Systematic Review of How Engineering Schools around the World Are Deploying the 2030 Agenda
Abstract
:1. Introduction, Background and Literature Review
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Question
2.2. Search Strategy
2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Trial Flow/Selection Process
3. Results
3.1. Study Descriptors
3.2. Interventions
3.3. Stakeholder Collaborations
3.4. Teaching–Learning Strategies Proposed
3.5. Main Data and Conclusions of Each Study
- Method: Using different references, the study defended the Problem-based Learning and Case Studies methodologies as the best methods in engineering education.
- Results: It is necessary to create national quality agencies in Africa for improving the studies’ accreditations and the students’ mobility. Problem-based Learning allows the development of the SDGs with the competencies identified by US agencies for engineering studies.
- Method: Introduction of research, dissemination and service–learning projects.
- Results: The educators have the power to make a significant impact in their communities, and, through science outreach, the educators can inspire students to make a positive impact on our planet and work toward building a sustainable and equitable future.
- Method: Working in groups for the Final Project and with the support of professional mentors. After the selection of one SDG at the beginning, the impact is examined with respect to the environment, societal benefits, and economics.
- Results: In additional to gaining familiarity with both the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Envision Rating System, the experience of working closely with professional mentors requires the students to communicate effectively and become socially aware of the global impact of their designs (skills essential to all engineering graduates), whether they pursue careers in professional design or research.
- Method: The rubric’s constructs of sustainable design and their measures were validated in three phases, consistent with the Benson model of construct validity. The criteria identified as part of the previously discussed literature review were validated based on a survey of multidisciplinary experts, as well as on a comparison with existing sustainable design frameworks. Among other frameworks, the UN Sustainable Development Goals was developed to provide guidance to the global community on how to develop sustainably.
- Results: The students learned more efficiently about different dimensions of sustainability, established expectations for sustainable design, and self-assessed how well principles were applied to design projects.
- Method: A holistic sustainability rubric was prepared to assess students’ ability to incorporate sustainability principles into their work. Ten works based on SDGs in the subjects of the Master of Thermal Engineering at the University of Vigo were evaluated.
- Results: Students either did not consider or poorly considered economic criteria, and, on the other hand, they considered environmental, technical and social dimensions. Among the latter dimensions, the environmental sub-criterion was the most applied in the works, and the technical and social dimensions less so.
- Method: An overview of key samples in Australia and the USA.
- Results: The authors proposed that accreditation agencies update their documents, as well as educational institutions renew their students’ graduation profiles and degrees, to ensure that their study plans develop the capacities and competencies necessary to achieve the objectives and indicators of the SDGs. They suggested conducting surveys in industries that are expert in sustainability and in the SDGs.
- Method: Within a semiannual subject (Humanitarian Engineering Past and Present), they developed in two parts (humanities and engineering) engineering projects, taking into account humanistic thinking with the support of an interdisciplinary team of teachers.
- Results: Through interdisciplinary work, students demonstrated acceptable levels of engineering knowledge within specific contexts. They also showed their desire to work toward the SDGs and to consider criteria of social justice.
- Method: An active learning program was designed in the STEM subjects so that students could experience which gender differences affect technologies and discover methods to prevent and resolve these aspects. A previous diagnosis was made in relation to the perception of differences by gender. After that, some cases were presented in which the students discerned which were the structures that generated inequities and offered technical solutions using learning from different subjects. A Pre- and Post-questionnaire was made to check the changes in their perceptions of gender inequalities.
- Results: The students, after the experience, became more sensitive to gender inequality and were able to implement learning from different subjects to achieve the solution. The results obtained were communicated to the industry and society, as well as the need to educate students in these skills to collaborate in the achievement of SDG5.
- Method: Data mining from workshops, reflexive questionnaires, focal groups, stakeholders, and people interested in electrical companies.
- Results: High motivation, better abilities, collaborative work, and improvement of the continuous evaluation and feedback. All stakeholders, teachers, students, and authors of the challenges saw and understood the potential of Challenge-based Learning.
- Method: Laboratory experiments with algae, projects, and lessons.
- Results: The curriculum was successfully implemented in first-course engineering subjects and in high school classrooms.
