Next Article in Journal
Future Projections of Global Plastic Pollution: Scenario Analyses and Policy Implications
Previous Article in Journal
Achieving Sustainable Smart Cities through Geospatial Data-Driven Approaches
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/su16020641
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Traversing the Evolution of Research on Engineering Education for Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review (1991–2022)

by
David Kongpiwatana Narong
1,*,† and
Philip Hallinger
1,2,*,†
1
College of Management, Mahidol University, 69 Vipawadee Rangsit Road, Samsennai, Phayathai District, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
2
Department of Educational Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 641; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020641
Submission received: 7 December 2023 / Revised: 3 January 2024 / Accepted: 5 January 2024 / Published: 11 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Engineering education plays a pivotal role in cultivating the engineering capacity for sustainable development. Nonetheless, there has been no comprehensive review that examines sustainability as a distinct knowledge domain within engineering education. This review filled this gap by conducting a bibliometric review to document the research landscape, analyze the intellectual structure of the literature, and identify emerging research themes. The review sourced 2738 Scopus-indexed documents published between 1991 and 2022. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence analysis. The study identified consistent growth in research output and geographic diversity. Four predominant conceptual themes were identified in the literature: (1) Engineering Education Reform, (2) Engineering Competencies, Pedagogy, and Curriculum, (3) Curriculum Assessment and Benchmarks, and (4) Sustainable Technologies. Findings emphasize the need for defining precise engineering competencies related to sustainability, incorporating diverse teaching methods, and ensuring that sustainability learning outcomes align with changing industry norms, regulations, and accreditation criteria. The study also highlights a growing focus on the use of Industry 4.0 technologies as a means of achieving sustainability outcomes. The review underscores the need for sustained curriculum reform to successfully transform engineering education toward sustainability.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is one of the foremost challenges of the 21st century [1,2,3]. The complex and interwoven nature of sustainability challenges requires global collaboration to find enduring solutions [2]. In response to this imperative, the United Nations General Assembly embraced a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 [4,5]. The SDGs represent a collection of 17 interconnected, non-binding objectives envisioned as “a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” [6].
These goals encompass a broad spectrum of economic, environmental, and social issues, including poverty alleviation, healthcare accessibility, infrastructure enhancement, education, gender equality, and resource management [7]. The discipline of engineering stands as a cornerstone supporting all SDGs [7]. Nonetheless, the degree to which engineering contributes to the achievement of these goals will, in turn, depend on the profession’s ability to reorient its approach to educating, training, and developing engineers [1,2,3,8,9].
To prepare future engineers for sustainable development challenges, educational institutions must equip them not only with technical knowledge but also with a diverse set of sustainability-oriented competencies and attitudes. These include skills in creative thinking, complex problem-solving, and interdisciplinary collaboration, as well as ethical dispositions [7,9,10]. To support this transformation, educators will benefit from an organizing framework encompassing quality assurance and accreditation processes that incorporate sustainable development values and goals [7]. Such a framework could also bolster efforts to develop more valid assessments of the skills and competencies of engineering graduates [7].
The progression of research in engineering education for sustainability is evidenced by the publication of several recent literature reviews [3,5,11,12]. For instance, Gutierrez-Bucheli et al. [5] conducted a scoping review that mapped and analyzed sustainability learning outcomes in engineering education. Mesa et al. [11] analyzed case studies and projects related to sustainability learning in engineering preparation programs. Mesa and Esparragoza [12] examined the literature on the implementation of circular economy initiatives in engineering education. Thürer et al. [3] reviewed the integration of sustainability criteria and content into undergraduate and postgraduate engineering education degree programs.
While these reviews yielded valuable insights, none examined the literature from the perspective of a ‘knowledge base’. Thus, engineering educators lack a broad view of the scope of global research and the thematic structures that have evolved in the emerging knowledge base on engineering education for sustainability.
This research review addressed these knowledge gaps by systematically exploring and synthesizing the Scopus-indexed literature on engineering education for sustainability. The review aimed to analyze the research landscape, its thematic evolution, and the forces shaping its trajectory. Three research questions guided this review:
  • What is the research landscape concerning sustainability in engineering education, considering factors such as document volume, growth trends, and geographical distribution?
  • What is the intellectual structure of the literature on engineering education for sustainability?
  • How have the topical foci of research on sustainability in engineering education changed over time, and what are the high-priority topics being studied in the recent literature?
This review identified 2738 relevant Scopus-indexed documents on engineering education for sustainability published between 1991 and 2022. Bibliographic data were analyzed using Scopus analytical tools, Microsoft Excel, Tableau, and VOSviewer software (Version 1.6.18) programs. The data analyses employed descriptive statistics, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence analysis.
This bibliometric review offers the first comprehensive analysis of the full Scopus-indexed literature on engineering education for sustainability. The review was designed to complement previously published research reviews on engineering education for sustainability [3,5,11,12]. Furthermore, this review of research is positioned to provide empirical reference points for future research and shed light on prospective directions for research and practice.

2. Method

The present study adopted bibliometric review methods to analyze trends in the research on engineering education for sustainability [13]. Bibliometric review provides a transparent and reproducible process that reduces subjective bias in identifying and analyzing a body of knowledge [13,14]. This differs from other review methods (e.g., scoping, integrative, meta-analytic) in that it does not aim to synthesize past research findings. Instead, bibliometric reviews analyze bibliographic associated with a set of documents in order to gain a broad perspective on the composition of a knowledge base [14,15].

2.1. Identification of Sources

This review relied on Scopus to identify documents, a choice substantiated by comparative studies [16,17] that evaluated document databases. These studies revealed that Scopus offers broader journal coverage than Web of Science [18]. While Dimensions and Google Scholar are also comprehensive, they include non-peer-reviewed articles [18]. Additionally, the application of co-citation analysis made it possible for this review to access extensive literature outside of Scopus.
An open-ended search strategy was employed using the following search string: (TITLE ((“engineering education” AND (sustainability or “sustainable development”) OR KEY (“engineering education” AND (sustainability or “sustainable development”)). The search was not limited in terms of publication year, geographic location, or document type. The initial search yielded 2865 Scopus-indexed documents. Variations on this search were conducted to ensure comprehensive coverage of as many relevant documents as possible.
The review database was identified, screened, and selected using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework [19]. As shown in Figure 1, Scopus filters limited the Scopus list to refereed conference papers, peer-reviewed journal articles and reviews, books, and book chapters published through the end of 2022. Since it was necessary to review some critical publications, the database was restricted to English-language documents. Finally, duplicate documents were removed based on a screening of publication titles. The final review database comprised 2738 Scopus-indexed conference papers, journal articles and reviews, books, and book chapters published between 1991 and 2022.

2.2. Bibliometric Data Analysis

The authors exported bibliographic data associated with the documents from Scopus to an Excel file. Ambiguities in the data file were identified and resolved using VOSviewer version 1.6.19 to ensure accuracy [20]. A thesaurus file (i.e., a data disambiguation instruction file) was created and uploaded with the data file in VOSviewer software to detect and consolidate alternative keywords or name forms [20].
The first research question was addressed using Scopus analytical tools, Microsoft Excel, and Tableau. The authors utilized the software programs to chart the document volume, growth trends, and geographical distribution of the knowledge base.
For the second question, author co-citation analysis in VOSviewer was used to visualize the intellectual structure—theoretical themes or lines of inquiry—of research on engineering education for sustainability [13,21,22]. The analysis analyzed the frequency of author citations, as well as the “co-citation” of pairs of authors in the same reference lists. Subsequently, VOSviewer was used to create an author co-citation network map that visualized the relationships of authors cited in the reference lists of the review documents [15]. Co-citation analysis assumes that authors who are frequently co-cited in the same documents often share a common theoretical orientation [13,14,21]. The authors synthesized patterns in author relationships on the network map to identify the intellectual structure of the literature [13,14].
The third research question was explored through keyword co-occurrence analysis (co-word analysis), also carried out in VOSviewer [15,23,24]. First, keyword analysis was employed to pinpoint the most prevalent keywords associated with the review documents. This analysis yielded insights into the topics that have garnered significant attention in the literature on engineering education for sustainability [25].
Next, the authors used VOSviewer to construct a co-word network map with a temporal overlay that visualized connections among various keywords and topics [13,23,24]. Similar to co-citation analysis, co-word analysis examines the ‘co-occurrence’ of pairs of keywords within the reviewed documents, offering insights into keyword relationships based on frequency and occurrence patterns. The temporal co-word network map was also created to visualize the evolution of themes within the literature over time. In this analysis, VOSviewer analyzed the distribution of publication dates associated with keywords extracted from the review documents [13,15,20]. This enabled the authors to analyze the topical development of the literature and identify emerging topics [13,26].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Review Database

The 2738 Scopus-indexed documents in the review database were comprised of conference papers (73%), peer-reviewed articles and reviews (24%), book chapters (2%), and books (1%) published between 1991 and December 31, 2022. The trend lines in Figure 2 show that interest in sustainability among engineering educators emerged gradually, with an average of 11 indexed documents published annually during the 1990s. The annual rate of publication increased to 64 publications per year between 2000 and 2010 and 166 from 2011 through 2022. Nearly 90% of the literature has been published since 2005 (see Figure 2). Increased interest could have been stimulated by the United Nations’ proclamation of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in 2005 [3,27].
The Scopus-indexed literature on engineering education for sustainability includes publications from scholars located in 104 nations. Seventy-five percent of the publications originated in developed nations, and 25% in developing societies. Scholars from the United States (37%), Europe (37%), and Asia (18%) largest contributed most substantially to this knowledge base (see Figure 3).

3.2. Intellectual Structure of Research on Engineering Education for Sustainability

VOSviewer was used to generate an author co-citation network map containing 144 influential authors (see Figure 4). Node size in the network map suggests the citation frequency of an author in the reference lists of the review documents. Both the density of links and the proximity between authors reflect the degree of intellectual affinity [15]. Colored clusters on the network map represent the ‘schools of thought’ [13] that comprise the intellectual structure of this literature [14,22].
As shown in Figure 4, the co-citation network map visualizes four clusters of authors based on their patterns of co-citation by other scholars. The four schools of thought include (1) Engineering Education Reform toward Sustainability, (2) Engineering Competencies, Pedagogy, and Curriculum for Sustainability, (3) Engineering Curriculum Assessment and Benchmarks for Sustainability, and (4) Sustainable Technologies in Engineering Education. The intellectual foci of the four schools were identified by examining the publications of the affiliated authors [13].
The largest school (red cluster) is comprised of 62 authors who have focused on Engineering Education Reform toward Sustainability. This school is led by Allenby (193 co-citations), Allen (179), Davidson (175), Bielefeldt (158), Mihelcic (148), Lucena (128), Felder (117), Hendrickson (104), Crittenden (101), and Riley (101). Scholars in this school have been among the most active proponents for incorporating sustainability into engineering education programs [28,29,30]. Their research reflects the growing societal attention to environmental issues and increased funding for measures to support sustainable engineering [31,32].
Scholars in this scholarship have explored challenges and barriers to the successful integration of sustainability in engineering education curricula [33,34,35,36,37]. This includes the difficulty of displacing existing curricular objectives [33,34], lack of resources, suitability of existing teaching methods and materials [34,35,37], and a lack of familiarity with social dimensions of sustainability in engineering [33,35].
In response, they have proposed instructional strategies such as empowering participants through guided practice and providing learning activities and tools that can be tailored to the unique learning environments of particular institutions [35,36,37]. Approaches include incorporating sustainable engineering principles into elective and core courses [33,38,39], fostering educational innovation through student-to-student networks between partner universities [38], and cultivating faculty expertise through the development and dissemination of learning materials and practices [37,38].
Scholars in this school have also investigated ethical and social issues taught in engineering education programs [40,41,42,43]. This research highlights a need for engineering programs to promote attitudes and practices that prioritize the safety, health, and welfare of the public [42]. Cultural influences on ethics-related education outcomes have also been explored, comparing the teaching of ethics in programs from different countries [40,43].
The second largest school of thought (green cluster) is comprised of 48 authors associated with Engineering Competencies, Pedagogy, and Curriculum for Sustainability. This school is led by Mulder (330 co-citations), Segalàs (224), Lozano (200), Ferrer-Balas (198), Desha (146), Kolmos (143), Svanström (136), Wiek (126), Huisingh (122), Hargroves (101), and Sterling (107). These researchers have emphasized the importance of defining the desired attributes and competencies of engineering graduates prior to redesigning the curriculum and selecting pedagogical methods aimed at enhancing sustainability outcomes [8,44,45,46,47]. Moreover, their research highlights the need to develop an engineering program’s vision of sustainability based on input and standards from industry, accreditation bodies, and professional societies [8,44,46]. They also advocate for alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals [8,47,48] as a guiding framework for incorporating sustainability into engineering education.
Researchers in this school have explored a range of relevant pedagogical strategies, including problem-based learning, project-based learning, team-based learning, and community service learning [49,50,51,52,53]. Educators have also experimented with other active learning approaches, such as challenge-based learning [54,55], design-based learning [56,57], and inquiry-based learning [58,59]. The use of these methods has been motivated by the desire of engineering educators to engage learners in real-world problems and apply knowledge to a broader set of educational outcomes.
Lastly, studies in this school have examined the renewal of engineering curricula and the development of educational capacity for sustainability-oriented teaching and learning [3,60,61,62,63]. These studies have focused on industry engagement, instructor skill enhancement, and the development of curriculum and teaching resources [60,62,63,64,65]. This research has identified a need for timely engineering curriculum renewal to keep pace with changes in industries, regulations, and accreditation standards [61,65,66].
The third school (blue cluster) includes 48 authors associated with Engineering Curriculum Assessment and Benchmarks for Sustainability. This school is led by Azapagic (103 co-citations), Watson (102), Sutherland (93), Perdan (84), Pierrakos (84), Haapala (74), Noyes (71), Rodgers (71), Pappas (68), and Shallcross (60). Scholars located in this school have focused on evaluating the effectiveness of efforts to embed sustainability into engineering education programs [67,68,69,70,71,72].
Their studies have utilized surveys to evaluate students’ development in conceptual knowledge, design capabilities, and attitudes toward sustainability [67,68,69,71]. This research has validated survey scales and scoring rubrics for use in assessing students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes [67,71]. For example, the Sustainability Tool for Assessing University’s Curricula Holistically (STAUNCH®), Sustainable Design Rubric, and Concept Maps have been employed to gauge the impact of engineering courses on key learning outcomes [67,68,69,71,72,73]. The findings suggest that while students accept the importance of sustainability values and goals in engineering, they encounter challenges in applying a sustainability mindset to engineering practice [74,75,76].
Surveys have also assessed the integration of sustainability topics in engineering education programs [68,74]. These surveys have revealed a predominant emphasis on the relationship between engineering and the environment, with less attention on the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development [68,74]. Moreover, engineering students often lack familiarity with environmental legislation, policy, and standards [74]. This underscores the need for more systematic and balanced coverage of sustainability-related topics within the engineering curriculum.
The fourth school (yellow cluster) includes 14 authors associated with Sustainable Technologies in Engineering Education (STEE). At the forefront of this cluster is Q. Zhang (80 co-citations), followed by Y. Wang (69), Y. Chen (64), Y. Zhang (55), J. Lee (53), J. Li (52), X. Wang (49), L. Zhang (47), L. Wang (44), and Y. Liu (41). The STEE cluster is located at a greater distance and shows fewer author co-citation links to the other three clusters. These visual features highlight the distinctive nature of this school of thought, comprised predominantly of Chinese authors.
These scholars have studied the efforts of engineering programs to integrate new technologies designed to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy [77,78,79]. This research has also examined curricular approaches that focus on industry responses to environmental regulation [80,81,82] and the implementation of sustainable manufacturing [83,84]. Findings from these studies underscore the role of government support, industry partnerships, and interdisciplinary collaboration when engineering programs seek to incorporate cutting-edge innovations [78,80,85,86,87].
Research in this domain has also explored the transformative impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on sustainability-focused engineering education, particularly in the development of smart campuses [85,88,89]. Scholars have identified five ICT drivers behind this change [85]: (1) data computing and storage technologies (e.g., cloud and edge computing) [90,91]; (2) Internet of Things technologies (e.g., smart sensors and communication protocols) [92,93,94]; (3) intelligent technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence, machine learning, and computation intelligence) [95,96,97]; (4) immersive technologies (e.g., augmented and virtual reality) [98,99,100,101]; and (5) mobile technologies (e.g., mobile phones and tablets) [100,102]. These studies shed light on the transformative potential of these technologies, offering data-driven insights into their pivotal role in shaping the future of sustainability-focused engineering education programs.
The concentration of Chinese scholars in this school suggests the significant emphasis Chinese policymakers have placed on leveraging innovative technologies to tackle sustainability challenges [4,78,85,86]. Notably, the network map highlights both the physical isolation of this school as well as limited connections between the Chinese scholars and scholars in the other schools. These features of the network map suggest that, to some extent, this school is evolving in parallel with the other schools. The field will benefit from strengthening these linkages.

3.3. Topical Analysis of Engineering Education for Sustainability

The final research question was tackled through keyword co-occurrence analysis (co-word analysis) conducted in VOSviewer [15,23,24]. In the first step, the authors identified the most frequently occurring keywords in this literature. These included engineering curriculum (2631 occurrences), curriculum development (854), professional competencies (279), distance learning (199), education computing (196), education systems (191), environmental problems (179), project management (165), product design (161), surveys (158), societies and institutions (156), pedagogical approach (149), higher education (146), personnel training (140), design (129), economic and social effects (128), innovations (127), technical presentation (125), problem-solving (124), computer-aided instruction (119) and multi-disciplinary (117). These keywords offer insight into the sustainability-related topics most frequently studied by engineering educators.
Next, a temporal co-word network map [13,15] was created using VOSviewer (see Figure 5). When creating the network map, the authors used a threshold of 26 keyword occurrences to strike a balance between frequency (i.e., popularity) and comprehensiveness of topical coverage [25]. Similar to the co-citation network map, the size of the nodes representing keywords on the co-word network map corresponds to the relative frequency of their appearance in the document list. Links and proximity among the keywords are also interpreted using similar guidelines. On this network map, the color coding of keywords reflects the relative recency of scholarly interest in the topics. The brighter-colored keywords are associated with topics of most recent interest. Darker-colored keyword nodes are associated with topics that were more popular in past decades. Thus, the temporal co-word network map highlights keyword recency, frequency, and relationships.
The temporal co-word network map presents the evolution of research on sustainability in engineering education in terms of three distinct periods. These were labeled ‘Early Adopters’ (1990s–2000s), ‘Middle Period’ (2005–2015), and the ‘Research Front’ (2016–2022). It should be noted that the time periods are only approximations. This is because, in temporal co-word analysis, VOSviewer creates a ‘time distribution’ for each keyword based on the publication years of its associated documents. Thus, for example, a keyword with a yellow node has a distribution that is centered during the most recent period.
In the Early Adopters period, represented by the dark purple nodes, researchers primarily directed their attention toward identifying the professional competencies required by engineers to effectively address sustainability challenges. For example, they identified the following knowledge, skill, and attitude domains: interdisciplinary knowledge, holistic and integrative approaches, critical and systems thinking abilities, effective collaboration and communication skills, creativity and innovation, capacity for change, and ethical responsibility [103,104,105]. During this period, researchers tended to concentrate on the integration of sustainability into specific engineering subjects such as project management, civil engineering, environmental engineering, and chemical engineering [106,107]. This research tended to focus on undergraduate engineering education [108,109].
During the Middle period, denoted by dark and light green nodes, scholars tended to focus on topics related to pedagogy and curriculum development for sustainability [49,52,60,61,110]. For example, significant research began to accumulate on the use of problem-based learning, project-based learning, team-based learning, and community service learning in teaching and learning for sustainability in engineering programs [49,52,53,110]. This period also witnessed an expansion of engineering education for sustainability into new fields, including manufacturing, electrical engineering, and software engineering [111,112]. Concurrently, educators evidenced increasing interest in environmental sustainability topics such as climate change, energy efficiency, and renewable energy [112,113,114]. Additionally, this phase of research showed growing attention toward the integration of sustainability topics into capstone and first-year engineering courses, as well as the exploration of distance learning methodologies [114,115].
The network map shows that the ‘research front’ (yellow nodes) is concentrated at the intersection of sustainability, engineering education, and Industry 4.0 technologies. This research has explored the application of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, machine learning, and virtual reality to advance environmental, social, and economic sustainability [96,116,117,118]. Notably, the surfacing of these topics reprises the yellow cluster on the author co-citation network map, which focused on sustainable technologies. This body of research delves into the integration of sustainability principles through the lens of Industry 4.0 technologies [116,119,120]. This encompasses various facets, including the development of inclusive learning environments tailored for Industry 4.0 adaptive learners and the sustainable utilization of digital technology in long-term teaching strategies [119,120]. Lastly, these studies address the barriers, challenges, and opportunities associated with the incorporation of digital technology into sustainable manufacturing practices [120,121]. Supplementary Materials files can be accessed through the link provided under the sub-heading “Supplementary Materials”.

