Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. Rhythima Shinde (KLH Sustainability).

Topic: Applying Cynefin framework for climate resilience.  

Title: Managing floods in urban infrastructure.

Resource type: Teaching – Case study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Educational level: Beginner; intermediate.

 

Acknowledgement: 

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

 

Learning and teaching notes: 

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

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

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

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

 

Summary of context:

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

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

 

Learning objectives:

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

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

 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Downloads: 

 

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Time required: 

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

1. Context (1–2 hours) 

2. Analysis and insights (1–2 hours) 

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

 

Materials required:

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

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

2. Case study pack: Queensland Reconstruction Authority flood response

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

3. Facilitator’s guide: (Appendix A)

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

4. Timeline touchpoints: (Appendix B)

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

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

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

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

 

Assessment:

 

Narrative of the case:

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

1. Context module: 

2. Analysis & insights module: 

3. Discussion & transfer learning module: 

 

Interactive learning design:

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

 

Why this approach adds value: 

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

 

Guided questions and activities: 

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

 

Opportunities for extension: 

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

The activity is designed to be scalable and adaptable: 

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

 

References:

 

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

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

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

Topic: Integrating complex systems learning outcomes in engineering curricula.

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

Resource type: Guidance article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

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

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

Downloads:

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

 

Premise:  

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

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

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

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

 

How to scaffold learning outcomes in a complex engineering curriculum:

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

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

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

Table 2. Scaffolding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across the curriculum 

 

Discussion and next steps:

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

 

References:

   

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

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

EPC Launches Inclusive Employability Toolkit to Advance Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Engineering Education 

London, 30 September 2025 – The Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) has launched a new Inclusive Employability Toolkit designed to support engineering educators and students in embedding Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles into employability learning. 

Developed with funding from the Royal Academy of Engineering Impact Fund, and in partnership with Canterbury Christ Church University, Wrexham University, Equal Engineers, and the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Toolkit addresses persistent inequities in engineering graduate outcomes and workplace progression. 

The Toolkit equips the engineering higher education community to: 

 

Tackling Inequalities in Graduate Outcomes 

Despite progress, disparities remain in engineering graduate outcomes. According to the Office for Students (2024), 73% of white male engineering graduates progress into employment compared with 71.6% of female graduates, 68.7% of Asian graduates, and 69.8% of Black graduates. Inequities are also evident for LGBTQ+ students and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. 

Bias in recruitment practices can compound these issues. Research indicates that AI-based recruitment may amplify discrimination, particularly affecting women and minority candidates. Diversity, however, remains a priority for the profession: 81% of engineers say it is an important factor when considering an employer, and 82% of female applicants cite the presence of role models as significant (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2024). 

 

Impact on Students 

Early classroom use of the Toolkit has shown positive results. Academics report that it helps students develop reflective practice, engage critically with employability resources, and recognise their personal responsibility in shaping career journeys. Students have also reported improvements in collaboration and group work: 

“It has improved me… [Previously] I didn’t even think about any steps [when completing coursework or group work]. I used to just jump straight into [it]… even in our group activity.” — Level 4 CCCU Student A 

“[The Toolkit’s game activity] built quite a lot of patience in me… I could give [peers in group work] more time, explain things in more detail, and help them instead of arguing over the work.” — Level 4 CCCU Student B 

“I’m still finding my feet [at university] with interacting in a group setting… I think a lot more about other people… I’m constantly conscious [of this] in group work.” — Level 4 CCCU Student C 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit provides a practical framework to embed EDI into engineering education, helping students and educators alike to build more inclusive, equitable, and reflective learning and workplace environments. 

 

For further information, please contact: Contact: Johnny Rich Email: press@epc.ac.uk 

Phone: 07590 914666 

24 hours: 0781 1111 4292 

Website: epc.ac.uk/resources/toolkit/inclusive-employability-toolkit/

Twitter/X: @EngProfCouncil #InclusiveEmployabilityToolkit

ENDS 

 

This post is also available here.

The EPC’s Inclusive Employability Toolkit is supported by Canterbury Christ Church University, Equal Engineers, The Royal Academy of Engineering, and Wrexham University. This resource is designed to help engineering educators integrate EDI principles and practices in engineering, computing, design and technology – across education, employer engagement, career preparation, and progression into the workplace.

