黑料福利网

This involves equipping engineers with essential competencies to address challenges in a socio-technical manner (Habbal, et al., 2024; UNESCO, 2017; Tilbury, 2011): 鈥淚t is not enough for engineering students to learn to develop the content of technology and how technologies are combined and form systems. The students also need to learn how they, as humans and collaborators interact together in the design of systems, and here both cognitive and emotional aspects are at stake鈥� (Habbal, et al., 2024, p.139). This shift involves moving away from solely teaching of disciplinary knowledge towards transformative engineering curricula (de Vicente, Wieczorek & Matti, 2014; Agbedahin, 2019, K枚hler et al., 2019; Huijben et al., 2022) developing transformative competencies that include both disciplinary and transdisciplinary ones. 

Transdisciplinary competencies include systems thinking, futures thinking, values thinking, strategic thinking, implementation, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and integration competencies (Redman and Wiek, 2021). We argue that transformative competencies should not be confined to transdisciplinary ones but should also encompass disciplinary competencies and be connected to students鈥� personal interests and values. In line with Giesenbauer and Muller Christ (2020) but contrary to most literature on transformative competencies (Sommier et al., 2022), we refer to the combination of competencies including disciplinary and transdisciplinary, as transformative competencies.  

To develop such competencies, engineering curricula need a shift in rationale from focusing on solving engineering challenges to addressing societal challenges. This new rationale should guide the curriculum design of intended learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment, ensuring their alignment, i.e. constructive alignment. This new rationale also demands engaging various stakeholders, including students, and fostering co-creative collaboration when designing the curriculum. Furthermore, as the world constantly changes, there is a growing need for adaptability in curriculum design. 

While higher engineering education increasingly acknowledges the importance of transdisciplinary competencies (Habbal, et al., 2024), educational institutes are restricted by current systems and mentalities that limit transformation. While some experimentation is done, for example with the recent educational concept Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) (Valencia et al., 2021; Reymen et al., 2022; Reymen, Vermunt & Brans, 2023; Helker et al., 2024), these trials are mostly at course level, similar to other attempts at integrating transdisciplinary competencies into higher education curricula (Kolmos et al., 2016). For a more radical change in educational systems, it is necessary to experiment at a program/curriculum level (Graham, 2012; Doulougeri et al., 2024).

Within this proposal, we focus on three subproblems:  

First, there is a need to better understand the characteristics of transformative competencies; balance must still be defined, and ways to co-create and adapt this balanced set of competencies in engineering education must be outlined. This set should take the needs of different internal (university and students) and external (society) stakeholders into account. Thus, the set of competencies under this new rationale should be adaptable, balancing disciplinary and transdisciplinary competencies, and be co-created in a multi-stakeholder setting with varying views and needs for content-wise open but time-bound engineering curricula.  

Competency frameworks have been developed to guide curriculum (re)design (e.g., CDIO (Crawley et al., 2001); ACQA (Perrenet et al., 2017)). Most frameworks emphasize a predetermined set of competencies to be achieved as learning outcomes by the end of the program. However, more insight is necessary on how to create space for personalized choices in competencies at curriculum level, allowing for unique portfolios for each student.  

According to an integrative worldview (Giesenbauer & Muller-Christ, 2020), multiple stakeholders in co-creation should determine the balanced set of competencies for university graduates. This set should be worth an academic degree, meet labour market demands and societal needs, and the preferences of learners (UNESCO, 2021). This approach allows for personalised competency portfolios. Currently academic standards often lead, with some input from companies. The desired practice is co-creation with all stakeholders. 

Many universities adopt an add-on strategy rather than systematically rebuilding curricula (Tsao et al., 2024). Program directors face a challenge of balancing essential disciplinary competencies with the need to incorporate transdisciplinary ones to transform curricula within the new rationale of addressing societal challenges . Given the rapid societal changes, the set of competencies must be adaptable to evolving needs. This means allowing for adjustments in the competency set annually, through a standard process, and enabling students to adjust their learning outcomes within certain boundaries throughout their learning journey.  

Second, it must be researched how to best align learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment, as defined in constructive alignment when learning outcomes are non-predefined, as with an adaptable and balanced set of competencies. Constructive alignment focusses on 鈥減redetermined鈥� learning outcomes at the course or curriculum level, which does not align well with the premise that students are in the lead (Remneland Wikhamn, 2017). When deriving learning outcomes from an adaptable competency framework, learning activities and assessment need to align with learning outcomes that are content-wise open and balanced in the students鈥� individual competency portfolio.  

Specifically, we aim to achieve constructive alignment at the curriculum level, with non-predefined learning outcomes, an area that has not received much attention (Remneland Wikhamn, 2017). We need to understand what (transformative competencies defined as learning outcomes in a competency framework, subproblem 1) and how (learning activities and assessment of a balanced competencies portfolio, subproblem 3) engineering students learn to stimulate a transformation of systems toward sustainability and address grand societal challenges.  

Finally, there is a need to better understand how to guide students in navigating their learning journey considering how to select, acquire and validate a personalized and balanced set of competencies. Students need guidance in selecting competencies they work towards at the beginning and during their program (learning outcomes in a competency portfolio (McMullan et al., 2003)). To acquire these competencies, students will engage in various learning activities, while validation of these competencies will contribute to the assessment of their competency portfolio. However, how to guide students under the new rationale, is still unknown.

The project will deliver validated design principles and solutions for practice for co-creating content-wise open, yet time-bound constructively aligned engineering curricula within the new rationale. Since transformation of educational institutes is restricted by current systems and mentalities , we have chosen the time-bound scope to have realistic impact at the end of the project. Our research will deliver foundation for changing one or more engineering curricula within five years.  

Furthermore, our project will spark discussion and initiate systemic changes in university education more broadly. It has the potential to advance CBL at the curriculum level, since CBL combines disciplinary and transdisciplinary competencies while encouraging students to direct their learning. Our insights can also guide non-technical universities in addressing curricular change while stimulating co-creative collaboration between technical and non-technical disciplines, and helping alumni understand the importance of connecting with engineers and technology experts. 

For research: We will expand the knowledge base on achieving constructive alignment at the curriculum level with a new rationale (i.e. addressing societal challenges), and non-predefined learning outcomes. Next to practice-oriented insights, we will shed light on the new rationale to reach alignment, including effects and mechanisms. We will contribute knowledge on pathways for developing an adaptable and balanced set of transformative competencies. The project will inspire further research on balanced competency development beyond engineering programs. Our insights on guiding students in navigating their learning journey to select, acquire, and validate a balanced and personalised set of competencies will offer valuable directions for research on flexibilization of education.  

鈥婩or teaching practice: We will offer educational designers validated principles for creating constructively aligned curricula within the new rationale of addressing societal challenges. We will offer teachers information to guide students in selecting competencies to be achieved as learning outcomes, learning activities fitting these learning outcomes, and assessing/validating these learning outcomes. 

鈥婩or policy: Our work will assist policymakers in making research-based decisions to shift the rationale for engineering curricula from solving engineering challenges to addressing societal challenges, in line with the advice of AWTI (2023) to direct policy efforts towards transformation. Our project will spark conversations about systemic changes needed in Dutch Higher Education, integrating three regime perspectives of Eimer鈥檚 future exploration for secondary vocational, higher education and science (2023): (1) employment, economic development and innovation; (2) grand societal challenges; and (3) development of individual talent. Our project contributes to making science and universities more relevant to society (de Bruin et al, 2023).