4. Discussion

In this concluding section, the authors acknowledge the limitations of our review, synthesize the key findings, and highlight implications for future research and practice.

4.1. Limitations of the Review

The initial limitation stems from relying on Scopus as the sole source for review documents. While Scopus is recognized for its comprehensive coverage of educational literature [16,17,18], it is important to acknowledge that it may not encompass every potentially relevant document. Nonetheless, the analysis of the 2738 documents in this review represents a substantial sample of published research on engineering education for sustainability and the largest body of documents featured in any bibliometric review of this literature identified at the time of this study [122,123]. That being said, future studies could enhance the comprehensiveness of this research review by incorporating other review databases to identify eligible documents.
The second limitation arises from the inconsistent use of terminology associated with sustainability or sustainable development within engineering education [124,125]. This limitation could have resulted in the inadvertent exclusion of pertinent documents that utilized alternative, less-frequently-used terms (e.g., environmental stewardship, renewability, and eco-friendliness). Subsequent research endeavors could broaden the review by incorporating additional search terms, thereby balancing comprehensiveness and inclusivity.
The third limitation is tied to the quantitative methodology employed in this review. As previously mentioned, this study neither assessed the quality of individual studies nor their findings. Consequently, the insights derived from bibliometric analysis complement the results of other reviews. Future qualitative research reviews, such as scoping reviews, can also offer additional and valuable perspectives on the knowledge base.

4.2. Interpretation of the Results

The descriptive analyses conducted for this review described the evolving landscape of research on sustainability in engineering education. The fact that nearly 90% of the sourced publications have emerged since 2005 underlines the growing relevance of sustainability issues in the engineering profession. Moreover, this body of literature represents a global effort. Scholars from the United States, Europe, and Asia, especially China, have played pivotal roles in shaping this discourse. However, the dominance of developed nations in contributing to this knowledge base suggests a need for additional focus on educational trends in developing societies. This will ensure that the knowledge base on sustainability education in engineering yields solutions that are relevant to societies throughout the world.
The author co-citation network map revealed four distinct clusters of authors who evidenced shared intellectual affiliations. These four schools of thought encompass (1) Education Reform Toward Sustainability, (2) Engineering Competencies, Pedagogy, and Curriculum for Sustainability, (3) Engineering Curriculum Assessment and Benchmarks for Sustainability, and (4) Sustainable Technologies in Engineering Education. The identification of these schools of thought provides a set of rubrics that educators can use to guide not only their reading of the literature but also future research and development activities.
The relevance of these intellectual foci was reinforced by the co-word network map, which featured many similar co-occurring keywords derived from the text of the documents. For example, take the second school of thought, Engineering Competencies, Pedagogy, and Curriculum for Sustainability. The co-word network map highlighted frequently co-occurring keywords such as engineering curricula, curriculum development, professional competencies, pedagogical approach, project-based learning, problem-based learning, learning experiences, active learning, and experiential learning. The emergence of these keyword patterns on the co-word network map offers additional credibility to the authors’ interpretations of the author co-citation network map.
Together, the co-citation and co-word analyses underscore several priorities for advancing the integration of sustainability in engineering education. These include the necessity of defining clear sustainability-related competencies needed by practicing engineers, exploring diverse pedagogical approaches, and regularly updating curricula to enhance sustainability learning outcomes and align with evolving industry trends, regulations, and accreditation standards [49,52,61,65,66].
The conjoint findings also highlight the increasingly important role that technology will play not only in developing engineering solutions to sustainability challenges [77,78,97] but also in the delivery of engineering education for sustainability [57,88,112,119]. Specifically, the current research trajectory within this field seems to concentrate on the effective utilization of Industry 4.0 technologies to attain sustainable development goals, bolster sustainability in manufacturing processes, and cultivate innovation competencies within engineering education [117,118,119]. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating these elements into educational strategies and curricular innovations in engineering programs.
Lastly, this review of research uncovered significant challenges and potential solutions for integrating sustainability into engineering education curricula [37,85,91,120]. The obstacles include the complexities of replacing existing content, resource limitations, a limited understanding of sustainability’s social and economic dimensions, and the practical application of sustainability principles in engineering practice [12,72,107]. Scholars have also put forth strategies such as guided practice and tailored tools for diverse institutional environments. They advocate for the infusion of sustainable engineering principles into core and elective courses, promoting innovation through inter-university collaboration, and enhancing faculty expertise via resource sharing [37,38,70]. Collaboration with industry, accreditation bodies, and professional societies is also seen as crucial to overcoming these challenges and advancing sustainability in engineering education [61,65,66].