 

Introduction 

This resource was formerly known as the EDGE Toolkit, and was developed in partnership with Canterbury Christ Church University, Wrexham University, Equal Engineers and The Royal Academy of Engineering. The two Universities have now joined forces with the Engineering Professors Council to launch the newly renamed Inclusive Employability Toolkit, working together to improve usability and ensure broader access to this valuable resource. 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit supports inclusive employment in engineering, computing, design, and technology, enhancing diversity and authentic voices in the workplace. 

Our commitment to fostering an environment where every individual feels valued and empowered has led us to develop the Inclusive Employability Toolkit. This comprehensive toolkit is designed to guide students, faculty, and staff in understanding and practicing EDI principles, ensuring that our campus is a place where diversity thrives and every voice is heard. 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit is more than just a set of resources – it’s a commitment to continuous learning, understanding, and action. We invite you to explore the toolkit, participate in the activities, and engage with the wealth of available resources. Together, we can build an engineering community that truly reflects the world’s diversity, united in our pursuit of equity and inclusion. 

Begin by exploring this page; it provides a comprehensive background on the importance of EDI in the world of engineering and sets the stage for your learning journey. 

 

Welcome 

The world is incredibly diverse, but navigating the complexities of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) can be challenging, especially for minority groups who face significant hurdles. In the video below, Professor Anne Nortcliffe invites you to explore the Inclusive Employability Toolkit, offering guidance on how to make the most of its features and resources. 

 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit aims to

 

Contents 

How to use this toolkit effectively:  

Embarking on your journey through Inclusive Employability Toolkit is a step towards fostering an inclusive and diverse environment within the engineering community. This guide will help you navigate the toolkit, ensuring you make the most of the resources, challenges, and learning opportunities it offers. 

 

Goals

🌍 Diversity matters: The toolkit emphasizes that diverse voices enrich the workplace, offering unique perspectives that drive innovation and creativity.
💪 Empowering students: By focusing on technical students, the toolkit equips them with the skills and confidence to navigate their career paths successfully.
🎤 Encouraging authenticity: Bringing your authentic voice to work fosters an environment of trust and openness, leading to stronger team dynamics.
🤝 Role of allies: Supporting individuals from minority backgrounds (female, LGBTQ, disabled, mature, low socio-economic status, global majority) not only aids their success but enriches the workplace culture for everyone involved.
📈 Business impact: Companies that prioritise equity and inclusion see improved employee retention and higher morale, translating into better performance metrics.
🛠️ Better solutions: Diverse teams in engineering and technology are proven to develop more effective solutions, addressing a wider range of needs and challenges.
🏛️ Societal benefits: Promoting equity and inclusion not only benefits organisations but also contributes to a more just and equitable society overall. 

 

Licensing

To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the toolkit in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, most of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence you are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that you must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.

 

Further details

CommitmentOur roleWhat we knowChallenges in the industryIndustry EmployersStudent feedback

To leading the charge in creating new opportunities for diversity and inclusion of engineering, technology and design to address regional skills gap. Our vision for all engineering, technology and design students regardless of their background have opportunity to thrive in engineering, technology and design industry.


As game changers we have researched and developed the Inclusive Employability Toolkit to empower students and employers in building bridges between academia, students, and industry to enable gainful graduate employment and more inclusive, dynamic, and diverse opportunities in engineering, technology and design.

A higher proportion of Global Majority and low socioeconomic students’ study at Post-92 universities, and yet, employment outcomes for graduates from these universities often lag behind their Russell Group peers.

Ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic factors continue to shape the employability landscape However more inclusive engineering, technology and design teams create better solutions to problems for all of society.

Gain insights from industry employers as they discuss the toolkit and its impact.


Gain insights from students as they reflect on the usefulness and impact of the toolkit.


Please note: Discussions around discrimination, prejudice and bias are highly complex and part of a much wider national and international debate, including contested histories. As such, we have limited the scope of our resources to educating and supporting students.

The resources that the EPC and its partners are producing in this area will continue to expand and, if you feel there is an issue that is currently underrepresented in our content, we would be delighted to work with you to create more. Please get in touch.   

