Dr. Manoj Ravi, with the support of colleagues and students, reflects on the outcomes of a hackathon between students from the University of Leeds and NTU Singapore which explored solutions to sustainability challenges as well as fostering interdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration.
Experiential learning is vital for preparing engineers to tackle sustainability challenges that cannot be solved in isolation. By enabling engineering students to work in intercultural and interdisciplinary settings, we foster systems thinking skills, where working alongside peers from diverse disciplines help further understand the interconnections between the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. Such collaboration reflects the reality that sustainable solutions must also bridge cultural perspectives across countries and local communities, emphasising the collaborative mindset and skills required to design solutions that are globally relevant, equitable and impactful.
How was it done?
Drawing inspiration from this idea, the University of Leeds (UoL) and Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU Singapore) organised a year-long student sustainability hackathon. We brought together 10 student teams, each with four members — two from UoL and two from NTU Singapore. The students were first- and second-year undergraduates, working in interdisciplinary groups that combined chemical engineering, bioengineering, and environmental sciences. They were asked to address open-ended problem statements focused on two critical themes for the context of Singapore and Leeds: sustainable transportation and retrofitting. Each problem statement was mapped onto the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring the work aligns with global sustainability priorities while giving students experience in addressing real-world challenges.
The student-led solutions to these global challenges were developed in two phases. Phase 1 was the ideation or conceptualisation stage where students used system and design thinking approaches to brainstorm potential solutions through a mix of asynchronous (individual reflection and analytical thinking) and synchronous activities (online meetings, group brainstorming and planning). Each group then presented their ideas as elevator pitches to receive feedback from staff at both universities. In the second phase, students moved onto validating their idea and prototyping. The objective of this phase was for students to move from ‘an idea on paper’ to produce something more tangible by demonstrating feasibility in multiple dimensions including technical feasibility, economic viability and regulatory alignment. This challenged students to confront issues that might not have been envisioned during the ideation phase often requiring multiple iterations. Each group had flexibility in terms of how they wanted to present their final hackathon output. The solutions proposed included smart, low-cost retrofitting strategies such as LED lighting, daylight harvesting and motion sensors, alongside more experimental approaches involving recycled materials, including food waste-derived phase change materials and repurposed plastic panels. In all these cases, teams considered the applicability of their solutions from a socio-cultural lens reconciling differences in subsidy structures, urban densities, infrastructure constraints and public behaviour across the two countries. This necessitated students to think of sustainable solutions that bridge cultural perspectives across countries and local communities.
Student reflections
“My biggest learnings through the hackathon have been the extent to which the feasibility of an environmental solution being implemented is dependent on various local and national regulations, as well as how the economic sustainability (and hence scalability) of these solutions can differ in different locations depending on the focus of regional environmental subsidies. I should benefit from these learnings in the future in terms of being more acutely aware of how to design a change to a chemical plant, for example, in a legal and economically sustainable way.” – UoL Chemical Engineering Student
“I signed up for this hackathon because I wanted to push myself beyond my comfort zone and explore how far my creativity could take me in an open-ended environment. I have always enjoyed brainstorming ideas and thinking of alternative ways to solve problems, and this hackathon felt like a good opportunity to challenge myself to innovate in areas I was less familiar with. Reflecting on the experience, my biggest learning was understanding how important it is to balance creativity with feasibility. I learned that good ideas need to be refined, prioritised, and supported by clear reasoning in order to be impactful. Working closely with my team also taught me how to adapt quickly, manage differing viewpoints, and stay focused on the core problem despite constraints. These learnings will benefit me in the future by helping me approach complex problems more confidently, collaborate effectively across disciplines, and develop solutions that are not only innovative but also realistic and meaningful projects.” – NTU Singapore Chemical and Bioengineering student
“My thinking changed in two ways. First, brainstorming became more disciplined. Instead of chasing the most exciting idea, we compared options and asked early questions: what problem does this solve, what assumptions are we making, what would fail first, and what evidence would be needed to support it. This helped reduce ambition into something more realistic. Second, I became more focused on feasibility. Over time, I shifted from “this sounds strong/interesting” to “what is the first thing that proves this can work?”, and “what would fail first?” That meant focusing on clear steps, constraints, and what would be required for real approval and real use.” – UoL Geology student
Staff reflections
As staff involved in the design and delivery of this hackathon, we believe this international collaboration creates new pathways for collaborative curriculum development and empowering students to engage deeply with the complexity of global climate challenges. One of our key reflections from this hackathon is that challenge-based learning offers a truly unique environment for students to develop sustainability competencies. It allows for an authentic and holistic consideration of sustainability whereby core disciplinary knowledge is grounded in socio-cultural, economic, policy and environmental considerations.
We also observe that resilience and commitment are crucial for students to successfully engage in this exercise. Working across largely different time zones with fellow students who bring in different perspectives and skills requires a strong degree of commitment and being resilient in the face of challenges. Students who engaged in the hackathon also commented on how they had to pivot on ideas and make assumptions when faced with inadequate information or uncertainties in data. These are all vital skills for future engineers to thrive in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world.
In future iterations, we aspire to focus on strengthening industry engagement and developing more structured mechanisms for evaluating student learning by embedding the activity within the programme or a module of study. More broadly, this work invites educators to consider how collaborative online international learning (COIL) might be adapted within their own institutional settings to better prepare students for the complexities of global engineering practice.
Authors
Dr Manoj Ravi, School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds
Dr Vasiliki Kioupi, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds
Ericka Lionny, School of Chemistry, Chemical and Bioengineering, NTU Singapore
Samuel Edwards, School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds
Abdulbari S Binafif, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds
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.
Engineering for One Planet (EOP) advances rapid innovation in engineering education, embedding sustainability and climate literacy to prepare engineers capable of solving today’s challenges without compromising tomorrow. For Earth Day on 22nd April, as part of our Sustainability Toolkit, we share details of their newest resources.
We know that engineering students are increasingly demanding the skills to address the climate crisis. We also know that educators’ syllabi are already packed, and finding the time to develop new, high-quality climate content can be a significant hurdle.
To bridge this gap, Engineering for One Planet (EOP) — in collaboration with 18 global organisations, including ABET, ASEE, ASME, and IEEE — is proud to release a new, open-access resource:
This guide is a practical companion to the EOP Framework. It provides a “menu” of flexible, vetted teaching activities designed to integrate seamlessly into existing courses. Whether you are teaching introductory, advanced, required, or elective engineering classes, this guide provides the modular tools you need to equip students with essential climate-related competencies.
Why use this guide?
Built for efficiency: You don’t need to overhaul your course. Pick a single activity that fits your current learning objectives and time constraints.
Peer-vetted: Co-created by a cross-sector community of engineers, climate experts, and teaching faculty.
Accreditation aligned: Activities have been mapped to AHEP4 and ABET Criteria 3 Student Outcomes (by educators, independently of ABET), Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Multidisciplinary and flexible: While rooted in engineering, the activities are adaptable for any technical or non-engineering discipline and for K12 or industry applications.
Free and open access: Distributed under a Creative Commons license so you can use, share, and build upon the work freely.
Select a Topic Area: Browse the 9 EOP competency areas (Systems Thinking, Environmental Literacy, Responsible Business and Economy, Social Responsibility, Environmental Impact Assessment, Materials, Design, Critical Thinking,Communication & Teamwork).
Adapt & implement: Choose an activity level (introductory, intermediate, or advanced) that matches your student level and drop it into your next lesson plan.
As engineers and engineering educators, we have a moral and professional imperative to design, code, and build in ways that protect life on Earth. This guide is your “first step” in preparing the future workforce to lead that change.
We invite you to explore the guide and join the global community of educators making sustainability a core tenet of the engineering profession.
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.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
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, Systems Modelling and Analysis, Configuration Management, Requirements Definition, Communication, Verification, and Validation 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: Advanced.
Learning and teaching notes:
Overview:
This multi-part case study guides students through the complex systems challenges of Prince Edward Island, Canada’s ambitious 100% renewable energy transition by 2030. Students will experience how technical, social, and economic factors interact through emergence, feedback loops, and multi-scale dynamics that traditional engineering analysis alone cannot capture.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Identify complex systems characteristics (emergence, feedback loops, nonlinearity) in real energy systems.
Apply multiple modelling approaches (ABM, system dynamics, network analysis) to analyse system behaviour.
Evaluate how technical decisions create emergent social and economic consequences.
Synthesise insights from different modelling approaches to inform policy recommendations.
Communicate complex systems concepts and uncertainties to non-technical stakeholders.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Demonstrate complex systems concepts through hands-on modelling.
Facilitate discussions on emergence and system-level behaviours.
Evaluate learners’ ability to apply systems thinking to engineering problems.
Connect technical modelling to real-world policy and social implications.
Overview: Energy transition as a complex systems challenge:
Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada’s smallest province, aims to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Its small grid, dependence on imported power, and growing renewable infrastructure make it a natural laboratory for systems thinking in energy transitions.
This case invites students to explore how technical, social, and policy decisions interact to shape renewable integration outcomes. Using complexity-science tools, they will uncover how local actions produce emergent system behaviour, and why traditional linear models often fail to predict real-world dynamics.
The complex challenge: Traditional engineering approaches often treat energy systems as predictable and linear, optimising components like generation, transmission, or storage in isolation. However, energy transitions are complex socio-technical systems, characterised by feedback loops, interdependencies, and emergent behaviours.
In PEI’s case, replacing stable baseload imports with variable wind and solar generation creates cascading effects on grid stability, pricing, storage demand, and social acceptance. The island’s bounded geography magnifies these interactions, making it an ideal context to observe emergence and system-level behaviour arising from local interactions.
PEI currently imports about 75% of its electricity via two 180 MW submarine cables, while 25% is produced locally through onshore wind farms (204 MW). Plans for offshore wind, community solar, and hydrogen projects have triggered debates around stability, affordability, and social acceptance.
Taking on the role of an engineer at TechnoGrid Consulting, students are tasked to advise Maritime Electric, the island’s utility, on modelling strategies to guide $2.5 billion in renewable investments.
Competing goals:
Maintain grid reliability while replacing fossil baseloads.
Achieve policy targets without increasing public resistance.
Balance economic cost, environmental benefit, and technological feasibility.
Discussion prompt:
In systems terms, where do you see tensions between policy, technology, and society? How might feedback loops amplify or mitigate these tensions?
While Maritime Electric’s engineering team insists the project scope should stay strictly technical, limited to grid hardware, generation, and storage, policy advisors argue that social behaviour, market pricing, and community engagement are part of the system’s real dynamics.
Expanding boundaries makes the model richer but harder to manage; narrowing them simplifies computation but risks missing the very factors that determine success.
Temporal boundaries: timescales from milliseconds (grid response) to decades (infrastructure).
Organisational boundaries: stakeholders, regulations, and markets.
Discuss how including or excluding elements (e.g., electric-vehicle uptake, community cooperatives, carbon policy) changes the model’s focus and meaning.
Learning insight:
Complex systems cannot be fully understood in isolation; boundaries are analytical choices that shape both perception and leverage. Every inclusion or exclusion reflects an assumption about what matters and that assumption determines which complexities emerge, and which stay hidden.
Part three: Modelling the system: Multiple lenses of complexity:
(a) Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) with NetLogo:
Students construct simplified models of households, businesses, and grid operators:
Household agents: decide to adopt rooftop solar based on payback time and neighbour influence.
Technology providers: adjust prices in response to market demand.
Grid operator: balances reliability and cost.
Emergent patterns such as adoption S-curves or network clustering illustrate how simple local rules generate complex collective dynamics.
(b) System Dynamics (SD) with Vensim:
Students then develop causal loop diagrams capturing key feedbacks:
Adoption–Learning Loop: installations ↓ costs ↓ encourage more adoption.
Cost–Acceptance Loop: higher bills ↓ public support ↓ investment capacity.
This provides a macroscopic view of feedback, delay, and leverage points.
(c) Network Analysis with Python (NetworkX):
Students model actor interdependencies: how households, utilities, industries, and regulators interact. Network metrics (centrality, clustering, connectivity) reveal where resilience or vulnerability is concentrated.
Reflection prompt:
Which modelling approach offered the most insight into system-level behaviour? What were the trade-offs in complexity and interpretability?
Part four: Scenario exploration: Pathways to 2030:
Students explore three transition scenarios, each with distinct emergent behaviours:
A. Distributed Solar + Community Storage
300 MW solar, 150 MWh batteries
Decentralised coordination challenges and social clustering effects.
B. Offshore Wind + Grid Enhancement
400 MW offshore wind, new 300 MW interconnection
Weather-dependent reliability and cross-border dependency.
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.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to highlight the connection between complex systems and sustainability within engineering learning.
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, Life Cycles, Capability Engineering, Systems Modelling and Analysis, and Design INCOSE competencies.
AHEP 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 AHEP themes of Materials, equipment, technologies and processes, and Sustainability.
Several sustainability challenges, such as transitioning to a circular economy, are embedded in complex socio-technical systems. A circular economy is an economic model that replaces the linear take-make-dispose pattern with systems that keep materials and products in use for longer through designing for durability, reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling, while minimising waste and regenerating natural systems (Rizos, Tuokko, and Behrens, 2017).
Complex systems like these exhibit feedback loops, delays, non-linear change, path dependence and emergent behaviour (Sterman, 2000; Meadows, 2008). This article introduces the idea of systems-based interventions using the example of aluminium recycling systems. It is designed for engineering educators who plan to provide learners with a baseline understanding of complexity and practical entry points for designing and developing and evaluating interventions that can move a system towards sustainability.
Complexity of aluminium recycling systems:
Aluminium is infinitely recyclable, yet achieving truly closed material loops at scale remains a challenge. Most of today’s recycling occurs in situations where post-consumer scrap is collected from a wide variety of end-of-life products and the boundaries of the recycling system are difficult to define and control. This creates high variability in both the composition and the quality of recovered aluminium, since different products contain different alloys and levels of contamination (IRT M2P, 2023). At the same time, the volume of available scrap is difficult to predict, as it depends on product lifespans and consumer behaviour. These fluctuations make it harder for producers to plan and optimise secondary aluminium output, particularly when industries rely on consistent standards or just-in-time manufacturing.
The recycling system is also shaped by broader economic and regulatory forces. On the one hand, demand for low-carbon materials and the cost advantage of recycled over primary aluminium are powerful drivers of growth. On the other hand, the system faces constraints from volatile scrap prices and shifting global trade dynamics, such as U.S. tariffs on aluminium imports. Meanwhile, new policy instruments are adding further complexity. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is set to reshape trade flows and investment patterns, while the forthcoming Digital Product Passport (DPP) will transform how information is shared across the value chain. Together, these forces influence technologies, markets and business models, underscoring the dynamic and interconnected nature of aluminium recycling.
These interconnected factors highlight aluminium recycling as a complex socio-technical system, in which technological capabilities, market incentives, policy frameworks, and global trade are deeply interconnected. For educators, this makes aluminium an effective example for teaching students how multiple forces interact to create both opportunities and challenges for sustainable engineering.
Intervention from systems perspective:
System Dynamics (SD), first formalised byForrester (1968), has proven to be a highly valuable approach for understanding and managing complex resource and recovery systems. SD is an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from psychology, organisational theory, economics, and related fields (Sterman, 2000). More supporting information about SD pedagogical tools and techniques can be found through the System Dynamics Society and Insight Maker.
From a systems perspective, interventions are not isolated events but strategic effort to influence system behaviour by targeting its structure and dynamics. A key concept here is leverage points – places within a complex system where small changes can lead to significant, systemic effects (Meadows, 1999). Meadows identified twelve types of leverage points, ranging from adjusting parameters to transforming the system’s underlying goals and paradigms, proving a conceptual framework for identifying impactful intervention.
Figure 1. Donella Meadows’ leverage points (Source: based on Meadows (1999); credit: UNDP/Carlotta Cataldi; reproduced fromBovarnick and Cooper (2021))
Exploration of potential leverage points:
System Dynamics (SD) tools such as Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) can help explore leverage points. CLDs can help visualise main components of a system and their interdependencies, making complex dynamics easier to understand. Besides, the process of building a CLD or more computational SD model encourages practitioners to clarify system boundaries, relationships, and drivers, laying the foundation for identifying leverage points.
For example, a CLD of aluminium recycling might capture how classification and sorting processes influence scrap quality, which then affects remelting efficiency and ultimately market uptake of recycled alloys (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2. The causal loop diagram for auto aluminium recycling (Liu et al., 2025)
By tracing these circular cause-and-effect relationships, learners can see where interventions may ripple through the system. Highlighting reinforcing loops, balancing loops, and delays also shows why some interventions produce limited short-term results but more substantial long-term effects.
Leverage points can also be examined through the lens of information, rules, and goals. Improved information flows, such as those enabled by the Digital Product Passport, could reshape how scrap is sorted and valued. Rules, such as alloy specifications or trade tariffs, determine what types of recycled material can enter the market. At a deeper level, the goals of the system, whether to maximise throughput or to retain material value, fundamentally shape behaviour. Here too, CLDs are valuable because they allow users to visualise how changes to information, rules, or goals can shift system dynamics, providing a clearer picture of where interventions might be most effective.
Implication for educators:
This article equips educators with a focused, practical pathway to teach systems thinking through the example of aluminium recycling. Students can gain both conceptual understanding and hands-on skills to map feedback loops, identify delays, and design interventions that account for short-term trade-offs and long-term system behaviour. Teaching a single clear CLD followed by one modelling or scenario activity produces measurable learning gains while keeping the task accessible for beginners.
Educational approach:
Prioritise structure before solutions: have students map feedback loops and delays before proposing fixes.
Use one classroom-ready CLD as the anchor activity and one hands-on modelling task to test interventions.
Emphasise leverage thinking: move from parameter tweaks to information, rules, goals and paradigms as students mature.
Keep language simple and concrete: avoid jargon, introduce terms with examples, and reuse the same CLD across activities.
Use open-access tools (Insight Maker, Loopy, Vensim PLE) so students can visualise and experiment without software barriers.
Focus assessment on reasoning about system behaviour and predicted long-term effects rather than exact numerical answers.
Potential related learning outcomes within this topic:
Define stocks, flows, feedback loops, delays, reinforcing and balancing loops.
Explain why aluminium recycling is a complex socio-technical system influenced by technology, markets, policy, and information.
Construct a simple CLD for an aluminium recycling pathway and identify at least two reinforcing and one balancing loop.
Identify two leverage points and justify which one to prioritise, citing anticipated short- and long-term system effects.
Translate the CLD into a basic stock-and-flow sketch in an open-access tool and run one scenario to compare outcomes.
Further resources:
European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Environmental and socio-economic impacts of the circular economy transition in the EU cement and concrete sector – Analysing plastics material flows with life cycle-based and macroeconomic assessment models, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/6579506
The Complexity and Interconnectedness of Circular Cities and the Circular Economy for Sustainability — analysis of research themes and networked interactions relevant for urban/material systems; useful for teaching complexity and cross-sector links. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.2766
Bovarnick, A. and Cooper, S. (2021) “From what to how: rethinking food systems interventions,” Agriculture for Development. Edited by K. Hussein, 22 April, pp. 49–53.
Forrester, J.W. (1968) “Industrial Dynamics—After the First Decade,” Management Science, 14(7), pp. 398–415. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.7.398.
Liu, M., Schneider, K., Litos, L., Salonitis, K., 2025. Enhancing Secondary Aluminium Supply: Optimising Urban Mining Through a Systems Thinking Approach, in: Edwards, L. (Ed.), Light Metals 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 1273–1279.
Meadows, D.H. (1999) Leverage Points – Places to Intervene in a System, The Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Sterman, J. (2000) “Business Dynamics, System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.” Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/102741 (Accessed: September 4, 2025).
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.
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:
Enable students to recognise interconnections, interdependencies, and evolving behaviours of stakeholders within socio-technical systems.
Support learners in applying systems frameworks —particularly the Cynefin framework and stakeholder mapping—to analyse complexity, uncertainty, and decision-making in climate resilience and disaster mitigation contexts.
Apply systems thinking tools and frameworks to real-world challenges, such as climate resilience and disaster mitigation.
Strengthen confidence in addressing uncertainty and complexity in engineering problem-solving.
Collaborate effectively across diverse teams, appreciating multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Reflect critically on trade-offs and decision-making in engineering practice.
Equip students to transfer systems insights from case-based scenarios to broader projects in their curriculum and future professional practice.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce students to complex systems concepts through engaging, real-world case studies.
Facilitate interactive, blended learning using narrative-driven tools, explainer animations, and role-play exercises.
Assess learners’ baseline and improved understanding of systems thinking through pre- and post-module surveys.
Guide students in navigating multiple systems frameworks while managing cognitive load.
Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder-focused analysis within classroom or project-based settings.
Adapt and scale the teaching activity for different educational levels, contexts, and case study themes (e.g., floods, wildfires, extreme heat).
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.
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.
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:
Baseline survey: assesses initial understanding of systems thinking, approaches to complex problems, and confidence in collaboration.
Scenario-based survey: applies systems thinking questions to a specific context (e.g. extreme monsoon rains and flooding in the case of Sakura Cove – as per the group assignment in module 1).
Post-module survey: measures changes in understanding, confidence, and skills, while also capturing qualitative reflections on learning.
The form provides both quantitative data (Likert scales) and qualitative insights (open-ended reflections), enabling robust evaluation of teaching impact.
Assessment:
Formative: Pre- and post-module surveys assess changes in learners’ self-reported understanding of systems thinking (Appendix A). Facilitators may adapt reflective prompts and scenario-based activities as part of coursework.
Summative (optional): Students can integrate insights into ongoing design projects (e.g. climate resilience in urban redevelopment), with assessment based on problem analysis, stakeholder engagement, and solution development.
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:
Initial Mandate: Students explore how the QRA was first tasked with rapid technical recovery—fixing roads after flood damage.
Narrative Depth: They study the Queensland floods of 2010–11 not just as a physical shock, but as a systemic stress test on multiple layers: infrastructure, governance, and community systems.
2. Analysis & insights module:
Framework Application: Learners apply systems frameworks (e.g., Cynefin, stakeholder maps) to see how QRA’s remit expanded over time—from asset restoration to hazard anticipation and community resilience.
Knowledge Types: Students distinguish between explicit knowledge (e.g., rebuild standards, hydrology data) and tacit knowledge (e.g., local inter-agency trust, relational coordination).
Governance Layers: Activities explore how resilience depends on multi-level governance, local-state-federal coordination, and overcoming systemic barriers like funding cycles or short-lived institutional mandates.
3. Discussion & transfer learning module:
Reflective Debate: Students weigh whether engineering alone can deliver resilience, or whether social relationships and institutions are equally critical.
Barrier Identification: They debate typical constraints—political, funding, institutional—and propose ways systems thinking can mitigate them.
Transfer Lab: Learners apply the evolved QRA model to other scenarios—e.g., urban heat adaptation or wildfires—considering both technical measures and governance dynamics.
Interactive learning design:
The teaching activity integrates multiple interactive elements to immerse students in systems thinking:
Role-play simulations: Learners take on the role of Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) decision-makers, negotiating trade-offs between immediate engineering fixes and long-term institutional resilience. This requires balancing technical priorities with building trust, relationships, and governance capacity.
Scenario challenges: Students are presented with governance disruptions (e.g. funding cuts, loss of stakeholder trust, leadership turnover). They must reframe solutions using systems approaches, moving from reactive technical patchworks towards adaptive, capacity-building strategies.
Interactive digital tools: The online platform provides hotspot maps for exploring interdependencies, drag-and-drop activities for categorising frameworks, explainer animations, and AI-driven chatbot negotiations with sceptical stakeholders. These exercises develop critical and applied problem-solving skills.
Collaborative reflection: Group discussions and peer-to-peer feedback allow learners to surface diverse perspectives, debate trade-offs, and integrate insights into ongoing project briefs.
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
Holistic understanding of resilience: Students experience resilience as more than just technical recovery. They engage with a dynamic system that includes knowledge creation, governance evolution, and social relationships.
Adaptive systems thinking in action: The evolving narrative demonstrates how system boundaries shift over time, and how sustainable outcomes require not only engineering but institutional and cultural change.
Direct relevance to real-world engineering: The case mirrors global infrastructure challenges where effective disaster response and resilience planning depend on the interplay between technical solutions, governance capacity, and community engagement.
Guided questions and activities:
Facilitators can use these prompts to stimulate inquiry and structured reflection:
Who are the key stakeholders in the QRA flood response, and where do their priorities align or conflict?
How do feedback loops and interdependencies influence resilience planning?
What trade-offs exist between rapid repair and long-term resilience?
How can systems frameworks such as the Cynefin model or stakeholder mapping guide decision-making under uncertainty?
In role-play: how would you convince a sceptical funder (AI chatbot) to invest in resilience measures?
How could lessons from flood mitigation be applied to other contexts such as wildfire or urban heat resilience?
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:
Broader case study base: Educators can expand beyond flood resilience to include wildfire, storm, or extreme heat events.
Integration with larger modules: The activity can be embedded into project-based learning modules (e.g. urban redevelopment, transport network resilience).
Advanced complexity: For higher-level learners, facilitators can introduce additional frameworks (e.g. agent-based modelling, system dynamics) to deepen analysis.
This flexibility allows educators to tailor the activity to their students’ level of expertise, institutional context, and disciplinary focus.
References:
Design Council. (2021). Beyond Net Zero: A systemic design approach. Design Council.
Godfrey, P., Crick, R. D., & Huang, S. (2014). Systems thinking, systems design and learning power in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education.
Monat, J., Gannon, T., & Amissah, M. (2022). The case for systems thinking in undergraduate engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 12(3), 50–88.
Nachbagauer, A. (2021). Managing complexity in projects: Extending the Cynefin framework. Project Leadership and Society, 2, 100017.
Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self‐awareness. Journal of knowledge management, 6(2), 100-111.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Siara Isaac; Valentina Rossi; Joelyn de Lima.
Topic: Transversal skills that promote sustainability.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate ESD into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.
This experiential activity aims to incorporate sustainability reflections into students’ group work. It uses a selection of materials with different properties to engage participants in building a wind turbine prototype based on a contextualised negotiation of multiple facets of sustainability.
Taking a disciplinary standpoint, participants first assume one of four engineering roles to identify specific sustainability priorities based on their role’s responsibilities and expertise. Next, they represent the perspective of their assigned role in an interdisciplinary group to optimise sustainability in the design of a wind turbine.
Throughout the activity, students are given targeted and short theoretical input on a selection of transversal skills that facilitate the integration of sustainability in group work: systems thinking, negotiation skills and perspective taking.
This activity guide provides the outline and material to assist the facilitator to prepare, and the slides and handouts for teaching the activity in approximately 75min. It can be facilitated with tangible objects (e.g. LEGO) as well as online. We invite you to adapt this activity to your context and tangibles availability.
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. Kieran Higgins(Ulster University); Dr. Alison Calvert (Queen’s University Belfast).
Topic: Integrating Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into higher education curricula.
Sustainability competency: Anticipatory; Integrated problem-solving; Strategic; Systems thinking.
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 ESD into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.
Learning and Teaching Notes:
Supported by AdvanceHE, this Toolkit provides a structured approach to integrating Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into higher education curricula. It uses the CRAFTS methodology and empowers educators to enhance their modules and programs with sustainability competencies aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Key Features:
• Five-Phase Process: Analyse stakeholder needs, map current provision, reflect on opportunities for development, redesign with an ESD focus, and create an action plan for continuous enhancement.
• Practical Tools: Includes templates for stakeholder analysis, module planning, active learning activities, and evaluation.
• Flexible Implementation: Designed for use at both module and programme level.
• Competency-Based: Focuses on developing authentic learning experiences across cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural domains.
Benefits
• Identify stakeholder sustainability needs
• Map existing ESD elements in your curriculum
• Reflect on opportunities to enhance ESD integration
• Redesign modules with active learning approaches of ESD
• Create actionable plans for implementation and evaluation
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. Kieran Higgins (Ulster University); Dr. Alison Calvert (Queen’s University Belfast).
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by module coordinators, programme directors, and teaching teams in higher education who want to meaningfully integrate ESD into their curriculum design and delivery.
It’s always a struggle to get started on something new in the time- and resource-poor environment that is higher education. Sustainability can become just another box to tick rather than the world-changing priority it should be.
We knew there was more to ESD than simply labelling a module handbook with the SDG logos, especially when it was only SDG4 because it happens to mention education. There was a need to become familiar and comfortable with a deeper perspective on the SDGs and their related targets and indicators – without becoming intimidated by them. ESD should prepare students to tackle unforeseen challenges and navigate complex systems, rather than focusing on content alone. As higher education professionals, we recognised the inherent challenges of this.
As a result, we developed our CRAFTS (Co-Designing Reflective Approaches for the Teaching of Sustainability) model of curriculum design, based on an adaptation of Design Thinking, to provide a structured and usable, yet accessible, flexible, and not discipline-specific means of embedding and embodying ESD in the curriculum. We were then approached by AdvanceHE to develop this further into a practical, systematic resource that would empower educators to take genuine ownership of sustainability in their teaching and assessment.
The Toolkit helps tackle these issues in a straightforward way by breaking them down into five stages.
First, it shows how to analyse what stakeholders like students, employers and accrediting bodies want and need from a module when it comes to sustainability.
Then, it guides educators to map exactly what is being taught as the curriculum stands, aligning it to the SDGs and the ESD Competencies. This is a moment of real relief for many people, who discover that much of what they already do aligns perfectly with ESD.
After that, there’s a guided reflection to see where stronger integration might happen or where superficial coverage can be expanded into something more meaningful.
The redesign process helps to embed active learning and authentic assessments and finishes off with an action plan for moving forward and measuring impact for future evaluation.
We find it heartening to watch colleagues pivot from feeling like ESD is an add-on to realising it can enhance what they already do. Instead of worrying that they must become experts in every single SDG, the Toolkit reminds them that authentic engagement with a few well-chosen goals can lead to the deeper kind of learning we all aspire to provide.
This personal, reflective approach has helped academics overcome the sense that sustainability in the curriculum is an overwhelming requirement. They see it as a powerful lens through which students learn to handle uncertainty, become resilient critical thinkers and gain the confidence to tackle real-world problems.
We hope the Toolkit continues to spark conversations and encourage more creative approaches to ESD across disciplines. We don’t believe there’s a one-size-fits-all solution. It has been inspiring to see colleagues reclaim that sense of possibility and excitement, reassured that teaching for a sustainable future can be woven into what they’re already doing – just with an extra layer of intentionality and reflection.
If you’re looking for a way to bring ESD into your own classroom, we hope the Toolkit will be a reliable companion on that journey.
Dr Kieran Higgins (Lecturer in Higher Education Practice, Ulster University) and Dr Alison Calvert (Senior Lecturer in Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast) have collaborated on Education for Sustainable Development projects for over 4 years, drawing on extensive and wide ranging experiences of higher education and sustainability. Their vision is of transformed global higher education curricula that empowers all graduates, regardless of discipline or career path, to become champions of a sustainable future.
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.
Have YOU used the Sustainability Toolkit? We’re trying to understand the impact that this educational resource has had since its launch in March 2024. Understanding impact is key to our ability to further develop and expand the Toolkit’s reach.
You can help us by answering a few quick questions (below) and by forwarding this questionnaire to anyone you know who might also have used the Sustainability Toolkit. There is no deadline for submitting this form; we are interested in your ongoing experiences.
If you would be interested in contributing a blog on teaching sustainability or your use of the Sustainability Toolkit, please contact Sarah Hitt for further discussion.
“Engineers are uniquely equipped to help achieve the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
The United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a holistic approach to global progress, demanding a united effort to eradicate poverty and inequality alongside advancements in health, education, and sustainable economic growth. Recognizing the interconnectedness of these challenges, the SDGs emphasize tackling climate change and environmental degradation to ensure a viable future.
Engineering for One Planet (EOP) aligns with this vision by equipping future engineers with the necessary expertise to address these complex, interrelated issues. Through this focus, EOP directly contributes to achieving the UN’s ambitious agenda for a more sustainable future.” – Engineering for One Planet
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: 
Authors: Siara Isaac; Valentina Rossi; Joelyn de Lima.