4.3. Implications of the Findings

The geographic concentration of this review database in developed nations emphasizes potential disparities in access to engineering education. This also highlights the immediate need for international collaboration and knowledge exchange in enhancing sustainability education. Indeed, educators in both developing and developed nations can gain valuable insights through international partnerships [126,127]. The potential benefits of this type of mutual exchange can also foster inclusivity and comprehensiveness in sustainability education, contributing to a more equitable and sustainable future.
This was particularly evident in the domain of sustainable technologies. While the author co-citation network map revealed intellectual leadership in this domain by Chinese scholars, connections with scholars elsewhere in the world were quite sparse. This highlights an urgent need for collaboration so that engineering programs elsewhere in the world can learn from their experiences.
The identification of four distinct schools of thought within sustainability in engineering education offers a roadmap for future research and curriculum development. These clusters encompass essential dimensions of sustainability education, such as the reform, development, and assessment of engineering curricula and the integration of advanced technology. Researchers and educators should consider these clusters as foundational elements when designing sustainability-focused curricula and pedagogical approaches, aiming to produce well-rounded engineers capable of addressing sustainability challenges effectively.
The intellectual clusters further underscore the importance of continuous research on the integration of sustainability within engineering education. Specifically, researchers must delve deeper into individual clusters while exploring intersections and synergies between them to foster a more integrated, comprehensive, and well-balanced approach to sustainability education. These clusters also serve as valuable resources for educators seeking to enhance sustainability education in their engineering programs, enabling institutions to develop more effective strategies for integration.
Notably, this research review did not uncover themes related to the theoretical foundation in engineering education for sustainability. This is in line with findings from prior reviews, which found limited use of theoretical and model-driven frameworks [9]. Additionally, the decision-making processes for education for sustainability in engineering heavily rely on policy recommendations and practitioner intuition [128]. This underscores the need for future research to adopt a theoretical and model-driven approach to elucidate this unique phenomenon and provide insights to guide subsequent studies and practices in the field of sustainability within engineering education.
The results of the analyses further offer significant implications for the advancement of sustainability education in engineering. Firstly, the findings reinforce the continuing need to define and refine engineering competencies in sustainability education [1,8,44,103,119]. This implies that educational institutions and engineering programs should clearly articulate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes students need to develop in sustainability-related areas [56,104,105,129]. Secondly, the emphasis on diverse pedagogical approaches highlights the importance of innovative teaching methods to engage students in addressing sustainability challenges [53,54,56,69,124]. Engineering educators should explore various strategies and combinations of strategies to make sustainability education more engaging and impactful [49,50,55,57,58].
Thirdly, the regular updating of curricula to align with industry trends, regulations, and accreditation standards is imperative. This implies that engineering programs should maintain flexibility and adaptability to ensure students are well-prepared for evolving sustainability challenges in their future careers. Fourthly, the integration of technology, particularly Industry 4.0 technologies, underscores the potential of digital tools and approaches to enhance sustainability education. Engineering institutions should invest in technological resources and training now to leverage these advancements for better sustainability learning outcomes. Considering the heightened focus on Industry 4.0 technologies, it is also recommended that a more comprehensive exploration of upcoming trends be conducted. This examination should delve into how these technologies might persist in influencing sustainability within the realm of engineering education.
Finally, this research review highlights the need to address challenges impeding the seamless integration of sustainability principles into engineering education. To overcome these barriers, considerable investments, well-structured policies, and robust support from industry, government agencies, and higher education institutions are necessary. Mainstreaming sustainability throughout engineering programs, encompassing both core and elective courses, is also essential to equip all students with a comprehensive understanding of sustainability’s relevance [5,33,44,103]. Additionally, fostering collaboration with industry, accreditation bodies, and professional societies is vital for aligning engineering education with industry standards and accessing valuable guidance and resources, ensuring that graduates are prepared to contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16020641/s1, PRISMA 2020 Main Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.K.N. and P.H.; methodology, D.K.N. and P.H.; software, D.K.N. and P.H.; validation, D.K.N. and P.H.; formal analysis, D.K.N. and P.H.; investigation, D.K.N. and P.H.; resources, D.K.N. and P.H.; data curation, D.K.N. and P.H.; writing–original draft preparation, D.K.N.; writing–review and editing, D.K.N. and P.H.; visualization, D.K.N. and P.H.; supervision, D.K.N. and P.H.; project administration, D.K.N.; funding acquisition, P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the ASEAN Centre for Sustainable Development Studies and Dialogue, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://www.scopus.com.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Quelhas, O.L.G.; Lima, G.B.A.; Ludolf, N.V.E.; Meiriño, M.J.; Abreu, C.; Anholon, R.; Neto, J.V.; Rodrigues, L.S.G. Engineering education and the development of competencies for sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 614–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Thürer, M.; Tomašević, I.; Stevenson, M.; Qu, T.; Huisingh, D. A systematic review of the literature on integrating sustainability into engineering curricula. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 608–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chen, H.; Wang, S.; Li, Y. Aligning engineering education for sustainable development through governance: The case of the international center for engineering education in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gutierrez-Bucheli, L.; Kidman, G.; Reid, A. Sustainability in engineering education: A review of learning outcomes. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. DESA. The 17 Goals: Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 19 February 2023).
  7. UNESCO. Engineering for Sustainable Development: Delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375644.locale=en (accessed on 19 February 2023).
  8. 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]
  9. Kolmos, A.; Hadgraft, R.G.; Holgaard, J.E. Response strategies for curriculum change in engineering. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2016, 26, 391–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Corvers, R.; Wiek, A.; De Kraker, J.; Lang, D.J.; Martin, P. Problem-based and project-based learning for sustainable development. In Sustainability Science; Heinrichs, H., Martens, P., Michelsen, G., Wiek, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mesa, J.A.; Esparragoza, I.E.; Maury, H.E. Sustainability in engineering education: A literature review of case studies and projects. In Proceedings of the 15th LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 19–21 July 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mesa, J.A.; Esparragoza, I. Towards the implementation of circular economy in engineering education: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Lincoln, NE, USA, 13–16 October 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gmür, M. Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics 2003, 57, 27–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice; Ding, Y., Roussea, R., Wolfam, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gavel, Y.; Iselid, L. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Inf. Rev. 2008, 32, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 871–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Software Version 1.6.18. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com (accessed on 14 February 2022).
  21. Small, H.G. A co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1977, 7, 139–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. White, H.D.; McCain, K.W. Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1998, 49, 327–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Börner, K.; Chen, C.; Boyack, K.W. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 179–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, X.; Zou, D.; Xie, H. Fifty years of British Journal of Educational Technology: A topic modeling based bibliometric perspective. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 692–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Narong, D.K.; Hallinger, P. A keyword co-occurrence analysis of research on service learning: Conceptual foci and emerging research trends. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Price, D.J.D.S. Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science 1965, 149, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. UNESCO. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014: The DESD at a Glance. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2023).
