Next Article in Journal
Envisioning Tourism and Proximity after the Anthropocene
Previous Article in Journal
The Sustainability Performance of Reinforced Concrete Structures in Tunnel Lining Induced by Long-Term Coastal Environment
Article

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development: Evaluation Criteria for Brazilian Context

1
Laboratory of Technology, Business and Environment Management (LATEC), Federal Fluminense University, Passo da Pátria Street, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro 24210-240, Brazil
2
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, Mendeleyev Street, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-970, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(10), 3947; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103947
Received: 19 April 2020 / Revised: 5 May 2020 / Accepted: 6 May 2020 / Published: 12 May 2020
Considering the increasing importance of sustainability in future professionals’ education and the role played by engineers in society, this paper aims to analyze the key criteria that should be considered in models to evaluate the insertion level of sustainability into engineering education, considering the Brazilian context. For this, criteria reported in the literature were collected and evaluated by engineering professors. The respondents were asked to classify the criteria as “essential”, “useful, but not essential”, or “not necessary”. Data collected were analyzed through Lawshe’s method. From 15 criteria collected from the literature, 5 were not considered essential to evaluate engineering education for sustainable development (EESD), according to data analysis: C2 (establishment of global partnerships), C4 (encouraging students to volunteer through extracurricular activities), C9 (use of active learning approaches to problem solving to teach aspects related to sustainability), C10 (use of service-learning towards the local community for educational purposes) and C15 (use of sustainability concept in university installations). It was possible to verify that most of these criteria (C2, C4, C10, and C15) were not directly related to engineering curricula, being parallel activities. Regarding C9, active learning approaches can enhance attributes important for students in the context of sustainable development, but they are not goals of EESD. This research contributes to the development of evaluation models for engineering education in the Brazilian context and its findings can also be useful for studies in other countries. No similar study was found in the literature. View Full-Text
Keywords: sustainability; sustainable development; engineering education; EESD; Brazil sustainability; sustainable development; engineering education; EESD; Brazil
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Rampasso, I.S.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Anholon, R.; Pereira, M.B.; Miranda, J.D.A.; Alvarenga, W.S. Engineering Education for Sustainable Development: Evaluation Criteria for Brazilian Context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103947

AMA Style

Rampasso IS, Quelhas OLG, Anholon R, Pereira MB, Miranda JDA, Alvarenga WS. Engineering Education for Sustainable Development: Evaluation Criteria for Brazilian Context. Sustainability. 2020; 12(10):3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103947

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rampasso, Izabela S., Osvaldo L.G. Quelhas, Rosley Anholon, Marcio B. Pereira, Jocimar D.A. Miranda, and Wenderson S. Alvarenga 2020. "Engineering Education for Sustainable Development: Evaluation Criteria for Brazilian Context" Sustainability 12, no. 10: 3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103947

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop