Author: Mark J. Heslop (University of Strathclyde). 

Topic: ESD in Chemical Engineering projects. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Relevant disciplines: Chemical. 

Keywords: Problem-based learning; Education for sustainable development; Circularity; Circular economy; Assessment; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education; Design; Data; Pedagogy. 
 
Sustainability competency: Systems-thinking; Collaboration; Integrated problem-solving.

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 2 (Zero hunger); SDG 3 (Good health and well-being); SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 13 (Climate action). 
 
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindset development; Authentic assessment; More real-world complexity.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by Chemical Engineering educators in higher education who are seeking to integrate sustainability in their project modules. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for. 

 

Premise: 

The design project (DP) is considered to be the major focus of the CE curriculum, where students work in groups to design a complete chemical process – feeds, products process routes, energy requirements, financial aspects and emissions.  It is considered challenging for various reasons including the following: the requirement to recall and combine knowledge covered previously in taught classes (some of which may have been forgotten), dealing with a huge corpus of data (unavailability, uncertainty, some being in conflict and some being superfluous) and all the design decisions that need to be made from many options.  This is a major contrast with standard taught modules where all the data required is normally provided in advance.  Just making decisions is not enough – they need to be timely and justified otherwise the project may be rushed and may not complete by the deadline.  This is why the DP is valued by employers.  Furthermore, if Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is embedded in the design project, it is more likely that students will take forward sustainability into the workplace. Figure 1 illustrates Chemical processes and the design project.   

 

1. Subject (CE) and DP pictorial representations:

Part (a) is a generic representation of a chemical process and shows the input-output nature of chemical processes.  A chemical process takes a feed and converts it to useful products (the process shown has two equipment units and four streams). Part (b) is a representation of the design project, where the specification (or brief) is provided to groups at the start (DSpec) and the final submission (or solution) is the information in part (a).  Part (c) shows that specifications can be product-based (the top two) or feed-based (the bottom two).  The dashed lines indicate specifications where the flowrate and composition of the feed/product is subject to design choice – a typical factor that will extend the design procedure and require more decision-making. 

 

 2. Inclusion of sustainability in the project topic and communication with students:

This is fairly straightforward in CE design projects, because of the circular economy and the associated waste minimisation.  So, from Figure 1, a feed-based (rather than product-based) specification can be employed.  Topics that have been used at Strathclyde in recent years have been the utilisation of coffee grounds, food waste and (in 2024) green and garden waste. It is helpful that such topics can be linked to many of the UN SDGs. Furthermore, waste products are often complex with many components, and one of the characteristics of chemical engineering is the various separation techniques. These two factors should be communicated to students to improve engagement.   

 

3. Inclusion of sustainability as an ESD activity to be carried out by groups:

One of the complicating factors about the UN SDGs is that there are so many, meaning that there is the possibility of a chemical process having both positive and negative impacts on different SDGs. This means that groups really need to consider all of the SDGs.  This might be conveniently demonstrated as per Table 1.  Certainly, it would be hoped that there are more ticks in column 2 than in column 3.  Column 4 corresponds to minimal change, and column 5 where there is not enough information to determine any impact. 

 

Table 1: Sustainability rating form for design project submissions   

As an example, consider a design project which is based on better utilisation of green waste.  Let us say that this results in less greenhouse gas emissions, as well as there being less need to plant and harvest plants.  This will result in positive outcomes for SDG12 and SDG13.  There are also positive effects because more land can be used for crops, and there will be higher plant coverage during the year.  It could be argued then that there are minor positive effects om SDG2 and SDG3.  The subsequent SDG profile in Table 1 shows two major impacts and two minor impacts – this might be typical for DPs.  

 

4. Assessment of sustainability in the design project:

Table 2 shows the typical sections in a DP submission.  For convenience these are shown as having equal 20-mark contributions.  One way of determining marks is to divide these sections into a number of dimensions, for example: use of the literature, technical knowledge, creativity/innovation and style/layout.  Sustainability could then be included as a fifth dimension.  It is then a case of determining the sustainability dimension for each of the marking sections.  It could be argued that sustainability is particularly important at the start of the project (when feeds and amounts are being decided) and at the end (when the final process is being assessed).  This explains the larger weightings in Table 2. Coherence refers to how well the submission reads in terms of order and consistency and is thus independent of sustainability.  The weightings are subject to debate, but they do at least give the potential for consistent (and traceable) grading between different assessors.        

 

Table 2: Design project assessment now including ESD   

References: 

Byrne, E.P. (2023) “The evolving engineer; professional accreditation sustainability criteria and societal imperatives and norms”, Education for Chemical Engineers 43, pp. 23–30  

Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T. (2020) “Fostering environmental awareness towards responsible food consumption and reduced food waste in chemical engineering students”, Education for Chemical Engineers 33, pp. 27–35  

IChemE (2021), “Accreditation of chemical engineering programmes: a guide for education providers and assessors” 

 

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

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

 

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

Author: Onyekachi Nwafor (CEO, KatexPower). 

Topic: Revealing links between ethics and sustainability by teaching with case studies. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

Keywords: Sustainability education; Engineering ethics; Environmental impact; Responsible design; Stakeholder engagement; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education; Pedagogy; Renewable energy; Green energy; Climate change; Local community. 
 
Sustainability competency: Self-awareness; Normative.

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

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 13 (Climate action). 
 
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Cross-disciplinarity.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking to apply an approach of teaching with case studies in order to reveal the links between ethics and sustainability. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for. 

Supporting resources: 

 

Premise: 

As environmental pressures mount, the world demands not just engineering solutions, but sustainable ones. This shift presents profound challenges and opportunities for engineering educators. How can we equip future engineers with the ethical frameworks and critical thinking skills needed to navigate the complex trade-offs inherent in green solutions? 

This article provides a guide for integrating ethical considerations into engineering education by using case studies. By fostering awareness of sustainability principles and promoting responsible decision-making through real-world examples, we can empower students to become stewards of a more equitable and resilient future. 

 

The interplay of ethics and sustainability: 

At its core, sustainability goes beyond environmental impact. It encompasses social responsibility, economic viability, and intergenerational equity. Ethical engineering aligns with these principles by: 

 

Integrating ethical considerations into engineering curricula presents several challenges: 

 

Learning from a case study:  

The sprawling Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert, initially celebrated as a beacon of clean energy, now casts a complex shadow on the region’s ecological landscape. While harnessing the sun’s power to electrify millions, its concentrated solar technology inadvertently unleashed unintended consequences. The intense heat generated by the mirrors tragically claimed thousands of birds, particularly desert tortoises, a threatened species. Drawn to the shimmering light, they would collide with the mirrors or structures, falling victim to a technological mirage. This stark reality challenged the “green” label of a project originally intended to combat climate change.  

 

Unforeseen costs of progress: 

Ivanpah’s case highlights the hidden costs of even well-intentioned renewable energy projects. It sparks critical questions for students to grapple with: 

Sustainability beyond carbon emissions: While reducing carbon footprint is crucial, broader ecosystem impacts must be considered. Can technological advancements mitigate harm to vulnerable species and habitats? 

Balancing energy needs with ecological needs: How can we find the sweet spot between harnessing renewable energy and preserving biodiversity? Can alternative technologies or site selection minimise ecological disruption? 

Engaging stakeholders in ethical decision-making: How can local communities and ecological experts be meaningfully included in planning and mitigation strategies to ensure equitable outcomes? 

By delving into the Ivanpah case (and others like it*), students can develop critical thinking skills to analyse the long-term implications of seemingly green solutions. They learn to consider diverse perspectives, advocate for responsible design practices, and prioritise environmental stewardship alongside energy production. 

*Relevant case studies: 

 

Empowering future engineers: 

As educators, we hold the power to shape the ethical compass of future engineers. By integrating ethical considerations into the fabric of our curriculum, we can equip them with the tools and knowledge necessary to: 

 

Conclusion: 

The pursuit of a sustainable future demands ethical engineers, engineers who can not only innovate, but also act with integrity and responsibility. By equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary to grapple with complex ethical dilemmas, we can empower them to become transformative agents of change, shaping a world that thrives for generations to come. 

 

References: 

Delong, D. (2012). ‘Sustainable engineering: A comprehensive introduction’. John Wiley & Sons. 

Engineering ethics toolkit (2022) Engineering Professors Council. (Accessed: 05 February 2024). 

Engineers Without Borders. (n.d.). ‘Case studies on ethical dilemmas in sustainability’.(Accessed: October 20, 2023). 

The Hamilton Commission. (2019)  ‘On sustainable practices in Motorsport engineering’. (Accessed: October 20, 2023). 

MacKay, D.J.C. (2008). ‘Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air’. UIT Cambridge Ltd. 

Pritchard, M. S et al. (2013). ‘Engineering Ethics: Challenges and Opportunities’. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. 

Vallero, D. (2013). ‘The Ethics of Sustainable Engineering’. Princeton University Press. 

 

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

Topic: How to talk about sustainability in engineering education. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

Keywords: Advocacy; Collaboration; Global responsibility; Sustainability; Systems change; Climate change; AHEP; Higher education; Pedagogy. 
 
Sustainability competency: Self-awareness; Strategic; Critical thinking.

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

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); SDG 13 (Climate action). 
 
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindset development.

Who should read this article? This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate sustainability into curriculum design. It’s especially useful in helping educators, heads of departments and deans to engage in a constructive or uncomfortable conversation if you don’t see yourself as a sustainability expert.  

 

Premise: 

“To not have conversations because they make you uncomfortable is the definition of privilege. Your comfort is not at the centre of this discussion. That’s not how it works. We have to be able to choose courage over comfort, we have to be able to say, ‘Look, I don’t know if I’m going to nail this but I’m going to try because I know what I’m sure as hell not going to do is stay quiet.’” Brene Brown  

 

Some of the best conversations you can have in life are not comfortable to initiate: 

Think about a time you’ve participated in a meaningful conversation. These are not easy conversations, but they can also be the ones we look back to as very powerful, even if they took courage to initiate. And sometimes in a conversation, especially a constructive conversation, people disagree. People debate. People have different perspectives. And that’s the beauty of conversation and the beautiful rich diversity of people. It would be so boring if we all had the same life experiences, expertise and thoughts. If we only wanted to hear our own perspective, you can do that in a voice note to yourself, in your journal or by talking to the mirror.  

There can also be different conversations depending on the values of those having the conversation. What they see as important, scary or what environment they live in helps form their core understanding. But despite our differences, humans are hard-wired for connection, to listen and talk with others. We discuss ideas in order to find common ground, and/or to learn about an experience we didn’t have ourselves. Difficult, constructive conversations build relationships, while avoiding them leads to a less deep connection.  

 

Why talk about sustainability? 

Educators, you have permission to start and facilitate a conversation about something you don’t know much about or are not an expert in. Just be honest about what you know and be driven to learn more.    

This relates to conversations around the topic of sustainability. When we talk about how we can live within our planetary limits, whilst meeting the needs of all people, questions about justice, inequality and fairness often crop up. We don’t have one right answer here, we don’t have a magic fix or one person to blame. No one is an expert here. Sure, some know more about the science, others more about people’s lived experiences and others can feel they don’t know enough. But we all have a right to participate in conversations about our collective humanity. For example, conversations you could have with students about sustainability could cover: 

After all, sustainability is about imagining our future: One where we have less impact on our safe climate and biodiversity and less inequality. But we may see that future world differently. We may worry about the impact any change might have on our lives and the things we value most. Some may struggle with the idea of repurposing golf courses to address our housing crisis, others may struggle with the idea of policies stopping people from flying frequently (but they might be okay with this being imposed on those with private jets). Others may despair at the slow levels of change, where we don’t move from our default trajectory and risk climate breakdown.  

On our current trajectory, we are looking at living in a world where our climate exceeds 1.5 degrees of warming, where there is mass migration, sea level rise, etc. This world may be worse, where more people suffer. But would you change how we engineer to make it better or play a role in another way to shift our trajectory? 

 

How to initiate conversations about sustainability in engineering education: 

To not have these important conversations means we don’t see any role for ourselves or the organisations we work for in creating change – and that’s not true, since sustainability requires systemic change to how we engineer AND to how we educate. For example, we asked hundreds of engineering educators and educationalists what they hope to see as the future of engineering education. Their responses are visualised below: 

Discussing your opinions about these responses could be one way to start a conversation with a colleague. 

It is also really important to engage in regular conversations about sustainability with students as a feature of their university education. Be a role model for how to participate in constructive conversations respectfully. Help them practise how to hold and present themselves in these spaces.  

So, with this in mind, what can you do?  

 
Initiate the conversation. Prepare to do so. Here are some tips and tricks.  

Be humble! Learning from others is key. Degrees can be designed so that students can frequently hear and learn about different perspectives and develop the ability to speak with economists, social scientists, scientists, humanities experts, ecologists, and those with expertise gained through lived experience. Be willing to learn from others and acknowledge that it’s okay they don’t have all the answers either. In our experience, students usually respect this attitude of humility.  

It can be helpful to work with those with experience. Recognise who is leading changes and creating ways for educators to feel safe in leading and making change. Sometimes all it takes is the offer of a coffee with a colleague to form a connection and get a shared understanding of how to move forward. 

Seek (and give) advice and share your experience. Share resources, barriers, insights and position initiatives to support in an organised and collaborative way.  

Work in partnership with students. Students also have a critical role to play in this shift, not just because they are increasingly demanding to see more sustainability in the curriculum. For many emerging students, sustainability is the topic of their lifetime. Listen to the perspectives of international students, who can bring more diverse perspectives on global responsibility.  

 

“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 to get talking: 

There are some excellent resources out there that can help us get started framing and having conversations about sustainability with others: 

1. The Talk Climate Change campaign tracks climate discussions to share messages and inspire others around the world. It provides advice, conversation starters and allows you to add your discussions with family, friends, and communities about sustainability to their interactive map and explore conversations submitted by others. 

2. Listen to podcasts such as the Liberating Sustainability podcast by Students Organising for Sustainability UK (SOSUK) who bring together leaders from student liberation movements and academia to deconstruct the exclusivity of sustainability activism and education, or An Idiot’s Guide to Saving the World which dives into each of the Sustainable Development Goals and focuses in on ‘who is affected?’, ‘What are solutions on a global scale?’, and ‘what can I as an individual do?’. 

3. Watch the presentation on ‘Imagining 2050’ from James Norman, a current educator (who will be 72 years old in 2050) and Cleo Parker, an engineering student (who will be 49 in 2050) during the Institution of Structural Engineers Annual Academics Conference 2022. You can also read the main learning points from the conference in this blog post.  

4. The World Café methodology is an example of creating a space for collaborative dialogue around questions that matter and sharing insights and lessons learned. You can see an example of this by the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) who run Collaboration Cafes on Climate Resilience, here. 

5. Watch the TED talks playlists on sustainability covering key questions and visionary ideas on the question of our generation.  

 

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

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

 

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

Author: Cigdem Sengul, Ph.D. FHEA (Computer Science, Brunel University). 

Topic: Embedding SDGs into undergraduate computing projects using problem-based learning and teamwork. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Relevant disciplines: Computing; Computer science; Information technology; Software engineering.  

Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals; Problem-based learning; Teamwork; Design thinking; Sustainability; AHEP; Pedagogy; Higher education; Communication; Course design; Assessment; STEM; Curriculum design. 
 
Sustainability competency: Collaboration; Integrated problem-solving.

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 17; see specific examples below for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger); SDG 13 (Climate Action). 
 
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Authentic assessment.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in Higher Education who wish to embed sustainable development goals into computing projects. 

Supporting resources:  

 

Premise:  

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is defined by UNESCO (2021) as:  “the process of equipping students with the knowledge and understanding, skills and attributes needed to work and live in a way that safeguards environmental, social and economic wellbeing, in the present and for future generations.” All disciplines have something to offer ESD, and all can contribute to a sustainable future. This guide presents how to embed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into undergraduate computing projects, using problem-based learning and teamwork as the main pedagogical tools (Mishra & Mishra, 2020).  

 

Embedding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into computing group projects: 

Typically, the aim of the undergraduate Computing Group Project is to: 

This type of project provides students with an opportunity to integrate various skills, including design, software development, project management, and effective communication.  

 

In this project setting, the students can be asked to select a project theme based on the SDGs. The module team then can support student learning in three key ways: 

1. Lectures, labs, and regular formative assessments can build on lab activities to walk the project groups through a sustainability journey that starts from a project pitch, continues with design, implementation, and project progress reporting, and ends with delivering a final demo.

2. Blending large classroom teaching with small group teaching, where each group is assigned a tutor, to ensure timely support and feedback on formative assessments.

3. A summative assessment based on a well-structured project portfolio template, guiding students to present and reflect on their individual contribution to the group effort. This portfolio may form the only graded element of their work, giving the students the opportunity to learn from their mistakes in formative assessments and present their best work at the end of the module.  

 

Mapping the learning outcomes to the eight UNESCO key competencies for sustainability (Advance HE, 2021), the students will have the opportunity to experience the following: 

 

More specifically, sustainable development can be embedded following a lecture-lab-formative assessment-summative assessment path: 

1. Introduction lecture: Introduce the SDGs and give real-life examples of software that contribute to SDGs (examples include: for SDG 2 – Zero Hunger, the World Food Programme’s Hunger Map; SDG 13 – Climate Action, Climate Mind ). The students then can be instructed to do their own research on SDGs. 

2. Apply design thinking to project ideation: In a lecture, students are introduced to design thinking and the double-diamond of design to use a diverge-converge strategy to first “design the right thing” and second “design things right.” In a practical session, with teaching team support, the students can meet their groups for a brainstorming activity. It is essential to inform students about setting ground rules for discussion, ensuring all voices are heard. Encourage students to apply design thinking to decide which SDG-based problem they would like to work on to develop a software solution. Here, giving students an example of this process based on a selected SDG will be useful. 

3. Formative assessment – project pitch deliverable: The next step is to channel students’ output of the design thinking practical to a formative assessment. Students can mould their discussion into a project pitch for their tutors. Their presentation should explain how their project works towards one or more of the 17 SDGs. 

4. Summative assessment – a dedicated section in project portfolio: Finally, dedicating a section in a project portfolio template on ideation ensures students reflect further on the SDGs. In the portfolio, students can be asked to reflect on how individual ideas were discussed and feedback from different group members was captured. They should also reflect on how they ensured the chosen problem fits one or more SDGs, describe the selection process of the final software solution, and what alternative solutions for the chosen SDG they have discussed, elaborating on the reasons for the final choice. 