  28. Riley, D.M.; Clawson, R.A.; Maksimovic, D.; Myers, B.A.; Santiago, I.; Stites, N.A.; Taylor, J.L. Developing engineering formation systems for sustainability. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Virtual, 26 July 2021–19 July 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Davidson, C.I.; Hendrickson, C.T.; Matthews, H.S.; Bridges, M.W.; Allen, D.T.; Murphy, C.F.; Allenby, B.R.; Crittenden, J.C.; Austin, S. Preparing future engineers for challenges of the 21st century: Sustainable engineering. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 698–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mattick, C.S.; Allenby, B.R. Teaching old disciplines new tricks: Sustainable engineering education. In Handbook of Sustainable Engineering; Kauffman, J., Lee, K.-M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Murphy, C.F.; Allen, D.T.; Allenby, B.; Crittenden, J.; Davidson, C.I.; Hendrickson, C.; Matthews, H.S. Sustainability in engineering education and research at U.S. universities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 5558–5564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kumar, V.; Haapala, K.R.; Rivera, J.L.; Hutchins, M.J.; Endres, W.J.; Gershenson, J.K.; Michalek, D.J.; Sutherland, J.W. Infusing sustainability principles into manufacturing/mechanical engineering curricula. J. Manuf. Syst. 2005, 24, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Allen, D.T.; Shonnard, D.R.; Huang, Y.; Schuster, D. Green engineering education in chemical engineering curricula: A quarter century of progress and prospects for future transformations. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 5850–5854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bilec, M.M.; Hendrickson, C.; Landis, A.E.; Matthews, H.S. Updating the benchmark sustainable engineering education report—Trends from 2005 to 2010. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 26–29 June 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Davidson, C.I.; Matthews, H.C.; Hendrickson, C.T.; Bridges, M.W.; Allenby, B.R.; Crittenden, J.C.; Chen, Y.; Williams, E.; Allen, A.T.; Murphy, C.F.; et al. Adding Sustainability to the Engineer’s Toolbox: A Challenge for Engineering Educators; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, Q.; Vanasupa, L.; Zimmerman, J.; Mihelcic, J. Development and dissemination of learning suites for sustainability integration in engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, KY, USA, 20–23 June 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Q.; Vanasupa, L.; Mihelcic, J.R.; Zimmerman, J.B.; Platukyte, S. Challenges for integration of sustainability into engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–13 June 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Q.; Zimmerman, J.; Mihelcic, J.; Vanasupa, L. Civil and Environmental Engineering Education (CEEE) transformational change: Tools and strategies for sustainability integration and assessment in engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 22–25 June 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Allenby, B.; Murphy, C.F.; Allen, D.T.; Davidson, C.I. Sustainable engineering education in the United States. Sustain. Sci. 2009, 4, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Polmear, M.; Bielefeldt, A.R.; Knight, D.; Canney, N.; Swan, C.W. Analysis of macroethics teaching practices and perceptions in engineering: A cultural comparison. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2019, 44, 866–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bielefeldt, A.R.; Polmear, M.; Knight, D.W.; Canney, N.; Swan, C.W. Educating engineers to work ethically with global marginalized communities. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2021, 38, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Michelfelder, D.; Jones, S.A. Sustaining engineering codes of ethics for the twenty-first century. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2013, 19, 237–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bielefeldt, A.R.; Polmear, M.; Knight, D.; Canney, N.; Swan, C.W. Disciplinary variations in ethics and societal impact topics taught in courses for engineering students. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2019, 145, 04019007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hanning, A.; Abelsson, A.P.; Lundqvist, U.; Svanström, M. Are we educating engineers for sustainability? Comparison between obtained competences and Swedish industry’s needs. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 305–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lönngren, J.; Svanström, M. Assessing “wicked sustainability problem”-Literacy in engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, USA, 14–17 June 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Segalàs, J.; Ferrer-Balas, D.; Mulder, K.F. Introducing sustainable development in engineering education: Competences, pedagogy and curriculum. In Proceedings of the SEFI 37th Annual Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1–4 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sánchez-Carracedo, F.; Segalàs, J.; Tejedor, G. The EDINSOST2-SDG project: Introducing SDGs in higher education. In Proceedings of the SEFI 2022—50th Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education, Barcelona, Spain, 19–22 September 2022. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sánchez-Carracedo, F.; Segalàs, J.; Bueno, G.; Busquets, P.; Climent, J.; Galofré, V.G.; Lazzarini, B.; Lopez, D.; Martin, C.; Miñano, R.; et al. Tools for embedding and assessing sustainable development goals in engineering education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. El-Adaway, I.; Pierrakos, O.; Truax, D. Sustainable construction education using problem-based learning and service learning pedagogies. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2015, 141, 05014002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fini, E.H.; Awadallah, F.; Parast, M.M.; Abu-Lebdeh, T. The impact of project-based learning on improving student learning outcomes of sustainability concepts in transportation engineering courses. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2018, 43, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jin, R.; Yang, T.; Piroozfar, P.; Kang, B.G.; Wanatowski, D.; Hancock, C.M.; Tang, L. Project-based pedagogy in interdisciplinary building design adopting BIM. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 1376–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wiggins, J.; McCormick, M.E.; Bielefeldt, A.R.; Swan, C.W.; Paterson, K. Students and sustainability: Assessing students’ understanding of sustainability from service learning experiences. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 26–29 June 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. McCormick, M.E.; Lawyer, K.; Berlin, M.; Swan, C.W.; Paterson, K.; Bielefeldt, A.R.; Wiggins, J. Evaluation of sustainable engineering education via service learning and community service efforts. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, KY, USA, 20–23 June 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rodríguez-Chueca, J.; Molina-García, A.; García-Aranda, C.; Pérez, J.; Rodríguez, E. Understanding sustainability and the circular economy through flipped classroom and challenge-based learning: An innovative experience in engineering education in Spain. Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 238–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Reyna-González, J.M.; Ramírez-Medrano, A.; Membrillo-Hernández, J. Challenge based learning in the 4IR: Results on the application of the Tec21 educational model in an energetic efficiency improvement to a rustic industry. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2020, 1134, 760–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Huang, Z.; Peng, A.; Yang, T.; Deng, S.; He, Y. A design-based learning approach for fostering sustainability competency in engineering education. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gupta, C. The impact and measurement of today’s learning technologies in teaching software engineering course using design-based learning and project-based learning. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2022, 65, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. McCright, A.M. Enhancing students’ scientific and quantitative literacies through an inquiry-based learning project on climate change. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2012, 12, 86–102. [Google Scholar]
  59. Paluri, S.L.A.; Edwards, M.L.; Lam, N.H.; Williams, E.M.; Meyerhoefer, A.; Sizemore, I.E.P. Introducing green and nongreen aspects of noble metal nanoparticle synthesis: An inquiry-based laboratory experiment for chemistry and engineering students. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Desha, C.; Hargroves, K.C. A peaking and tailing approach to education and curriculum renewal for sustainable development. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4181–4199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Desha, C.; Hargroves, K.C.; Smith, M.H. Addressing the time lag dilemma in curriculum renewal towards engineering education for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 184–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Svanström, M. Developing change agency for sustainable development—Experiences from a new chemical engineering course. In New Developments in Engineering Education for Sustainable Development; Filho, W.L., Nesbit, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rose, G.; Ryan, K.; Desha, C. Implementing a holistic process for embedding sustainability: A case study in first year engineering, Monash University, Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mulder, K.F. Engineering curricula in sustainable development. An evaluation of changes at Delft University of Technology. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2006, 31, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sheehan, M.; Schneider, P.; Desha, C. Implementing a systematic process for rapidly embedding sustainability within chemical engineering education: A case study of James Cook University, Australia. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Desha, C.; Hargroves, K. Informing engineering education for sustainable development using ad deliberative dynamic model for curriculum renewal. In Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Madrid, Spain, 4–7 October 2011; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/68133 (accessed on 4 July 2023).