- Method: Literature review and verification based on experimentation.
- Results: A new theory of inventive problem-solving (TRIZ) was defined, as well as the didactic opportunities of the method. The hypothesis (that the same technologies that have been used in a different way can be the solution) was confirmed as a result of the analysis of existing cognitive technologies. TRIZ makes it possible to solve the problem of ensuring the stability of environmental protection.
- Method: Problems were proposed to students within the scope of the 17 SDGs. They analyzed the reports and learning diaries of three team projects.
- Results: The real learning framework provided students with a high degree of freedom in terms of marketing, sustainability, and ethics, and reinforced their technical–scientific and personal skills.
- Method: They designed an engineering training from a Practice-based approach with three premises: working on engineering practices in an authentic context, learning to be a student, engineer, and citizen, and generating opportunities to work and learn simultaneously.
- Results: More research is needed about how to incorporate complexity and address different aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals within co-designed client projects. Moreover, there were clear benefits in learning and working at the same time on projects aligned with the SDGs, but the tension between work and learning must be taken care of. The Problem-based Learning method is normally integrated into traditional Study Plans, with the contents and evaluation giving rise to hybrid learning models (traditional + PBL), but, on the other hand, Practice-based Education (PBE) does not suffer from these limitations.
- Method: They merged a blended format (classroom and online), Flipped Classroom, and sequential learning by levels of complexity (mastery learning) and “buffet” evaluation. Student characteristics and satisfaction were also collected from a mix of undergraduate and graduate students.
- Results: They found that students had different opinions, depending on their characteristics; teachers thought that preparing a course like this was much more time-consuming than the traditional method. The buffet evaluation was considered very appropriate since it generated both new opportunities and new challenges, compared to a traditional grading system. Because of the size of the sample, it will be necessary to repeat the experience in order to ensure the results. In addition, it will be necessary to monitor students in their professional practice to detect how these types of courses work the context of the industry.
- Method: Using a Government call, a new curriculum called Idefi-Eco Trophelia was introduced to train agri-food engineers to create food eco-innovations and introduce them to the market. Students will understand better the complexity if they are trained in the SDG they must develop.
- Results: Through this program, engineering students developed not only eco-design and innovation skills for new food products, but also entrepreneurship and management skills to design and carry out new business models. In addition, they actively participated in a complex project, as required in their work on SDGs.
- Method: Activities designed where the students must develop a project through user-centered technologies.
- Results: The main results were extracted from the students’ reflections. Two major themes emerged from the qualitative data from both courses: the practical challenges that the students faced, including time constraints and communications difficulties, and on the other side, the ways in which these projects allowed students to understand the links between the social and technical dimensions of their projects. Drawing on these themes, the authors suggested that student participation in sustainable development projects with a focus on stakeholder engagement provides them with an understanding of the complexities and their roles in sustainable development projects.
- Method: Review of 67 engineering degrees to identify practices to preserve the life and alleviate the human suffering. They had three main research topics: international terms and the definitions used, study typologies and their recognition, and strategies to improve the education.
- Results: The variety of approaches raised the need to ensure the education quality. There are international networks that can serve as a basis to ensure that programs meet student expectations. A constructive dialogue should be opened to standardize the terms and common themes.
- Method: Students participated in a conference in which different universities met. They also had previous learning activities. They were asked about ten questions and had to share their answers on Twitter.
- Results: A total of 87 responses were obtained. The answers were classified by codes according to the topic, and 50 codes were obtained. The topics covered in the reflections were too varied.
- Method: The fundamental methodology was the participation in a real challenge that students must solve. The best solutions would be implemented in the country to which they are addressed. In addition, students carried out a self-evaluation of their competencies before and after developing the project.
- Results: Through Problem-based Learning, students learned specific and generic competencies.
- Method: Literature review of more than 50 case studies of engineering problem-solving in different engineering sectors that were brought to the classroom. They used Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) as an instrument.
- Results: High degree of satisfaction in the students with the practice. In general, they preferred the system proposed over the theoretical method.
- Method: The authors proposed an analytical impact approach to quantify the interactions among all the SDGs and to organize and prioritize those most likely to affect others. They did an analysis of the SDGs, with the focus on influence and dependency with a cross-impact analysis.
- Results: The analysis showed that by focusing on the SDGs of Education, Water sanitation and hygiene, Energy, Cities, and especially Consumption, Governance, and Partnerships, it is possible to influence the other goals and help their success. Focusing on eliminating Poverty worsens poverty, as it inhibits other goals that impact Poverty.
- Method: Doing the experiment and asking students.
- Results: The study proved to be technically and pedagogically effective, showing that global problems can be useful tools to develop in future professionals a mentality of sustainability.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In A New Era in Global Health; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
- Teh, S.Y.; Koh, H.L. Education for sustainable development: The STEM approach in Universiti Sains Malaysia. In World Sustainability Series; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 567–587. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, P.; Lüderitz, V. Integration of ecosystem services as part of the nexus approach into the applied teaching of ecological engineering. In World Sustainability Series; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 369–387. [Google Scholar]
- Lepeshev, A.; Kuimov, V.; Sidorkina, O.; Kozlov, A.; Pogrebnaya, T. Ecological engineering of the sixth innovation wave in system of continuous training and Municipal Facilities Development. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 2–5 March 2018; Volume 170. [Google Scholar]
- Malheiro, B.; Silva, M.F.; Ferreira, P.; Guedes, P. Learning engineering with [email protected] developing projects for smart sustainable cities. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. 2019, 9, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tovar, E.; Tabuenca, B.; Alzaghoul, A.; Kloos, C.D.; Sluss, J.; López-Rey, Á.; Ruiz, E.; García-Loro, F.; Sancristóbal, E.; Artacho, M.R.; et al. Do MOOCs sustain the UNESCO’s quality education goal? In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, Madrid, Spain, 9–11 April 2019; Volume April-2019, pp. 1499–1503. [Google Scholar]
- Trad, S.P.; Hadgraft, R.G.; Gardner, A.P. Sustainability invisibility: Are we hooked on technical rationality? In Proceedings of the 46th SEFI Annual Conference 2018: Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Engineering Education Excellence, Copenhagen, Denmark, 17–21 September 2019; pp. 479–486. [Google Scholar]
- Tien, D.T.K.; Namasivayam, S.N.; Ponniah, L.S. A review of transformative learning theory with regards to its potential application in engineering education. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, 3–4 July 2019; Volume 2137. [Google Scholar]
- Desha, C.; Rowe, D.; Hargreaves, D. A review of progress and opportunities to foster development of sustainability-related competencies in engineering education. Australas J. Eng. Educ. 2019, 24, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tull, R.; Jangha, S.; Medina, Y.; Bell, T.; Parker, R. Sharing peace engineering with US-based minority students, through the UN’s sustainable development goals, in Peru. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Engineering Education Forum-Global Engineering Deans Council, WEEF-GEDC, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 12–16 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zuin, V.G.; Segatto, M.L.; Zandonai, D.P.; Grosseli, G.M.; Stahl, A.; Zanotti, K.; Andrade, R.S. Integrating green and sustainable chemistry into undergraduate teaching laboratories: Closing and assessing the loop on the basis of a citrus biorefinery approach for the biocircular economy in Brazil. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 2975–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirata, S. Higher education practices accounting for gender differences in technological development as part of SDGs achievement. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, Wollongong, Australia, 4–7 December 2018; pp. 207–214. [Google Scholar]
- Mann, L.; Chang, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Coddington, A.; Daniel, S.; Cook, E.; Crossin, E.; Cosson, B.; Turner, J.; Mazzurco, A.; et al. From problem-based learning to practice-based education: A framework for shaping future engineers. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serhan, H.; Yannou-Lebris, G. The engineering of food with sustainable development goals: Policies, curriculums, business models, and practices. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N.M.; Teschner, B.A.; Bullock, R. Bringing sustainable development challenges into the engineering classroom: Applying human centered design protocols to artisanal and small-scale mining. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 24–27 June 2018; Volume 2018-June. [Google Scholar]
- Abbott, D.; Chipika, S.; Wilson, G. The potential of problem-based learning to enhance engineering education in African Universities. J. Int. Dev. 2020, 32, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Balbaert, J.; Park, J.; Marimon, R.; Serfozo, A.; Cazelles, M.; Domenic, S.C.; Speckstadt, A.; Skonieczna, K.; Rajnai, G.; Daza, J.P.; et al. Design of sustainable domes in the context of [email protected] In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Jaipur, India, 21–24 September 2016; Volume 02–04-Nove, pp. 105–112. [Google Scholar]
- Oerther, D.B. Introduction to environmental modeling: Results from a three-year pilot. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings; ASEE, Ed.; American Society for Engineering Education: Tampa, FL, USA, 2019; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Vazquez-Brust, D.; Piao, R.S.; De Melo, M.F.D.S.; Yaryd, R.T.; Carvalho, M. The governance of collaboration for sustainable development: Exploring the “black box”. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giribabu, D. Mapping and scoping of the world concepts to the sustainable development goals: The first review. Sustainable (USA) 2019, 12, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, L. Entrepreneurship education and sustainable development goals: A literature review and a closer look at fragile states and technology-enabled approaches. Sustainable 2019, 11, 5343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Allen, C.; Metternicht, G.; Wiedmann, T. Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1453–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.; Tran, A.L.H.; Compston, P. Review of humanitarian action and development engineering education programmes. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2020, 45, 249–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schardt, C.; Adams, M.B.; Owens, T.; Keitz, S.; Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Blatti, J.L.; Garcia, J.; Cave, D.; Monge, F.; Cuccinello, A.; Portillo, J.; Juarez, B.; Chan, E.; Schwebel, F. Systems thinking in science education and outreach toward a sustainable future. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 2852–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Brunell, L. A real-world approach to introducing sustainability in civil engineering capstone design. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings; ASEE: Tampa, FL, USA, 2019; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
- Cowan, C.; Barrella, E.; Watson, M.K.; Anderson, R. Validating content of a sustainable design rubric using established frameworks. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Columbus, OH, USA, 25–28 June 2017; Volume 2017-June. [Google Scholar]
- Jahan, K.; Forin, T.R.; Breen, R.; Hurley, P.L.; Pepe, E.E.; Shen, J.; Noshadi, I. Integrating humanities with engineering fundamentals. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 24–27 June 2018; Volume 2018-June. [Google Scholar]
- Zelinka, D.; Amadei, B. A methodology to model the integrated nature of the Sustainable development goals: Importance for engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Columbus, OH, USA, 24–28 June 2017; Volume 2017-June. [Google Scholar]
- Dodson, L.; DiBiasio, D.; Bergendahl, J.A.; Quinn, P.; Sullivan, J.M.; Gaudette, G.; Abel, C.; Boudreau, K. Knowing and caring about sanitation. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Columbus, OH, USA, 25–28 June 2017; Volume 2017-June. [Google Scholar]
- Willicks, F.; Stehling, V.; Haberstroh, M. Sustainable development goals meet “Third mission”: The engineers without borders challenge in Germany. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings; ASEE, Ed.; American Society for Engineering Education: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2018; Volume 2018-June, p. 16. [Google Scholar]
- Crespo, B.; Míguez-álvarez, C.; Arce, M.E.; Cuevas, M.; Míguez, J.L. The sustainable development goals: An experience on higher education. Sustainable 2017, 9, 1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Wolff, K.; Van Breda, L.; Rodriguez, R. Trialling a problem-solving engineering learning environment. In Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium, REES 2019-Making Connections; SASEE, Ed.; SASEE: Cape Town, South Africa, 2019; pp. 733–740. [Google Scholar]
- Hogfeldt, A.K.; Gumaelius, L.; Lantz, A.; Lujara, S. Understanding engineering education change with the introduction of challenge driven education in Tanzania. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 17–20 April 2018; Volume 2018-April, pp. 1335–1343. [Google Scholar]
Database | Search Terms | Fields | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Web of Science (WOS) | “Sustainable Development Goal*” OR SDG* OR “2030 Agenda” | AND | “engineering education” OR “technological school*” OR “technological institute*” OR “polytechnic institute*” OR “polytechnic school*” | Title Abstract Author Keywords Keywords plus |
SCOPUS | Title Abs Key | |||
WOS complete search | ((“Sustainable Development Goal*” OR SDG* OR “2030 Agenda”) AND ((engineering AND education) OR (technological AND school*) OR (technological AND institute *) OR (polytechnic AND institute*) OR (polytechnic AND school*))) | |||
SCOPUS complete search | TITLE-ABS-KEY (((“Sustainable Development Goal*” OR sdg* OR “2030 Agenda”) AND ((engineering AND education) OR (technological AND school*) OR (technological AND institute*) OR (polytechnic AND institute*) OR (polytechnic AND school*)))) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2015)) |
Doc. | Research Country | Doc. | Journal |
---|---|---|---|
[10,15,18,25,26,27,28,29] | USA | [15,18,26,27,28,29,30,31] | ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings |
[13,23] | Australia | [13,23] | European Journal of Engineering Education |
[16,30] | United Kingdom | [11,25] | Journal of Chemical Education |
[11] | Brazil | [16] | Journal of International Development |
[14] | France | [32] | Sustainability (Switzerland) |
[31] | Germany | [9] | Australasian Journal of Engineering Education |
[12] | Japan | [12] | Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, TALE |
[5] | Portugal | [5] | International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy |
[4] | Russia | [14] | International Journal of Sustainable Engineering |
[33] | South Africa | [10] | 2018 World Engineering Education Forum–Global Engineering Deans Council, WEEF-GEDC |
[32] | Spain | [33] | Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium, REES–Making Connections |
[34] | Sweden | ||
(a) | (b) |
Authorship | Type of Document | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |
Abbott, Chipika, and Wilson (2020) [16] | X | X | X | |
Blatti et al. (2019) [25] | X | X | X | |
Brunell (2019) [26] | X | X | ||
Cowan et al. (2017) [27] | X | X | ||
Crespo et al. (2017) [32] | X | |||
Desha, Rowe, and Hargreaves (2019) [9] | X | X | X | |
Dodson et al. (2017) [30] | X | X | ||
Hirata (2019) [12] | X | X | ||
Hogfeldt et al. (2018) [34] | X | X | ||
Jahan et al. (2018) [28] | X | X | X | |
Lepeshev et al. (2018) [4] | X | X | ||
Malheiro et al. (2019) [5] | X | X | ||
Mann et al. (2020) [13] | X | X | X | |
Oerther (2019) [18] | X | X | ||
Serhan and Yannou-Lebris (2020) [14] | X | X | X | X |
Smith, Teschner, and Bullock (2018) [15] | X | X | ||
Smith, Tran, and Compston (2020) [23] | X | X | X | |
Tull et al. (2019) [10] | X | X | ||
Willicks, Stehling, and Haberstroh (2018) [31] | X | X | ||
Wolff, Van Breda, and Rodriguez (2019) [33] | X | X | ||
Zelinka and Amadei (2017) [29] | X | |||
Zuin et al. (2019) [11] | X |
Authorship | Type of Document | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | |
Abbott, Chipika, and Wilson (2020) [16] | X | |||||||
Blatti et al. (2019) [25] | X | |||||||
Brunell (2019) [26] | X | |||||||
Cowan et al. (2017) [27] | Do not mention | |||||||
Crespo et al. (2017) [32] | Do not mention | |||||||
Desha, Rowe, and Hargreaves (2019) [9] | X | X | X | X | ||||
Dodson et al. (2017) [30] | X | |||||||
Hirata (2019) [12] | X | |||||||
Hogfeldt et al. (2018) [34] | X | X | X | X | ||||
Jahan et al. (2018) [28] | X | X | ||||||
Lepeshev et al. (2018) [4] | X | |||||||
Malheiro et al. (2019) [5] | X | |||||||
Mann et al. (2020) [13] | X | X | ||||||
Oerther (2019) [18] | X | |||||||
Serhan and Yannou-Lebris (2020) [14] | X | X | X | |||||
Smith, Teschner, and Bullock (2018) [15] | X | X | ||||||
Smith, Tran, and Compston (2020) [23] | X | X | ||||||
Tull et al. (2019) [10] | X | |||||||
Willicks, Stehling, and Haberstroh (2018) [31] | X | |||||||
Wolff, Van Breda, and Rodriguez (2019) [33] | Do not mention | |||||||
Zelinka and Amadei (2017) [29] | Do not mention | |||||||
Zuin et al. (2019) [11] | Do not mention |
Authorship | Type of Document | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | J | |
Abbott, Chipika, and Wilson (2020) [16] | X | ||||||||
Blatti et al. (2019) [25] | X | X | X | ||||||
Brunell (2019) [26] | X | ||||||||
Cowan et al. (2017) [27] | X | ||||||||
Crespo et al. (2017) [32] | X | ||||||||
Desha, Rowe, and Hargreaves (2019) [9] | X | ||||||||
Dodson et al. (2017) [30] | X | ||||||||
Hirata (2019) [12] | X | ||||||||
Hogfeldt et al. (2018) [34] | X | ||||||||
Jahan et al. (2018) [28] | X | ||||||||
Lepeshev et al. (2018) [4] | X | X | |||||||
Malheiro et al. (2019) [5] | X | X | |||||||
Mann et al. (2020) [13] | X | ||||||||
Oerther (2019) [18] | X | X | |||||||
Serhan and Yannou-Lebris (2020) [14] | X | ||||||||
Smith, Teschner, and Bullock (2018) [15] | X | X | |||||||
Smith, Tran, and Compston (2020) [23] | X | X | X | X | |||||
Tull et al. (2019) [10] | X | ||||||||
Willicks, Stehling, and Haberstroh (2018) [31] | X | ||||||||
Wolff, Van Breda, and Rodriguez (2019) [33] | X | ||||||||
Zelinka and Amadei (2017) [29] | X | ||||||||
Zuin et al. (2019) [11] | X | X |
Authorship | SDG | Method and Results |
---|---|---|
Abbott, Chipika, and Wilson (2020) [16] | Do not specify | Problem-based Learning (PBL) and Case Studies. These methods woud allow the development of the SDGs with the competencies identified by US agencies for engineering studies. National quality agencies in Africa are needed for improving the studies’ accreditation and the students’ mobility. |
Blatti et al. (2019) [25] | Do not specify | Research, dissemination, and service–learning projects. Educators can make a significant impact in their communities. Through science outreach, they can inspire students to impact positively on our planet and work toward building a sustainable and equitable future. |
Brunell (2019) [26] | Minimum of one in their Final Degree Project | Teamwork in the Final Project and with the support of professional mentors. They examined the impact to the environment, societal benefit, and economics. Students gained effective communication and social awareness of the global impact of their designs |
Cowan et al. (2017) [27] | Do not specify | They designed and validated a sustainable rubric. The criteria identified as part of the previously discussed literature review were validated based on a survey of multidisciplinary experts, as well as a comparison to existing sustainable design frameworks. The students learned more efficiently about different dimensions of sustainability, established expectations for sustainable design, and self-assessed how well principles were applied to design projects. |
Crespo et al. (2017) [32] | 7,8,12,13 | They designed a holistic sustainability rubric to assess student ability to incorporate sustainability principles into their work. Economic criteria were less considered and the environmental, technical, and social dimensions, the most considered. |
Desha, Rowe, and Hargreaves (2019) [9] | Do not specify | An overview of key samples in Australia and the USA. They proposed that accreditation agencies update their documents, as well as educational institutions renew their students’ graduation profiles and degrees. |
Dodson et al. (2017) [30] | 5,6 | Engineering projects in a subject divided into two parts (humanities and engineering), taking into account humanistic thinking with the support of an interdisciplinary team of teachers. Students demonstrated acceptable levels of engineering knowledge within specific contexts. They also showed their desire to work for the SDGs and to consider criteria of social justice. |
Hirata (2019) [12] | 5,17 | An active learning program designed in the STEM subjects so that students can experience which gender differences affect technologies and discover methods to prevent and resolve these aspects. The students became more sensitive to gender inequality and were able to implement learning from different subjects to achieve the solution. |
Hogfeldt et al. (2018) [34] | Do not specify | Data mining from workshops, reflexive questionnaires, focal groups, stakeholders and people interested in electrical companies. High motivation, better abilities, collaborative work, and improvement of the continuous evaluation and feedback. |
Jahan et al. (2018) [28] | 2,3,6,7 | Laboratory experiments with algae, projects, and lessons. The curriculum was successfully implemented in first-year engineering subjects and in high school classrooms. |
Lepeshev et al. (2018) [4] | 6,9,14,15 | Literature review and verification based on experimentation. A new theory of inventive problem-solving (TRIZ) was defined. The hypothesis that the same technologies that have been used in a different way can be the solution was confirmed because of the analysis of existing cognitive technologies. |
Malheiro et al. (2019) [5] | 3, 7, 11, 12 | Problems were proposed to students within the scope of the SDGs. They analyzed the reports and learning diaries of three team projects. The real learning framework provided students with a high degree of freedom in terms of marketing, sustainability, and ethics, and reinforced their technical–scientific and personal skills. |
Mann et al. (2020) [13] | 4,5 | Practice-based Education. Engineering training from a practice-based approach, with three premises: working on engineering practices in an authentic context; learning to be a student, engineer, and citizen; and generating opportunities to work and learn simultaneously. Clear benefits in learning and working at the same time in projects aligned with the SDGs. |
Oerther (2019) [18] | Do not specify | Blended format, Flipped Classroom, mastery learning, and “buffet” evaluation. Students had different opinions depending on their characteristics; teachers thought that preparing a course like this was much more time-consuming than the traditional method. The buffet evaluation generated both new opportunities and new challenges, compared to a traditional grading system. |
Serhan and Yannou-Lebris (2020) [14] | 3,12 | Using a Government call, a new curriculum was introduced called Idefi-Eco Trophelia, to train agri-food engineers to create food eco-innovations and introduce them to the market. Engineering students develop not only eco-design and innovation skills for new food products, but also entrepreneurship and management skills to design and carry out new business models. |
Smith, Teschner, and Bullock (2018) [15] | Do not specify | Students developed a project through user-centered technologies. Students faced practical challenges, including time constraints and communications difficulties; these projects allowed students to understand the links between the social and technical dimensions of their projects. |
Smith, Tran, and Compston (2020) [23] | Do not specify | Review of 67 engineering degrees to identify practices to preserve life and alleviate human suffering. It is necessary to ensure the education quality. International networks can serve as a basis to ensure that programs meet student expectations. A constructive dialogue should be opened to standardize the terms and common themes. |
Tull et al. (2019) [10] | 3,4,5,7 | Students participated in a conference in which different universities met. They had previous learning activities. Students shared their answers of about 10 questions on Twitter. The topics covered in the reflections were too varied. |
Willicks, Stehling, and Haberstroh (2018) [31] | Do not specify | Students participated in a real challenge to be solved. The best solutions will be implemented in the country to which they are addressed. Students self-evaluated their competencies before and after developing the project. Through Problem-based Learning, students learned specific and generic competencies. |
Wolff, Van Breda, and Rodriguez (2019) [33] | Do not specify | Literature review of more than 50 case studies of engineering problem-solving in different engineering sectors that were brought to the classroom. They used Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) as an instrument. High degree of satisfaction in the students with the practice. They preferred the system proposed to the theoretical method. |
Zelinka and Amadei (2017) [29] | Do not specify | An analytical impact approach to quantify the interactions between all the SDGs. They organized and prioritized those most likely to affect others. Analysis of the SDGs with the focus on influence and dependency with a cross-impact analysis. By focusing on the SDGs of Education, Water Sanitation and Hygiene, Energy, Cities, but especially Consumption, Governance, and Partnerships, it is possible to influence positively the other goals. |
Zuin et al. (2019) [11] | 4,8,9,12,13 | Doing the experiment and asking students. The study proved to be technically and pedagogically effective, showing that global problems can be useful tools to develop future professionals with a mentality of sustainability. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Romero, S.; Aláez, M.; Amo, D.; Fonseca, D. Systematic Review of How Engineering Schools around the World Are Deploying the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125035
Romero S, Aláez M, Amo D, Fonseca D. Systematic Review of How Engineering Schools around the World Are Deploying the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):5035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125035
Chicago/Turabian StyleRomero, Susana, Marian Aláez, Daniel Amo, and David Fonseca. 2020. "Systematic Review of How Engineering Schools around the World Are Deploying the 2030 Agenda" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 5035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125035