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

Case study example: Water wars: managing competing water rights

Activity: Assessment. This example demonstrates how the questions provided in Assessing ethics: Rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level.

Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).

Related content:

 

Water wars: managing competing water rights 

This example demonstrates how the questions provided in the accompanying rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level. Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma. 

Year 1 

Personal values: What is your initial position on the issue? Do you see anything wrong with how DSS are using water? Why, or why not?

Professional responsibilities: What ethical principles and codes of conduct are relevant to this situation?

Ethical principles and codes of conduct can be used to guide our actions during an ethical dilemma. How does the guidance provided in this case align/differ with your personal views? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)

What are the moral values involved in this case and why does it constitute an ethical dilemma? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)

What role should an engineer play in influencing the outcome? What are the implications of not being involved? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)

Year 2 

Formulate a moral problem statement which clearly states the problem, its moral nature and who needs to act. (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)

Stakeholder mapping: Who are all the stakeholders in the scenario? What are their positions, perspective and moral values?

Stakeholder  Perspectives/interests  Moral values 
Data Storage Solutions (DSS)  Increasing production in a profitable way; meeting legal requirements; good reputation to maintain/grow customer base.  Accountability; sustainability (primarily economic). 
Farmers’ union  Represent farmers who suffer from economic implications associated with costly irrigation.  Accountability; environmental sustainability; justice. 
Farm  The farm (presumably) benefits from DSS using the land.  Ownership and property; environmental sustainability; justice. 
Local Green Party  Represent views of those concerned about biodiversity. May be interested in opening of green battery plant.  Human welfare; environmental sustainability; justice. 
Local Council  Represent views of all stakeholders and would need to consider economic benefits of DSS (tax and employment), the need of the university and hospital, as well as the needs of local farmers and environmentalists. May be interested in opening of green battery plant.  Human welfare and public health; trust; accountability; environmental sustainability; justice. 
Member of the public  This may depend on their beliefs as an individual, their employment status and their use of services such as the hospital and university. Typically interested in low taxes/responsible spending of public money. May be interested in opening of green battery plant.  Human welfare; trust; accountability; environmental sustainability; justice. 
Stakeholders using DSS data storage  Reliable storage. They may also be interested in being part of an ethical supply chain.  Trust; privacy; accountability; autonomy. 
Non-human stakeholders  Environmental sustainability. 

 

What are some of the possible courses of action in the situation. What responsibilities do you have to the various stakeholders involved? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each? (Reworded from case study.)

What are the relevant facts in this scenario and what other information would you like to help inform your ethical decision making? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)

 

 

Year 2/Year 3  

(At Year 2, students could provide options; at Year 3 they would evaluate and form a judgement.) 

Make use of ethical frameworks and/or professional codes to evaluate the options for DSS both short term and long term. How do the uncertainty and assumptions involved in this case impact decision making?

Option  Consequences  Intention  Action 
Keep using water  May lead to expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply. 

Reputational damage of DSS may increase. Individual employee piece of mind may be at risk. 

Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers which may have further impact long term. 

 Intention behind action not consistent with that expected by an engineer, other than with respect to legality  Action follows legal norms but not social norms such as good will and concern for others. 
Keep using the water but limit further work  May limit expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply. 

Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers and may have further impact long term. This could still result in reputation damage. 

 Intention behind action partially consistent with that expected by an engineer.  Action follows legal norms but only partially follow social norms such as good will and concern for others. 
Make use of other sources of water  Data storage continues. 

Potential for reputation to increase. 

Potential increase in cost of water resulting in less profit potentially less tax revenue/employment. 

Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.

Alternative water sources may be associated with the same issues or worse. 

 Intention behind action seems consistent with that expected by an engineer. However, this is dependent upon 

whether they chose to source sustainable water with less impact on biodiversity etc. 

 This may be dependent on the degree to which DSS proactively source sustainable water. 
Reduce work levels or shut down  Impact on profit and thus tax revenue/employment and supply chain. Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve. 

May cause operational issues for those whose data is stored. 