  67. Watson, M.K.; Barrella, E. A systematic review of sustainability assessments in ASEE proceedings. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Columbus, OH, USA, 25–28 June 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Watson, M.K.; Lozano, R.; Noyes, C.; Rodgers, M. Assessing curricula contribution to sustainability more holistically: Experiences from the integration of curricula assessment and students’ perceptions at the Georgia Institute of Technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Watson, M.K.; Pelkey, J.; Noyes, C.; Rodgers, M. Assessing impacts of a learning-cycle-based module on students’ conceptual sustainability knowledge using concept maps and surveys. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 544–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lozano, R.; Young, W. Assessing sustainability in university curricula: Exploring the influence of student numbers and course credits. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Watson, M.K.; Barrella, E.; Wall, T.; Noyes, C.; Rodgers, M. Comparing measures of student sustainable design skills using a project-level rubric and surveys. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barrella, E.; Watson, M.K. Comparing the outcomes of horizontal and vertical integration of sustainability content into engineering curricula using concept maps. In New Developments in Engineering Education for Sustainable Development in Engineering Education for Sustainable Development; Leal Filho, W., Nesbit, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lozano, R.; Watson, K.M. Assessing sustainability in university curricula: Case studies from the University of Leeds and the Georgia Institute of Technology. In Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World; Caeiro, S., Filho, W., Jabbour, C., Azeiteiro, U., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Azapagic, A.; Perdan, S.; Shallcross, D. How much do engineering students know about sustainable development? The findings of an international survey and possible implications for the engineering curriculum. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 30, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Barrella, E.; Watson, M.K.; Pierrakos, O. Methods and preliminary findings for developing and assessing engineering students’ cognitive flexibility in the domain of sustainable design. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Columbus, OH, USA, 24–28 June 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Barrella, E.; Watson, M.K.; Anderson, R.; Cowan, C.M.; Girdner, J.D. Measuring change: Research updates helping engineering students tackle complex, sustainability problems. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 15–19 June 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, Y.; Hu, K.; Zhao, J. A dynamic programming approach for modeling low-carbon fuel technology adoption considering learning-by-doing effect. Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, Y.; Ruiz-Menjivar, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Swisher, M.E. Technical training and rice farmers’ adoption of low-carbon management practices: The case of soil testing and formulated fertilization technologies in Hubei, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yu, H.; Chen, R.; Li, J.; Tian, X. The education of contemporary college student on technology and policy management of low-carbon. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Engineering and Education Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–20 December 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, X.; Cope, C.T. Integrating ecology and sustainability into civil engineering design: A civil engineering capstone project. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 26–29 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, X.; Shao, Q. Non-linear effects of heterogeneous environmental regulations on green growth in G20 countries: Evidence from panel threshold regression. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1346–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chen, N.; Li, J.; Man, Y. Using SHELL and risk matrix method in identifying the hazards of general aviation flight approach and landing. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety: New Infrastructure Construction for Better Transportation, Wuhan, China, 22–24 October 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rickli, J.L.; Huang, Y. REU site: Summer academy in sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Columbus, OH, USA, 25–28 June 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rickli, J.L.; Huang, Y. Transitioning sustainable manufacturing undergraduate research experiences from an in-person to a virtual format. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Minnesota, MN, USA, 26–29 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  85. Yip, C.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, E.; Dong, Z.Y. A hybrid assessment framework for human-centred sustainable smart campus: A case study on COVID-19 impact. IET Smart Cities 2022, 4, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tao, J.; Gan, W.; Fang, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wen, X. A MATLAB GUI teaching application for ferroresonance simulation. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 1757–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Li, J. Incorporation of sustainability education into the ammonia synthesis process design of the chemical engineering senior design course. In Proceedings of the 2021 Annual Conference and Exposition, Online, 19–26 July 2021; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  88. Shehua, I.Y.; Muhammad, M.H.; Enemali, J.D.; Nordinc, M.S. Sample the effects of computer assisted instruction on automobile technology students’ academic performance and attitude in tertiary institutions of Nigeria. In Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Engineering Education—Improving Engineering Education: Towards Sustainable Development, Georgetown, Malaysia, 5–7 December 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Shehu, I.Y.; Baba, H.D.; Enemali, J.D. Integration of information and communication technology (ICT) into technical and engineering education in Nigeria: Potentialities, problems and strategies. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Engineering Education—Improving Engineering Education: Towards Sustainable Development, Georgetown, Malaysia, 5–7 December 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shen, J.; Jiang, X.; Liu, D.; Zhou, T. Cloud-assisted two-factor protection mechanism for public data in smart campus. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications, Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 February 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Xu, Q.; Su, Z.; Wang, Y.; Dai, M. A trustworthy content caching and bandwidth allocation scheme with edge computing for smart campus. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 63868–63879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jeong, J.P.; Kim, M.; Lee, Y.; Lingga, P. IAAS: IoT-based automatic attendance system with photo face recognition in smart campus. In Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT Convergence, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 21–23 October 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nithin Rao, K.; Ravi, S. IoT based smart e-learning campus. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2017, 9, 699–706. [Google Scholar]
  94. Alvarez-Campana, M.; López, G.; Vázquez, E.; Villagrá, V.A.; Berrocal, J. Smart CEI Moncloa: An IoT-based platform for people flow and environmental monitoring on a smart university campus. Sensors 2017, 17, 2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Scaradozzi, D.; Screpanti, L.; Cesaretti, L. Towards a definition of educational robotics: A classification of tools, experiences and assessments. In Smart Learning with Educational Robotics; Daniela, L., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 63–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Poudyal, S.; Nagahi, M.; Nagahisarchoghaei, M.; Ghanbari, G. Machine learning techniques for determining students’ academic performance: A sustainable development case for engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application, Sakheer, Bahrain, 8–9 November 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Singh, J.; Perera, V.; Magana, A.J.; Newell, B.; Wei-Kocsis, J.; Seah, Y.Y.; Strimel, G.J.; Xie, C. Using machine learning to predict engineering technology students’ success with computer-aided design. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022, 30, 852–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Subakti, H.; Jiang, J.R. A marker-based cyber-physical augmented-reality indoor guidance system for smart campuses. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, 14th IEEE International Conference on Smart City and 2nd IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Systems, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 12–14 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  99. Torres-sospedra, J.; Avariento, J.; Rambla, D.; Montoliu, R. Enhancing integrated indoor/outdoor mobility in a smart campus. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2015, 29, 1955–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chou, T.-L.; ChanLin, L.-J. Augmented reality smartphone environment orientation application: A case study of the Fu-Jen University mobile campus touring system. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, Y.Y. Research of distance education based on virtual reality technology in power system. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 672, 2245–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gjoreski, M.; Gjoreski, H.; Lutrek, M.; Gams, M. Automatic detection of perceived stress in campus students using smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Environments, Prague, Czech Republic, 15–17 July 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Guerra, A. What are the common knowledge & competencies for education for sustainable development and for engineering education for sustainable development? In Proceedings of the 40th SEFI Annual Conference 2012—Engineering Education 2020: Meet the Future, Thessaloniki, Greece, 23–26 September 2012.
  104. Arsat, M. Key sustainability themes and competencies for engineering education. In Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 4–6 July 2013; Available online: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894131459&partnerID=8YFLogxK (accessed on 4 July 2023).
  105. Batterman, S.A.; Martins, A.G.; Antunes, C.H.; Freire, F.; Da Silva, M.G. Development and application of competencies for graduate programs in energy and sustainability. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2011, 137, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Karleuša, B.; Deluka-Tibljaš, A.; Ilić, S.; Dragičević, N. Developing awareness about sustainable development in civil engineering studies. In Proceedings of the Engineering Education 2010: Inspiring the Next Generation of Engineers, Birmingham, UK, 6–8 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
  107. Allen, D.T.; Murphy, C.F.; Allenby, B.R.; Davidson, C.I. Incorporating sustainability into chemical engineering education. Chem. Eng. Prog. 2009, 105, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  108. Carew, A.L.; Mitchell, C.A. What do chemical engineering undergraduates mean by sustainability? In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 24–27 June 2001. [CrossRef]
  109. Gaughran, W.; Burke, S.; Quinn, S. Environmental sustainability in undergraduate engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI, USA, 24–27 June 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lehmann, M.; Christensen, P.; Du, X.; Thrane, M. Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2008, 33, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Groß, I.; Rörig, H.; Franke, D.; Seuser, K. The blue track sustainability in the study programs of mechanical and electrical engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 3–5 April 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Phillips, W.B.; Sullivan, W.S.; Aron, R.; Cherif, A.H.; Fortun, S. A renewable energy specialization in an electronics engineering technology curriculum. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 15–18 June 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sauhats, A.; Dolgicers, A.; Zalostiba, D.; Biela-Dailidovicha, E.; Broka, Z. Document details—University impact on power supply economy, reliability and sustainability enhancement decreasing climate changes. In Proceedings of the 56th International Scientific Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering of Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, 14 October 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Weber, N.R.; Strobel, J.; Dyehouse, M.A.; Harris, C.; David, R.; Fang, J.; Hua, I. First-year students’ environmental awareness and understanding of environmental sustainability through a life cycle assessment module. J. Eng. Educ. 2014, 103, 154–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chiou, R.; Tseng, T.L.B.; Ertekin, Y.; Carr, M.E. A graduate engineering technology online course in sustainable and green manufacturing. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 23–26 June 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sunthonkanokpong, W.; Murphy, E. Engineering educators’ perspectives on the feasibility of fostering sustainability through the internet of things. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2021, 29, 222–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Singh, G.; Bhardwaj, G.; Singh, S.V.; Chaudhary, N. Artificial intelligence led Industry 4.0 application for sustainable development. In Proceedings of the 2022 2nd International Conference on Innovative Practices in Technology and Management, Gautam Buddha Nagar, India, 23–25 February 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Salah, B.; Abidi, M.H.; Mian, S.H.; Krid, M.; Alkhalefah, H.; Abdo, A. Virtual reality-based engineering education to enhance manufacturing sustainability in Industry 4.0. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ghosh, N.; Ayer, B.; Sharma, R. Technology integrated inclusive learning spaces for industry 4.0 adaptive learners-Lur model for sustainable competency development. ECS Trans. 2022, 107, 13823–13832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Svetsky, S.; Moravcik, O. Some barriers regarding the sustainability of digital technology for long-term teaching. In Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference—Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 15–16 November 2018; Arai, K., Bhatia, R., Kapoor, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 880, pp. 950–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Islam, M.M.; AlGeddawy, T. The industrial internet of things models, challenges and opportunities in sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management, Coeur d’Alene, ID, USA, 17–20 October 2018; American Society for Engineering Management: Huntsville, AL, USA, 2018; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  122. Alarcon-Pereira, G.; Rampasso, I.S.; Tapia-Ubeda, F.J.; Rojas-Aguilar, K.; Rojas-Cordava, C. The evolution of sustainability in engineering education research: A longitudinal analysis through bibliometrics and the CDIO initiative. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2023, 24, 1266–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Tejedor, G.; Rosas-Casals, M.; Segalas, J. Patterns and trends in engineering education in sustainability: A vision from relevant journals in the field. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 360–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Tanna, S.; Fyfe, M.; Kumar, S. Learning through service: A qualitative study of a community-based placement in general practice. Educ. Prim. Care 2020, 31, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Mayer, B.; Blume, A.; Black, C.; Stevens, S. Improving student learning outcomes through community-based research: The poverty workshop. Teach. Sociol. 2019, 47, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Clifford, K.L.; Zaman, M.H. Engineering, global health, and inclusive innovation: Focus on partnership, system strengthening, and local impact for SDGs. Glob. Health Action 2016, 9, 30175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Leng, P. Mutuality in Cambodian international university partnerships: Looking beyond the global discourse. High. Educ. 2016, 72, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Pauw, J.B.; Gericke, N.; Olsson, D.; Berglund, T. The effectiveness of education for sustainable development. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15693–15717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Segalàs, J.; Ferrer-Balas, D.; Svanström, M.; Lundqvist, U.; Mulder, K.F. What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competences at three European universities. Sustain. Sci. 2009, 4, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00641 g001
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework [19].
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework [19].
Sustainability 16 00641 g001
Sustainability 16 00641 g002
Figure 2. The growth trajectory of Scopus-indexed publications on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (n = 2738).
Figure 2. The growth trajectory of Scopus-indexed publications on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (n = 2738).
Sustainability 16 00641 g002
Sustainability 16 00641 g003
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of Scopus-indexed publications on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (n = 2738). Map created in Tableau software (https://www.tableau.com/).
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of Scopus-indexed publications on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (n = 2738). Map created in Tableau software (https://www.tableau.com/).
Sustainability 16 00641 g003
Sustainability 16 00641 g004
Figure 4. Author co-citation network map on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (Threshold = 38, display 144 authors). Map generated in VOSviewer.
Figure 4. Author co-citation network map on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (Threshold = 38, display 144 authors). Map generated in VOSviewer.
Sustainability 16 00641 g004
Sustainability 16 00641 g005
Figure 5. Co-word network map with a temporal overlay on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (Threshold of 26 occurrences, display 147 words from 13,085 keywords). Map generated in VOSviewer.
Figure 5. Co-word network map with a temporal overlay on engineering education for sustainability, 1991–2022 (Threshold of 26 occurrences, display 147 words from 13,085 keywords). Map generated in VOSviewer.
Sustainability 16 00641 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Narong, D.K.; Hallinger, P. Traversing the Evolution of Research on Engineering Education for Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review (1991–2022). Sustainability 2024, 16, 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020641

AMA Style

Narong DK, Hallinger P. Traversing the Evolution of Research on Engineering Education for Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review (1991–2022). Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020641

Chicago/Turabian Style

Narong, David Kongpiwatana, and Philip Hallinger. 2024. "Traversing the Evolution of Research on Engineering Education for Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review (1991–2022)" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020641

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop