected to be resourced via the so called âapprenticeship Levyâ.
Whilst still at a relatively small scale and early stage, as at March 2016, Apprenticeship Standards are âready for deliveryâ at the Degree Apprenticeship level in three discipline areas â two of which are engineering-related. A further seven are awaiting approval, five of which are engineering-related.
Some toolkit content is available to members only. For best results, make sure youâre logged in.
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.
In Northern Ireland, the term âHigher level apprenticeships (HLAS)â covers what are known in England as Degree Apprenticeships and offer on-the-job training and off-the-job learning at higher levels, including Foundation Degrees (level 5), Honours Degrees (Level 6), and post-graduate awards (Level 7-8). NB they include Level 8 (PhD) which they explicitly do not in England.
Pilot activity is currently underway with 50 employers in the following priority sectors:
Life Sciences
Insurance
International Tourism and Hospitality Management
Engineering
Building Gas Management
ICT
Business Technology
Sustainable Construction
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Food Manufacturing
Automotive Engineering
Animation, Film and Video
Social media and Digital Marketing
Professional Services
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.
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.
In Scotland, Degree Apprenticeships are part of the Modern Apprenticeship framework and are known as Graduate Level Apprenticeships.
Individuals who participate in the scheme are able to access the same learning opportunities as those who go down the traditional route of direct entry into college or university.
Apprentices can progress to the highest level of professional qualifications with a range of entry and exit points from a Higher National Diploma (SCQF level 8)) to a Masterâs degree (SCQF level 11).
The apprenticeships are part funded by participating employers, which means they are only available to their employees.
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.
One of the key recent changes in the apprenticeships landscape has been the announcement by government of a new ‘apprenticeships Levy’ which all employers (with a pay bill above ÂŁ3m PA) will be required to pay. Current plans are that from April 2017  employers will pay an apprenticeships levy of 0.5% of pay bill (lessÂŁ10,000) to be held in a dedicated training account for them to use to offset against the costs of providing apprenticeship training ( excluding apprentice salaries)
Although only a relatively small proportion of businesses will be required pay this levy, given their scale and the number of employees and trainees involved â these larger employers are likely to be the most important organisations with whom an HEI is likely to need to engage with when considering developing or delivering higher and/or degree apprenticeship training.
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.
The main difference for HE providers is that funding for apprenticeships in England is managed by the Skills Funding Agency rather than HEFCE â with very different processes and requirements
There is also an HE specific funding guide [Apprenticeship funding and performance-management rules for training providers, May 2017 to March 2018] available at
Crucially, it is an expectation of any Apprenticeship that the employer rather than Apprentice/Student pays any costs. Universities cannot charge student fees for Apprenticeship provision, and these programmes are ineligible for Student Loan support
The funding for apprenticeships has two main components â A contribution from Government and an employer contribution (of at least 1/3rd of total cost). Going forwards, the employer contribution may be drawn from a mandatory employer apprenticeship levy described subsequently.
Additionally, the Government has provided (via HEFCE) funding for the development of the educational components of new degree apprenticeships by HE providers.  An initial tranche of £8M was announced for 2016-17 with further funding likely to be available for future years.
Part of the process for approval of an apprenticeship under the new standards is that the government (via SFA) agrees the maximum rate which it is prepared to contribute to delivery. This is done by allocating the apprenticeship to a series of funding bands which set a cap on the total amount of funding that can be claimed ( via Government and/or employer Levy pot). This covers the full costs of delivering the apprenticeship training and NOT just any educational qualification component. These currently range from £3000 to a maximum of £27,000 of which the maximum government contribution is 2/3rds of the costs
There is nothing in principle to stop an HEI charging an employer a higher level of fee than that agreed in the Apprentice Standard â but the full additional cost would then be borne by the employer.   In practise, this is becoming a cost competitive market and employers are increasingly shopping around to find the best deal they can get â in contracting with education providers to deliver the education elements of their Apprenticeship Programmes.  The cost cap in the Apprenticeship standard covers the full apprenticeship programme including any training elements delivered by the employer, so employers may have an incentive to drive the rate charged to HE providers to below the maximum allowed level. It is probable that the FE sector might enter this market at lower rates than universities can offer and the government would welcome a competitive market place of this sort.   The longevity of any contract might therefore be an important consideration when deciding whether to develop degree apprenticeship provision.
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.
‘Trailblazer’ is the title given to the groups of employers, professional bodies and in some cases education and/or qualification providers set up to and tasked with developing the apprenticeship standards in different occupations.
These Trailblazers are required to be employer led and driven (requiring a minimum of 10 employers), but given the importance of these Trailblazer groups in developing the standards which define the allowable content of the HE component of degree apprenticeship programmes it is highly beneficial for HEIâs to be involved as members of these groups â to help guide and influence this aspect.
The Government list of standards in development is a good place to start, as this provides contact details of the leads of the trailblazer groups for each standard currently being developed
Alternatively, if no standard exists or has yet been approved for development, it may be possible to play a more influential behind the scenes role in prompting the formation of a new trailblazer group, for example by bringing together groups of companies from their own networks. However bear in mind that ultimately these must be employer led and driven, and it is the employers that are required to drive these and commit to creating and funding the apprentice jobs to make these viable, before the education/training element becomes relevant
The standards are defined at quite a high level of granularity of job roles (generally more tightly defined than a traditional engineering degree course title) so even if one already exists in a related area, the possibility exists to create a complementary one provided a like-minded group of employers can be found to lead a new Trailblazer group. Departmental industrial advisory Boards etc. might be useful in this regard.
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: Graduate employability and recruitment, Research