 

Conclusion: 

Computing projects provide an excellent opportunity to align teaching, learning, and assessment activities to meet key Sustainable Development competencies and learning outcomes. The projects can provide transformational experiences for students to hear alternative viewpoints, reflect on experiences, and address real-world challenges. 

 

References: 

Advance HE. (2021) Education for sustainable development guidance. (Accessed: 02 January 2024). 

Lewrick, M., Link, P., Leifer, L.J. & Langensand, N. (2018). The design thinking playbook: mindful digital transformation of teams, products, services, businesses, and ecosystems. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken. 

Mishra, D. and Mishra, A. (2020) ‘Sustainability Inclusion in Informatics Curriculum Development’, Sustainability, 12(14), p. 5769.  

 

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

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

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

Author: Onyekachi Nwafor (CEO, KatexPower). 

Topic: Harmonising economic prosperity with environmental responsibility. 

Tool type: Knowledge. 

Relevant disciplines: Any.  

Keywords: Environmental responsibility; Pedagogy; Economic growth; Ethical awareness, Interdisciplinary; Collaboration; AHEP; Sustainability; Environment; Biodiversity; Local community; Climate change; Higher education. 
 
Sustainability competency: Integrated problem-solving; Strategic; Self-awareness; Normative.

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

Related SDGs: SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth); SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities); SDG 13 (Climate action). 
 
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to consider how to navigate tradeoffs between economic and environmental sustainability as they apply to engineering. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for. 

 

Premise:  

In the face of the ever-growing need for economic progress and the escalating environmental crises, the engineering profession finds itself at a crossroads. Striking a delicate balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability is no longer an option but an imperative. This article delves into the pivotal role of engineering educators in shaping the mindset of future engineers, offering an expanded educational framework that fosters a generation capable of harmonising economic prosperity with environmental responsibility. 

  

The uneasy truce:  

Developing nations, with burgeoning populations and aspirations for improved living standards, grapple with the paradox of rapid economic expansion at the expense of environmental degradation. This necessitates a shift in focus for engineering educators, who bear the responsibility of cultivating engineers with a foresighted perspective. Rather than demonising economic growth, the goal is to instill a nuanced understanding of its interdependence with environmental well-being. For example, in developing countries like Brazil, rapid economic expansion driven by industries such as agriculture and logging has resulted in extensive deforestation of the Amazon region. This deforestation not only leads to the loss of valuable biodiversity and ecosystem services but also contributes to climate change through the release of carbon dioxide. Similarly, in industrialised nations, the pursuit of economic growth has often led to the pollution of air, water, and soil, causing adverse health effects for both humans and wildlife. 

 

Equipping our future stewards: 

To navigate this delicate landscape, educators must move beyond traditional technical expertise, fostering a holistic approach that integrates ethical awareness, interdisciplinary collaboration, localised solutions, and a commitment to lifelong learning. 

1. Ethical awareness: One potential counterargument to the expanded educational framework may be that the focus of engineering education should remain solely on technical expertise, with the assumption that ethical considerations and interdisciplinary collaboration can be addressed later in a professional context. However, research has shown that integrating ethical awareness and interdisciplinary collaboration early in engineering education not only enhances problem-solving skills but also cultivates a sense of responsibility and long-term thinking among future engineers. 

2. Holistic thinking: Research has shown that interdisciplinary collaboration between engineering and social science disciplines can lead to more effective and sustainable solutions. For instance, a study conducted by the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) found that by involving sociologists and anthropologists in the design and implementation of water infrastructure projects in rural communities, engineers were able to address cultural preferences and local knowledge, resulting in higher acceptance and long-term maintenance of the infrastructure. Similarly, a case study of a renewable energy project in Germany demonstrated how taking into account the geographic nuances of the region, such as wind patterns and solar radiation, led to more efficient and cost-effective energy solutions. Presently, Germany boasts the world’s fourth-largest installed solar capacity and ranks amongst the top wind energy producers.  

3. Localised solutions: Students must be required to consider the social, cultural, and geographic nuances of each project. This means moving away from one-size-fits-all approaches and towards an emphasis on the importance of context-specific solutions. This ensures that interventions are not only technologically sound but also culturally appropriate and responsive to local needs, fostering sustainability at both the project and community levels. 

4. Lifelong learning: Empower students with the skills to stay abreast of emerging technologies, ethical frameworks, and policy landscapes. Recognise that the landscape of sustainability is dynamic and ever evolving. Foster a culture of continuous learning and adaptability to ensure that graduates remain true stewards of a sustainable future, equipped to navigate evolving challenges throughout their careers. 

 

A compass for progress:  

By integrating these principles into engineering curricula, educators can provide students with a moral and intellectual compass—an ethical framework guiding decisions toward a future where economic progress and environmental responsibility coexist harmoniously. Achieving this paradigm shift will require collaboration, innovation, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. However, the rewards are immeasurable: a generation of engineers empowered to build a world where prosperity thrives alongside a healthy planet—a testament to the true potential of the engineering profession. 

Engineering teachers can raise a generation of engineers who can balance economic growth with environmental responsibility by embracing a broader educational framework that includes ethical awareness, cross-disciplinary collaboration, localised solutions, and a commitment to lifelong learning. Through the adoption of these principles, engineering curricula can provide students with a moral and intellectual compass, guiding them toward a future where economic progress and environmental sustainability coexist harmoniously. 

 

References: 

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2023). ‘Pathways to Carbon Neutrality: Global Trends and Solutions’, Chapter 3. 

Sharma, P. (2022) ‘The Ethical Imperative in Sustainable Engineering Design’, Chapter 5. 

United Nations (2021) ‘Goal 13: Climate Action. In Sustainable Development Goals: Achieving a Balance between Growth and Sustainability’. (pp. 120-135). 

World Bank (2022) ‘Renewable Energy in Developing Nations: Prospects and Challenges’, pp.10-15. 

World Bank Group (2023) Cleaner cities, Brighter Futures: Ethiopia’s journey in urban sanitation, World Bank. (Accessed: 05 February 2024).   

 

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

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

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

Author: Professor Manuela Rosa (Algarve University, Institute of Engineering). 