 Seems consistent with those expected of engineer. Raises questions more generally about viability and feasibility of data storage.  Action doesn’t follow social norms of responsibility to employees and shareholders. 
Investigate other cooling methods which don’t require as much water/don’t take on extra work until another method identified. 
 May benefit whole sector. 

May cause interim loss of service. 

 

 This follows expectations of the engineering profession in terms of evidence-based decision making and consideration for impact of engineering in society.  It follows social norms in terms of responsible decision making. 

 

Downloads:

Assessing ethics: Guidance

Assessing ethics: Rubric

Assessing ethics: Case study assessment example: Water Wars

 

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

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

Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).

Keywords: Assessment; Accreditation, AHEP, Competencies; Curriculum design; Pedagogy.

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design.

Related content:

 

Guidance

Premise:

As engineering educators, it is uncommon that we were taught or assessed on ethical thinking within our own degree programmes. Although we may be able to think of plenty of ethical scenarios from our own experience, we may not necessarily be able to identify the best way to assess the ability of a student to engage in ethical thinking in a systematic and robust manner, something which is critical for both the evaluation of learning and teaching (as explained further here).

Furthermore, the complex, ill-structured nature of ethical dilemmas, which often involve a variety of diverse stakeholders, perspectives and cultural norms, necessitates an ability to navigate tensions and compromise. This results in situations in which multiple possible courses of action can be identified, meaning that there is not one single ‘good’ or ‘correct’ answer to ethical questions posed.

It is also necessary to evidence that students are able to meet the criteria outlined by accreditation bodies. Within the UK context, it is the Engineering Council (EC) that is responsible for providing the principal framework which guides engineering course content and sets accreditation threshold standards of competence through AHEP, the Accreditation of Higher Education Programs, as part of The UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UKSPEC).

The knowledge, skills and attributes expected of engineering graduates constantly shifts, and since the advent of AHEP in 2004 there has been increased focus on strengthening design, and consideration for economic, ethical, environmental, legal, and social factors.

In-keeping with a need to assess engineering ethics in a robust manner, this article provides step-by-step considerations for designing assessment and is primarily intended to be used in conjunction with an existing ethics case study, such as those available through the EPC’s Engineering Ethics Toolkit (we later make use of the existing ‘Water Wars’ case study to exemplify the points made).

The guidance and accompanying rubric have been designed in a way that encourages students to grapple with the numerous tensions involved in ethical decision making, and the focus is thus on assessment of the decision-making process as opposed to the ‘answer’ given, the decision made or the outcome of the scenario.

 

Assessment purpose:

The first consideration is the year group you are assessing, and the competencies they have already acquired (for example in the case of Level 5 and Level 6 students). You may want to consider the (partial) learning outcome (LO) as defined by AHEP4 LO8 (Table 1). Whilst this shouldn’t act to limit what you choose to assess, it is a good place to start in terms of the level of ability your students should be demonstrating.

Note that the Engineering Council (EC) claim “This fourth edition of AHEP has reduced the total number of learning outcomes in order to focus attention on core areas, eliminate duplication and demonstrate progression between academic levels of study”. They are thus interested in the differences between level. You are recommended to make this explicit in module specification and associated assessment description. Key differentiations are shown in Table 1. For example, at Level 5 you may be more interested in students’ abilities to identify an ethical situation, whereas at Level 6 you may want them to be able to reason through options or make a judgement.

Table 1: AHEP4 Learning Outcomes

Year 1
(Level 4)		 Year 2
(Level 5)		 Year 3
(Level 6)		 M Level
(Level 7)
LO8 Apply ethical principles and recognise the need for engineers to exercise their responsibilities in an ethical manner and in line with professional codes of conduct. Identify ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct. Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct. Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct (MEng).
Interpretation Awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities; sensitising students to ethical issues. Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments. Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments. Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments.

 

The final row in Table 1 provides our interpretation of the LO, making use of language similar to that within the EPC’s Ethics Learning Landscape. We believe this is more accessible and more easily operationalised.

The following steps outline the process involved in designing your assessment. Throughout we make reference to an existing EPC case study (Water Wars) to exemplify the points made.

1.) The first consideration is how much time you have and how much of the case study you want to use. Many of the case studies have multiple stages and could be spread over several sessions depending on time constraints.

2.) Linked to this is deciding whether you want to assess any other LOs within the assessment. For example, many of the case studies have technical elements. Furthermore, when using reports, presentations, or debates as methods of assessment you may also want to assess communication skills. Whatever you decide you should be careful to design the assessment in such a way that assesses LO8 in a robust manner, whereby the student could not pass the element without demonstrating they have met the individual LO to the required level (this is a key requirement to meet AHEP4). For example, in an assessment piece where ethics is worth 50% of the grade, a student could still pass the element as a whole (with 40%) by achieving high scores in the other grading criteria without the need to demonstrate their ability to meet LO8.

3.) Once you are aware how much of a case study you have time for and have decided which LOs (other than LO8) you are assessing, you should start to determine which questions are aligned with the level of study you are considering and/or the ability of the students (for example you may query whether students at Level 5 have already developed the skills and competencies suggested for Level 4). At each level you can make use of the accompanying rubric to help you consider how the relevant attributes might be demonstrated by students. As an example, please refer to the accompanying document where we provide our thoughts about how we would assess Water Wars at Levels 4-6.

4.) Once you have selected questions you could look to add any complementary activities or tasks (that do not necessarily have to be assessed) to help the students broaden their understanding of the problem and ability to think through their response. For example, in the Water Wars case study, there are multiple activities (for example Part 1, Q3 and Part 2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7) aimed at helping students understand different perspectives which may help them to answer further ethical questions. There are also technical questions (for example Part 1, Q5) which help students understand the integrated nature of technical and social aspects and contextualise scenarios.

5.) Once you have selected your questions you will need to make a marking rubric which includes details of the weightings given for each component of the assessment. (This is where you will need to be careful in selecting whether other LOs are assessed e.g., communication, and whether a student can pass the assessment/module without hitting LO8). You can then make use of the guidance provided in terms of expectations at a threshold and advanced level, to write criteria for what is expected at each grade demarcation.

Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions within the accompanying rubric have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.

 

Other considerations:

As acknowledged elsewhere within the toolkit (see here), there are “practical limits on assessment” (Davis and Feinerman, 2012) of ethics, including demands on time, pressure from other instructors or administrators, and difficulty in connecting assessment of ethics with assessment of technical content. These are some other considerations you may wish to make when planning assessment.

• Number of students and/or marking burden: With large student numbers you may be more inclined to choose a group assessment method (which may also be beneficial in allowing students to share perspectives and engage in debate), or a format which is relatively quick to mark/allows automated marking (e.g. a quiz). In the case of group work it is important to find a way in which to ensure that all students within each group meet the LO in a robust manner. Whilst assessment formats such as quizzes may be useful for assessing basic knowledge, they are limited in their ability to ensure that students have developed the higher-level competencies needed to meet the LO at output level.

• Academic integrity: As with any LO there is a need to ensure academic integrity. This may be particularly difficult for large cohorts and group work. You may wish to have a range of case studies or ensure assessment takes place in a controlled environment (e.g. an essay/report under exam conditions). This is particularly important at output level where you may wish to provide individual assessment under exam conditions (although competencies may be developed in groups in class).

• Logistics/resourcing: Many of the competencies associated with ethics are heavily linked to communication and argumentation, and answers tend to be highly individual in nature. Role play, debates, and presentations may therefore be considered the most suitable method of assessment. However, their use is often limited by staffing, room, and time constraints. Many of these methods could, instead, be used within class time to help students develop competencies prior to formal assessment. You may also choose to assess ethics in another assessment which is more heavily resourced (for example design projects or third year projects).

• Staged assessment: The ethical reasoning process benefits from different perspectives. It may therefore be desirable to stage assessment in such a way that individuals form their own answer (e.g. a moral problem statement), before sharing within a group. In this way a group problem statement, which benefits from multiple perspectives and considerations, can be formed. Similarly, individuals may take the role of an individual stakeholder in an ethical dilemma before coming together as a group.

• Use of exams: Whilst we see an increasing movement away from exams, we feel that a (closed book) exam is a suitable method of assessment of ethics based LOs in the situation that:

o There is a need to ensure academic integrity, and that each student meets the LO at output level.

o The exam is assessing competencies (e.g. ethical argumentation) as opposed to knowledge.

o All the relevant information needed is provided and there is limited content for students to learn in advance (aside from argumentation, justification, decision making skills etc developed in class).

Their use may therefore be limited to Level 6.

 

Rubric

This document provides the partial AHEPLO8 at each level. The competences involved in meeting this LO have then been identified, along with what students would need to demonstrate to evidence meeting a threshold level, or advanced level. Example questions are given to show how students may demonstrate their competence at each level. For each question there is an explanation of how the question supports achievement of LO at that level. The rubrics should be used alongside the accompanying guidance document which offers practical suggestions and advice.

Year 1: This year focuses on developing awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities, and sensitising students to ethical issues.

Year 2: This year focuses on developing the ability to identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments, all of which is needed to examine, analyse, and evaluate ethical dilemmas in Year 3.

Year 3: This year focuses on ensuring that students can satisfy LO8 at an output level in a robust manner.

 

References:

Davis, M. and A. Feinerman. (2012). ‘Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), pp. 351-367.

 

Downloads:

Assessing ethics: Guidance

Assessing ethics: Rubric

Assessing ethics: Case study assessment example: Water Wars

 

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

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

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

Topic: Accreditation mapping for sustainability in engineering education. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Engineering disciplines:  Any.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Learning and teaching notes:

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

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

 

Click here to access the guide

 

Supporting resources: 

EOP Comprehensive Teaching Guide 

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

EOP Quickstart Activity Guide 

 

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

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

Authors: Dr Homeira Shayesteh (Senior Lecturer/Programme Leader for Architectural Technology, Design Engineering & Mathematics Department, Faculty of Science & Technology, Middlesex University), Professor Jarka Glassey (Director of Education, School of Engineering, Newcastle University). 

Topic: How to integrate the SDGs using a practical framework.   

Type: Guidance.  

Relevant disciplines: Any.  

Keywords: Accreditation and standards; Assessment; Global responsibility; Learning outcomes; Sustainability; AHEP; SDGs; Curriculum design; Course design; Higher education; Pedagogy. 

Sustainability competency: Anticipatory; Integrated problem-solving; Strategic.

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

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

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; Authentic assessment; Active pedagogies and mindset development.

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

 

Premise: 

The critical role of engineers in developing sustainable solutions to grand societal challenges is undisputable. A wealth of literature and a range of initiatives supporting the embedding of sustainability into engineering curricula already exists. However, a practicing engineering educator responsible for achieving this embedding would be best supported by a practical framework providing a step-by-step guide with example resources for either programme or module/course-level embedding of sustainability into their practice. This practical framework illustrates a tested approach to programme wide as well as module alignment with SDGs, including further resources as well as examples of implementation for each step. This workflow diagram provides a visual illustration of the steps outlined below. The constructive alignment tool found in the Ethics Toolkit may also be adapted to a Sustainability context. 

 

For programme-wide alignment: 

 1. Look around. The outcome of this phase is a framework that identifies current and future requirements for programme graduates. 

a. Review guidelines and subject/discipline benchmark documents on sustainability. 

b. Review government targets and discipline-specific guidance. 

c. Review accreditation body requirements such as found in AHEP4 and guidance from professional bodies. For example, IChemE highlights the creation of a culture of sustainability, not just a process of embedding the topic. 

d. Review your university strategy relating to sustainability and education. For example, Middlesex University signed up to the UN Accord. 

e. Consider convening focus groups with employers in general and some employers of course alumni in particular. Carefully select attendees to represent a broad range of employers with a range of roles (recruiters, managers, strategy leaders, etc.). Conduct semi-structured focus groups, opening with broad themes identified from steps a through d. Identify any missing knowledge, skills, and competencies specific to particular employers, and prioritize those needed to be delivered by the programme together with the level of competency required (aware, competent, or expert). 

 

2. Look back. The outcome of this phase is a programme map (see appendix) of the SDGs that are currently delivered and highlighting gaps in provision.  

a. Engage in critical reflective analysis of the current programme as a whole and of individual modules.   

b. Conduct a SWOT analysis as a team, considering the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the programme from the perspective of sustainability and relevance/competitiveness. 

c. Convene an alumni focus group to identify gaps in current and previous provision, carefully selecting attendees to represent a broad range of possible employment sectors with a range of experiences (fresh graduates to mid-career). Conduct semi-structured discussions opening with broad themes identified from steps 1a-e. Identify any missing knowledge, skills, and competencies specific to particular sectors, and those missing or insufficiently delivered by the programme together with the level of competency required (aware, competent, or expert). 

d. Convene a focus group of current students from various stages of the programme. Conduct semi-structured discussions opening with broad themes identified from steps 1a-e and 2a-c. Identify student perceptions of knowledge, skills, and competencies missing from the course in light of the themes identified. 

e. Review external examiner feedback, considering any feedback specific to the sustainability content of the programme.  

 

 3. Look ahead. The goal of this phase is programme delivery that is aligned with the SDGs and can be evidenced as such. 

a. Create revised programme aims and graduate outcomes that reflect the SDGs. The Reimagined Degree Map and Global Responsibility Competency Compass can support this activity. 

b. Revise module descriptors so that there are clear linkages to sustainability competencies or the SDGs generally within the aims of the modules.  

c. Revise learning outcomes according to which SDGs relate to the module content, projects or activities. The Reimagined Degree Map and the Constructive Alignment Tool for Ethics provides guidance on revising module outcomes. An example that also references AHEP4 ILOS is: 

  1. “Apply comprehensive knowledge of mathematics, biology, and engineering principles to solve a complex bioprocess engineering challenge based on critical awareness of new developments in this area. This will be demonstrated by designing solutions appropriate within the health and safety, diversity, inclusion, cultural, societal, environmental, and commercial requirements and codes of practice to minimise adverse impacts (M1, M5, M7).” 

d. Align assessment criteria and rubrics to the revised ILOs.  

e. Create an implementation plan with clear timelines for module descriptor approvals and modification of delivery materials.  

 

For module-wide alignment: 

1. Look around. The outcome of this phase is a confirmed approach to embedding sustainability within a particular module or theme. 

a. Seek resources available on the SDGs and sustainability teaching in this discipline/theme. For instance, review these examples for Computing, Chemical Engineering and Robotics.  

b. Determine any specific guidelines, standards, and regulations for this theme within the discipline. 

 

2. Look back. The outcome of this phase is a module-level map of SDGs currently delivered, highlighting any gaps.  

a. Engage in critical reflective analysis of current modules, as both individual module instructors and leaders, and as a team.  

b. Conduct a SWOT analysis as a module team that considers the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the module from the perspective of sustainability and relevance of the module to contribute to programme-level delivery on sustainability and/or the SDGs. 

c. Review feedback from current students on the clarity of the modules links to the SDGs. 

d. Review feedback from external examiners on the sustainability content of the module. 

 

3. Look ahead.  

a. Create introduction slides for the modules that explicitly reference how sustainability topics will be integrated.  

b. Embed specific activities involving the SDGs in a given theme, and include students in identifying these. See below for suggestions, and visit the Teaching resources in this toolkit for more options.  

 

Appendix:

A. Outcome I.2 (programme level mapping)  

 

B. Outcome II.5 (module level mapping) – same as above, but instead of the modules in individual lines, themes delivered within the module can be used to make sure the themes are mapped directly to SDGs. 

 

 C. II.6.b – Specific activities 

 

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

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

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

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

Topic: Assessing sustainability competencies in engineering education. 

Type: Knowledge. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

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

Sustainability competency: Integrated problem-solving, Critical thinking.

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

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

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

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

 

Premise: 

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

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

 

Developing 21st-century engineers 

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

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

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

 

What are sustainability competency frameworks saying? 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

What needs to shift in engineering education? 

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

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

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

 

Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes. 

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

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

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

See how this rebalancing is represented in the visual below: 

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

 

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

 

Integrate authentic assessment: 

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

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

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

 

Engineers Without Borders UK | Assessing competencies through design challenges: 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Conclusions: 

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

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

  

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

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

 

Useful resources: 

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

 

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

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

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

Authors: Professor Emanuela Tilley, (UCL); Associate Professor Kate Roach (UCL); Associate Professor Fiona Truscott (UCL). 

Topic: Sustainability must-haves in engineering project briefs. 

Type: Guidance. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

Keywords: PBL; Assessment; Project brief; Learning outcomes; Pedagogy; Communication; Future generations; Decision-making; Design; Ethics; Sustainability; AHEP; Higher education.

Sustainability competency: Integrated problem-solving; Collaboration.

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

Related SDGs: All. 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt learning outcomes; Active pedagogies and mindsets; More real-world complexity; Cross-disciplinarity; Authentic assessment.

 

Supporting resources: 

 

Premise: 

Projects, and thus project-based learning, offer valuable opportunities for integrating sustainability education into engineering curricula by promoting active, experiential learning through critical and creative thinking within problem-solving endeavours and addressing complex real-world challenges. Engaging in projects can have a lasting impact on students’ understanding and retention of knowledge. By working on projects related to sustainability, students are likely to internalise key concepts and develop a commitment to incorporating sustainable practices into their future engineering endeavours. 

 

Building a brief:

Project briefs are a powerful tool for integrating sustainability into engineering education through project-based learning. They set the tone, define the scope, and provide the parameters for students to consider sustainability in their engineering projects, ensuring that future engineers develop the knowledge, skills, and mindset needed to address the complex challenges of sustainability. 

To ensure sustainability has a central and/or clear role within an engineering project, consider the following as you develop the brief: 

1. Sustainability as part of goals, objectives, and requirements. By explicitly including sustainability objectives in the project brief, educators communicate the importance of considering environmental, social, and economic factors in the engineering design and implementation process. This sets the stage for students to integrate sustainability principles into their project work. 

 

2. Context: Briefs should always include the context of the project so that students understand the importance of place and people to an engineered solution. Below are aspects of the context to consider and provide:

 

3. Stakeholders: Sustainability is intertwined with the interests and needs of various stakeholders. Project briefs can include considerations for stakeholder engagement, prompting students to identify and address the concerns of different groups affected by the project. This reinforces the importance of community involvement and social responsibility in engineering projects. Below are aspects of the stakeholders to consider and provide: 

 

4. Ethical decision-making: Including ethical considerations related to sustainability in the project brief guides students in making ethical decisions throughout the project lifecycle. The Ethics Toolkit can provide guidance in how to embed ethical considerations such as: 

 

5. Knowns and unknowns: Considering both knowns and unknowns is essential for defining the project scope. Knowing what is already understood and what remains uncertain allows students to set realistic and achievable project goals. Below are aspects of considering the knowns and unknowns aspects of a project brief to consider and provide:

 

6. Engineering design process and skills development: The Project Brief should support how the educator wants to guide students through the engineering design cycle, equipping them with the skills, knowledge, and mindset needed for successful problem-solving. Below are aspects of the engineering design process and skills development to consider and provide: 

a. Research – investigate,  

b. Creative thinking – divergent and convergent thinking in different parts of the process of engineering design,

c. Critical thinking – innovation model analysis or other critical thinking tools,

d. Decision making – steps taken to move the project forward, justifying the decision making via evidence,

e. Communication, collaboration, negotiation, presentation,  

f. Anticipatory thinking – responsible innovation model AREA, asking in the concept stages (which ideas could go wrong because of a double use, or perhaps thinking of what could go wrong?),

g. Systems thinking.  

 

7. Solution and impact: Students will need to demonstrate that they have met the brief and can demonstrate that they understand the impact of their chosen solution. Here it would need to be clear what the students need to produce and how long it is expected to take them. Other considerations when designing the project brief to include are: 

 

 

Important considerations for embedding sustainability into projects: 

1. Competences or content? 

 

 2. Was any content added or adapted? 

– What form of content, seminars, readings, lectures, tutorials, student activity 

 

3. Competencies  

UNESCO has identified eight competencies that encompass the behaviours, attitudes, values and knowledge which facilitate safeguarding the future. These together with the SDGs provide a way of identifying activities and learning that can be embedded in different disciplinary curricula and courses.  For more information on assessing competences, see this guidance article.  

 

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

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

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

Let us know what you think of our website