Topic: Engineering for ecological sustainability. 

Tool type: Knowledge. 

Relevant disciplines: Any. 

Keywords: Curriculum; Engineering professionals; Ecology; Ecosystem services; Natural resources; Interdisciplinary; Biodiversity; Water and sanitation; Climate change; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education; Pedagogy. 
 
Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Collaboration; Integrated problem-solving; Self-awareness; Normative.

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

Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation); SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy); SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 14 (Life below water). 
 
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Cross-disciplinarity; Active pedagogies and mindset development.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to embed environmental and ecological sustainability into the engineering curriculum or design modules. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for. 

 

Premise: 

Engineering has always responded to the societal challenges of humanity, contributing to its progress and economic development. However, the synergetic effects of fossil-based economic growth together with large-scale engineering projects have also caused great pressures on natural resources and ecosystems leading to over-exploitation and degradation. In consequence, in the last decades, a multidimensional perspective on sustainability perspective has arisen, and has been acknowledged by social movements, governments and institutions.   

Meanwhile, this assumes deep epistemological changes, requiring holistic and transdisciplinary approaches that must be considered by engineering professionals, establishing communication based on new ways of thinking. There is the need to interweave disciplines, to establish complementary relationships, to create associations in order to root new knowledge, enabling communication between the sciences. In doing so, transdisciplinary science has emerged, i.e. the science that can develop from these communications. It corresponds to a higher stage succeeding the stage of interdisciplinary relationships, which would not only cover interactions or reciprocities between specialised research projects, but would place these relationships within a total system without any firm boundaries between disciplines (Piaget, 1972).  

Currently, the complexity associated with climate change and the uncertainty of the link between global loss of biodiversity and current loss of public health, are demanding innovative knowledge, needing those holistic and transdisciplinary approaches.  Engineering professionals must therefore give additional attention to ecological sustainability. 

 

The challenges of sustainability: 

The term “sustainability” portrays the quality of maintenance of something which can continue for an indefinite time, such as biological species and ecosystems. Sustainability is based on a dynamic balance between natural and human ecosystems, in order to maintain the diversity, complexity and functions of the ecological systems that support life, while contributing to prosperous and harmonious human development (Costanza, 1997). This strong perspective of sustainability needs to have a prominent place in land use management which must consider the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems.  

Ecological sustainability in particular aims to maintain the earth’s natural potential and the biosphere, its stock of natural resources, atmosphere and hydrosphere, ecosystems and species. Ecosystems should be kept healthy by preserving their “ecological integrity”, i.e. the capacity to maintain the structure and function of its natural communities, which includes biogeochemical cycles.  

Engineering professionals must therefore understand the global limits for water, land, and energy use (contributing to less atmospheric carbon emissions), and preserve other natural resources, such as nutrients or biodiversity. In the technical decision-making process, they need to understand the ecological impacts of big scale projects, such as transportation infrastructures, dams, deforestation, and others. Alongside other professionals, they need to contribute to the restoration, conservation and preservation of ecosystem services, e. g. support services, production services, regulating services and cultural services. These services result in benefits that people and organisations receive from ecosystems and constitute determinants of well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).  

Until now, technical solutions often focused on highly visible man-made structures, many of which stopped or disrupted natural processes. Presently, the importance of regulating natural ecosystem services such as water purification, water supply, erosion and flood control, carbon storage and climate regulation is beginning to be perceived. These are considered as soft engineering tools and must be highlighted by engineering educators and assumed in the practice. 

This ecological mindset would enable solutions that recognise management and restoration of natural ecosystems in order to curb climate change, protect biodiversity, sustain livelihoods and manage rainstorms. Nature-based solutions are a natural climate solution in cities, contributing to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change through green roofs, rain gardens, constructed wetlands that can minimise damaging runoff by absorbing stormwater, reducing flood risks and safeguarding freshwater ecosystems. They are essential in climate refuges for city residents during heatwaves and other extreme climate events. These solutions need specific and new knowledge made by ecologists working with engineers and others, which demands action beyond disciplinary silo, i.e., a transdisciplinary approach.  

Within this context, engineering professionals must consider specific operating principles of sustainability: 

These principles must be considered in engineering education, and require deep changes in teaching, because there is a great difficulty in studying and managing the socio-ecological system according to the Cartesian paradigm which breaks up and separates the parts of a whole. New ecological thinking emphasises holistic approaches, non-linearity, and values focused on preservation, conservation and collaboration (Capra, 1996). The transdisciplinary approach needs dialogic and recursive thinking, which articulates from the whole to the parts and from the parts to the whole, and can only be unchained with the connection of the different fields of knowledge, including knowledge from local communities in specific territories.   

In higher education, engineering students should establish face-to-face contacts with ecology students in order to better understand ecological sustainability and generate empathy on the subject. Engineering students must develop skills of collaboration and inter-cultural communication tools (Caeiro-Rodríguez et al., 2021) that will facilitate face to face workshops with other professionals and enrich learning experiences.  

In the 21st century, beyond the use of technical knowledge to solve problems, engineering professionals need communicational abilities to consider ecological sustainability, requiring networking, cooperating in teams, and working with local communities. Engineering educators must include trans-sectoral and transdisciplinary research and holistic approaches which make clear progress in tackling ecological sustainability. 

 

Conclusion: 

The interconnected socio-ecological system must be managed for sustainability by multiple stakeholders.  Engineering professionals need to develop a set of skills and competencies related with the ability to work with other ones (e.g. from the natural sciences) and citizens. Currently, beyond the use of technical knowledge to solve problems, engineers need to consider the sustainable development goals, requiring networking, cooperating in teams, and working with communities through transdisciplinary approaches.  

Education for Sustainable Development is required to empower engineering professionals to adopt strong sustainable actions that simultaneously ensure ecological integrity, economic viability and a just society for the current and future generations. Education is a fundamental tool for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as recognised in the 2030 Education Agenda, coordinated by UNESCO (2020).  

 

References: 

 

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

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

 

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

Author: Dr Manoj Ravi FHEA (University of Leeds). 

Topic: Pedagogical approaches to integrating sustainability. 

Tool type: Knowledge. 

Relevant disciplines: Any.  

Keywords: Education for Sustainable Development; Teaching or embedding sustainability; Course design; AHEP; Learning outcomes; Active learning; Assessment methods; Pedagogy; Climate change; Bloom’s Taxonomy; Project-based learning; Environment; Interdisciplinary; Higher education; Curriculum. 
 
Sustainability competency: Integrated problem-solving competency.

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; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Authentic assessment; Cross-disciplinarity.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating sustainability in engineering education. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for. 

 

Premise: 

As stated in the 1987 United Nations Brundtland Report, ‘sustainability’ refers to “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (GH, 1987 p.242). It is underpinned by a tripartite definition encompassing environmental, social and economic sustainability. The necessity for embracing sustainability is underscored by several pressing challenges we face as a global society, ranging from climate change to economic crises.  

Against the backdrop of these global challenges, the role of the engineering profession assumes significant importance. While the scientific principles that underpin the various engineering disciplines remain largely the same, the responsibility of the engineering profession is to leverage these principles to address current and future challenges. Consequently, education for sustainable development (ESD) becomes a vital aspect of an engineer’s training, since the profession will guide the design and implementation of innovative solutions to challenges crosscutting environmental impact, judicious use of resources and social wellbeing.   

 

Integrated course design: 

Integrating ESD in engineering education requires programme and module designers to take a deliberate approach. Drawing on initial attempts to integrate sustainability in management and business education (Rusinko, 2010), four pedagogical approaches of ESD can be identified:  

  1. piggybacking,  
  2. mainstreaming,  
  3. specialising,  
  4. connecting.  

The last two approaches are for creating new curriculum structures with a narrow discipline-specific focus and a broad transdisciplinary focus, respectively. The other two, piggybacking and mainstreaming, are approaches to embed sustainability within existing curriculum structures. Although piggybacking is the easier-to-implement approach, achieved by additional sessions or resources on sustainability being tagged onto existing course modules, mainstreaming enables a broader cross-curricular perspective that intricately intertwines sustainability with engineering principles. 

The mainstreaming approach is also an elegant fit with the accreditation requirements for sustainability; the latest edition of the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) emphasises competence in evaluating ‘environmental and societal impact of solutions’ to ‘broadly-defined’ and ‘complex’ problems. In order to foster this ability, where sustainability is a guiding principle for developing engineering solutions, a holistic (re)consideration of all elements of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) – intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching and learning activities, and student assessment – is needed. To this end, the Integrated Course Design (ICD) pedagogical framework can be leveraged for a simultaneous and integrated consideration of course components for embedding sustainability.  

 

Sustainability learning outcomes: 

Bloom’s taxonomy (also see here), which conventionally guides formulation of ILOs, can be extended to incorporate sustainability-based learning outcomes. The action verb in the AHEP guidance for the learning outcome on sustainability is ‘evaluate’, signifying a high cognitive learning level. ILOs framed at this level call for application of foundational knowledge through practical, critical and creative thinking. Although the cognitive domain of learning is the main component of engineering education, sustainability competence is greater than just a cognitive ability. For more information, see the Reimagined Degree Map.   

ESD is a lifelong learning process and as stated by UNESCO, it ‘enhances the cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of learning’. This integration of cognitive learning outcomes with affective aspects, referred to as ‘significant learning’ in the ICD terminology, is of utmost importance to develop engineers who can engage in sustainable and inclusive innovation. Furthermore, mapping programme and module ILOs to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is another way to integrate sustainability in engineering with connections between technical engineering competence and global sustainability challenges becoming more explicit to students and educators. Similarly, the ILOs can be mapped against UNESCO’s sustainability competencies to identify scope for improvement in current programmes. See the Engineering for One Planet Framework for more information and guidance on mapping ILOs to sustainability outcomes and competencies. 

 

Teaching and learning activities: 

Activities that engage students in ‘active learning’ are best placed to foster sustainability skills. Additional lecture material on sustainability and its relevance to engineering (piggybacking approach) will have limited impact. This needs to be supplemented with experiential learning and opportunities for reflection. To this end, design and research projects are very effective tools, provided the problem definition is formulated with a sustainability focus (Glassey and Haile, 2012). Examples include carbon capture plants (chemical engineering), green buildings (civil engineering) and renewable energy systems (mechanical and electrical engineering).  

Project-based learning enables multiple opportunities for feedback and self-reflection, which can be exploited to reinforce sustainability competencies. However, with project work often appearing more prominently only in the latter half of degree programmes, it is important to consider other avenues. Within individual modules, technical content can be contextualised to the background of global sustainability challenges. Relevant case studies can be used in a flipped class environment for a more student-led teaching approach, where topical issues such as microplastic pollution and critical minerals for energy transition can be taken up for discussion (Ravi, 2023). Likewise, problem sheets or simulation exercises can be designed to couple technical skills with sustainability.    

  

Student assessment: 

With sustainability being embedded in ILOs and educational activities, the assessment of sustainability competence would also need to take a similar holistic approach. In other words, assessment tasks should interlace engineering concepts with sustainability principles. These assessments are more likely to be of the open-ended type, which is also the case with design projects mentioned earlier. Such engineering design problems often come with conflicting constraints (technical, business, societal, economic and environmental) that need careful deliberation and are not suited for conventional closed-book time-limited examinations.  

More appropriate tools to assess sustainability, include scaled self-assessment, reflective writing and focus groups or interviews (Redman et al., 2021). In a broader pedagogical sense, these are referred to as authentic assessment strategies. Given the nexus between sustainability and ethics, inspiration can also be drawn from how ethics is being assessed in engineering education. Finally, pedagogical models such as the systems thinking hierarchical model (Orgill et al., 2019), can be used to inform the design of assessment rubrics when evaluating sustainability skills.  

 

Supporting resources: 

 

References: 

Biggs, J. (1996) ‘Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’, Higher education, 32(3), pp. 347-364.  

Brundtland, G.H. (1987) Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations General Assembly document A/42/427, p.247.   

Glassey, J. and Haile, S. (2012) ‘Sustainability in chemical engineering curriculum’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), pp. 354-364.  

Orgill, M., York, S. and MacKellar, J. (2019) ‘Introduction to systems thinking for the chemistry education community’, Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), pp. 2720-2729.  

Ravi, M. (2023) ‘Spectroscopic Methods for Pollution Analysis─Course Development and Delivery Using the Integrated Course Design Framework’, Journal of Chemical Education, 100(9), pp. 3516-3525.  

Redman, A., Wiek, A. and Barth, M. (2021) ‘Current practice of assessing students’ sustainability competencies: A review of tools’, Sustainability Science, 16, pp. 117-135.  

Rusinko, C. A. (2010) ‘Integrating sustainability in management and business education: A matrix approach’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), pp. 507-519. 

 
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: Sarah Junaid (Aston University); Yann Serreau (CESI); Alison Gwynne-Evans (University of Cape Town); Patric Granholm (Åland University of Applied Sciences); Kathryn Fee (Queen’s University Belfast); Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).

Keywords: 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

 

Using a constructive alignment tool to plan ethics teaching:

Incorporating ethics into an already-packed engineering curriculum can be an overwhelming prospect. But as more accreditation bodies are requiring engineering programmes to evidence the inclusion of ethics, this activity is becoming essential. Recently, a planning tool has been developed by a team of academics that you can use to constructively align your learning outcomes with activities and assessments that positively reinforce the inclusion of ethics.

For instance, in a year 2 Mechanical Engineering course, an existing outcome might read: “Use CAD modelling and additive manufacturing in the product development process and embed control sensors, actuators and physical hardware into a complete system.” As it is written, it contains no reference to ethics. But after comparing this outcome against language found in AHEP4, the CDIO Syllabus, and the Learning Landscape found in this Toolkit’s Ethics Explorer, you might revise it to read: “Use CAD, modelling and additive manufacturing in the product development process and embed control sensors, actuators and physical sensors to design a safe and complete system to address a societal need.” The minor changes to the language (shown in italics) ensure that this outcome reinforces the ethical dimension of engineering and encourages the ethical development of engineers. These changes also then inform the language used in activity briefs and the criteria by which students are assessed.

This tool has been used in workshops at Aston University and the 2023 SEFI conference, and is endorsed by CDIO.

Download this planning tool:

 

Engineering Ethics Teaching – Planning Tool Worksheet

Stage1: Resources – Tabulate all relevant resources and their Learning Outcomes or Programme Outcomes:

What are your Learning Outcomes for the topic you will teach? Please list them here.

Highlight the verbs in blue and the ethical topics in red; this will help highlight any potential gaps.

Program level (My module, course, class, or lecture)  

Accreditation level

 

 National or Professional level ethics map or framework (optional) International level
Reference/ Source [Your University and course title] [Your national accreditation board] [e.g. codes of conduct, code of ethics, ethical principles, suggested teaching approaches] [e.g. CDIO Syllabus, ABET, Washington Accord]
Learning Outcome 1 [Write current Learning Outcome here] [Copy and paste the relevant competency here] [Copy and paste the relevant guidance here] [Copy and paste the relevant competency/skill here]
Learning Outcome 2 Enter text here Enter text here Enter text here Enter text here
Learning Outcome 3 Enter text here Enter text here Enter text here Enter text here

 

Stage 2: Re-write Learning Outcomes (LOs): 

Learning Outcomes Re-worded Learning Outcomes Rationale
LO1.

[Copy and paste LO from Stage I table here]

 LO1.

[Re-write LO and highlight verbs in bold here]

 [Justify your changes or if unchanged, justify why here]
LO2. LO2. Enter text here Enter text here
LO3. LO3. Enter text here Enter text here

 

Stage 3: Ethics Teaching Tools – Evidence-based tools and resources to help with teaching engineering ethics:

 

Three Examples of Ethics Teaching Models:

1. The Rest Model for Ethical Decision Making – Individual (Jones, 1991).

2. The Ethical Cycle – Problem-solving (Van de Poel & Royakkers, 2007).

3. The Innovent-E Model – Competencies – Language: French
(For access to competences in ethics contact Yann Serreau: yserreau@cesi.fr)

Note: you can use other models.

 

Stage 4: Constructive Alignment – Tabulate the LOs, activity and assessment, and ensure alignment:

My module – Learning Outcomes Learning & teaching activity Assessment
LO1.

[Copy and paste new LO from Stage II table here]		 [What activity will support and prepare the student for the assessment?] [What assessment would be needed to demonstrate this new LO?]
LO2. Enter text here Enter text here Enter text here
LO3. Enter text here Enter text here Enter text here

 

 

Download this planning tool:

 

 

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. Jude Bramton (University of Bristol); Elizabeth Robertson (University of Strathclyde); Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).

Keywords: Collaboration; 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.

 

How to organise class sessions:

Engineering educators can find a wealth of ethics case studies in the Engineering Ethics Toolkit. Each one focuses on different disciplines, different areas of ethics learning, and different professional situations, meaning there is almost certainly a case study that could be embedded in one of your classes.

Even so, it can be difficult to know how to organise the delivery of the session. Fortunately, Toolkit contributors Jude Bramton of the University of Bristol and Elizabeth Robertson of the University of Strathclyde have put together diagrams that demonstrate their approaches. These processes can act as helpful guides for you as you integrate an Ethics case study in one of your engineering class sessions.

 

Jude Bramton’s class session organisation looks like this:

You can read more about her approach here.

 

Elizabeth Robertson’s class session organisation looks like this:

You can read more about her approach here.

 

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.

Elizabeth Robertson, Teaching Fellow in the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering at The University of Strathclyde, discusses how we need to move past our discomfort in order to teach ethics in engineering.

 

I could wax lyrical about the importance of engineering ethics for today’s students who are tomorrow’s engineers. However, there are lots of other articles that will do it much better than I can. All I’d say in short is that as educators, we know it’s important, our graduate employers tell us it’s important, and our accrediting bodies are looking for us to include it through our curriculum because they know it’s important too.

The task for us as educators then is to demonstrate the importance of ethics to our students and to offer students a learning experience that is relevant to them at whatever stage they are and that that will also offer the most impact – but as with so many things, that is easier said than done.

 

Getting comfortable with what the toolkit is and how to use it

I have used the Engineering Ethics Toolkit since its launch, and I cannot be a bigger proponent for its usefulness for staff or its impact on students’ learning. Educators are always challenged to design sessions that are engaging, participatory and have real student impact. With its range of case studies and really useful advice and guidance documents, the Engineering Ethics Toolkit does all three.

The documentation in the toolkit contains a mix of introductory material on what ethics is and why to integrate ethics education into modules alongside practical considerations including the ‘hows’ – best practice in teaching ethics and methods for assessment and evaluation.

 

Choosing a case study for your students

The suite of broad engineering ethics case studies means that there is a case study for a range of student needs (and there are often new ones on the horizon too). In my teaching that means sometimes I use case studies that are related to discipline-specific learning the students are currently undertaking so they can pull in technical knowledge and experience they have, and in other cases I choose something totally removed in order to allow students to spend more time with the ethical dimensions of a case and not get preoccupied with the technical.

 

The case studies I’ve used

During the last academic year we used the case study ‘Glass safety in a heritage building conversion’ with my first year groups, and that’s pretty far removed from the electrical, mechanical and computer science modules they take. That decision was intentional; the aim was to get students to concentrate on the principles of ethics, stakeholder mapping, stakeholder motivations and interpersonal dynamics and not be ‘distracted’ by the technical aspects. This was one class in a module centred around a sustainable design challenge and we used the Ethics toolkit to help students develop an understanding of the importance of economic, environmental and social factors. Working with a case study not in their exact engineering field helped students see that they must look beyond the technical to understand people – be they stakeholders, end users or community members. Students worked to make decisions on actions with honesty and integrity and to respect the public good. The students engaged really well in the session and there were some vibrant discussions on which actions were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and vitally the students grasped how stakeholder dynamics and dynamics of power in projects can affect outcomes.

In comparison, for my third year undergraduate students I intentionally chose a case study that would link to their hardware/software project that was upcoming, and connect closely to learning in their communications module: ‘Smart homes for older people with disabilities’. This meant that alongside stakeholder mapping we identified technical factors looking into possible routes of data leaks. Students engaged so well and were actively debating possible actions to take covering ethical, technical and legal implications. It pained me every time I had to cut conversations short so we could cover the full case study – so much so that this year we’re going to try and give them longer than an hour for the process.

 

Getting comfortable with the students in the lead

I use a participatory teaching methodology often. This means starting our 50 minutes together with student reflection, having 5/10 minutes of introductory talk and then rounds of group discussions. The students are therefore in the driving seat in the classroom – students set the tone and the pace. If they are having valuable, meaningful and worthwhile discussions and demonstrating valuable ethical discussions, my plans change. This means maybe not covering all parts of the case study  maybe skipping a stage or two of discussions that were in my plans. As long as the session’s objective are met, the students can write their own journey.

 

What my sessions look like

As the song goes, we start at the very beginning as it’s a very good places to start. That means first asking the students their current understanding of what ethics is – we did this first by using a word association activity, and asked what came to mind when they hear the term ‘ethics.’ Their answers in the word cloud below demonstrate a good maturity of thought to work from in the session. We then moved on to discuss when we should consider ethics – for us as individuals, members of society and as engineers.

What they said:

Building on from our prompting questions we then introduced the Statement of Ethical Principles published by the Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering and covering the four fundamental principles of ethics defined therein.

From there we worked with the toolkit and our case study of choice. Most case studies come in 2-4 ‘phases’, each with a bit more of the story that I’d briefly talk over, which we gave them printed and electronically. The phases often include a ‘dilemma’ for the protagonist and some questions for provoking thought and discussion or more technical work as is suitable. The questions and activity prompts that are within the case studies are invaluable to educators and students in helping design the session and for giving student groups a place to start if they are not sure how to tackle part of the story. We worked on a think-pair-share model asking individuals to think, groups to discuss, and then asking a few groups to report back to the room. One thing I want to do more of is asking different groups to role play as different stakeholders. Asking students to embed themselves in different perspectives can lead to some very valuable insights.

 

Getting comfortable in a room of differing views

Students worked in small groups with the case study and an important stage was asking groups to report back their thoughts. These were volunteered rather than cold-called and in asking for more groups to share I would prompt if anyone had a different view to make sure that a range of perspectives were heard. Though in fairness to the students they engaged so readily and enthusiastically that I often ran short of time rather than being left with ‘dead air’.

I have delivered ethics sessions to groups of 12, 30 and 100. In all cases it is important that all students feel heard and all views and perspectives respected. You need to make sure that an open, honest, and non-judgemental tone is set. This allows all students to feel they are free to ask questions and importantly share their perspectives, meaning that there is a big onus on the educator to act as a facilitator as much as a teacher.

Good facilitation is key. Some things to think about:

 

Getting comfortable with no absolutes

What is vital in running these sessions is offering some sort of conclusion when there is no ‘right’ answer. My third-year cohort knew that a class on ethics was in the schedule – that I was going to get them to answer Menti polls, work in small groups and report back to the room. These are my established teaching styles and by halfway through the semester the students are well used to it. What they weren’t prepared for was that in the end I wasn’t going to tell them a ‘right’ answer.

All the students I have worked on ethics with were somewhat disappointed when in the end they were not offered the ‘right’ answer for the ethical dilemmas posed. What I did do though was still offer them a conclusion to their learning. I point out some of the excellent examples of consideration and thought offered by groups to highlight themes from the four principles. It’s useful here too to point students to where they’ll apply their learning from the session in the short and long term. For my students their future projects all require ethics, inclusion and sustainability statements. It’s important though to also evidence where the learning will go beyond the classroom.

There are examples of cases that in hindsight there are clear cases of ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ (you can pull examples of fields relevant to you, often cited is the Challenger tragedy and Ford Pinto Memo). What we conclude on though is getting comfortable with a lot of decision making professionally being in the ‘middle’ – a complex space with multiple competing factors. Engineers need to work with the principles of ethics to guide us to make sound and well-informed judgements.

It’s essential that tomorrow’s graduate engineers understand that ethics is not a ‘tack on’ statement at the end of a project proposal but rather that ethics is a core part of the role of an engineer. Using the Engineering Ethics Toolkit to help integrate ethics into the core of their education today is a very good way to do that. I recommend the Engineering Ethics Toolkit to all educators – the wealth of the resource cannot be understated in its support to a teacher’s session design and, most importantly, to a student’s learning.

You can find out more about getting involved or contributing to the Engineering Ethics Toolkit here.

 

This post is also available here.

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.

Let us know what you think of our website