See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344337971

Mapping the CDIO Syllabus to the UNESCO Key Competencies for

Sustainability

Conference Paper · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

3 521

15 authors, including:

Anders Rosén Kristina Edström

KTH Royal Institute of Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS 807 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 659 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lena Gumaelius Anna-Karin Högfeldt

KTH Royal Institute of Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology
55 PUBLICATIONS 821 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge-Based Engineering in Product Development Processes View project

Mechanical alloying of FeAl View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anders Rosén on 22 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MAPPING THE CDIO SYLLABUS TO THE UNESCO
KEY COMPETENCIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Anders Rosén1, Kristina Edström1, Audun Grøm2, Lena Gumaelius1, Peter Munkebo
Hussmann3, Anna-Karin Högfeldt1, Meeri Karvinen4, Marko Keskinen4, Maria Knutson
Wedel5, Ulrika Lundqvist5, Reidar Lyng2, Johan Malmqvist5, Mads Nygaard2, Martin
Vigild3, Thomas Fruergaard Astrup3
1
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
3
Technical University of Denmark, 4Aalto University, 5Chalmers University of Technology

ABSTRACT

In this paper a framework of key competencies for sustainability defined by UNESCO is used
to evaluate the relevance of the CDIO Syllabus for promoting engineering education for
sustainable development. The evaluation is performed in two steps. First, topics, terms and
concepts in the CDIO Syllabus that corresponds to the different UNESCO key competencies
are identified. The second step is a qualitative discussion where areas of strong mapping are
highlighted and aspects that could be better visualized or strengthened in, or added to, the
Syllabus are identified. Differences in definitions of various concepts between the CDIO
Syllabus and the UNESCO key competencies and the overall relation between the two
frameworks are discussed. It is concluded that the CDIO Syllabus is rather well aligned with
the UNESCO framework, however several opportunities (not to say needs) for strengthening
the Syllabus in relation to the key competencies are identified. The UNESCO key
competencies are found to be useful instruments for scrutinizing and updating the CDIO
Syllabus. Other opportunities for knowledge and methods transfer between the Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) domain and the Engineering Education domain are
identified. The paper is proposed to be used as basis for updating the CDIO Syllabus into a
version 3.0 for maintaining its relevance in a changing world.

KEYWORDS

CDIO Syllabus, key competencies, sustainable development, ESD, Standards 1-3, 5, 7-9.

INTRODUCTION

Through the adoption of the UN 2030 Agenda (UN 2015), the global society and
governments all over the world have agreed on the urgent need for change and formulated
common Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). One of the seventeen SDGs considers
education. To further promote the role of education for achieving the SDGs, UNESCO has
issued guidelines for formulating learning objectives for each of the SDGs (UNESCO 2017).
These learning objectives are based on eight key competencies for sustainability, which are
derived by synthesising current research on education for sustainable development (e.g. de
Haan 2010; Wiek et al. 2011; Rieckmann 2012).

The CDIO Syllabus aims to set consistent and generalizable goals for undergraduate
engineering education addressing the conceiving-designing-implementing-operating (CDIO)
context. The first version of the Syllabus, formulated in 2001, showed limited explicit attention
to sustainability and sustainable development (Crawley 2001). In 2011, the Syllabus was
reviewed and updated into a Version 2.0 (Crawley et al. 2011). The review was based on
comparison with the UNESCO Four Pillars of Learning (Delores 1996), different national

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
accreditation and evaluation standards, and other forms of input received over the decade
since the Syllabus was originally written. The major focus of the review was the formulation
of two additional Syllabus sections concerning leadership (4.7) and entrepreneurship (4.8).
With reference to Knutson-Wedel et al. (2008), it was concluded that while the Syllabus can
support the development of engineering education to address sustainability, the visibility of
the concept of sustainability could be strengthened. This resulted in the addition of terms
such as environmental, sustainability, sustainable, and safe, mainly in section 4 of the
Syllabus where also a new sub-section 4.1.7 Sustainability and the Need for Sustainable
Development was added. Similar small modifications were also made concerning innovation,
invention, internationalization and mobility.

The prospect of further developing the CDIO Syllabus and Standards in the context of the
Sustainable Development Goals is now being considered in a joint effort by the Nordic Five
Tech Universities (Aalto University, Chalmers University of Technology, Technical University
of Denmark, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Norwegian University of Science and
Technology). As part of this endeavour, the objective of this paper is to evaluate to what
extent the current version of the CDIO Syllabus reflects the key competencies for
sustainability outlined in UNESCO (2017). The aim is to contribute to the bridging of the two
domains Engineering Education and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and to
the development of the CDIO Syllabus for maintaining its relevance in a changing world. A
parallel paper by Malmqvist et al (2019) considers related revisions of the CDIO Standards.

CDIO SYLLABUS AND STANDARDS

The starting point of the CDIO Initiative was to consider what knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that engineering students should learn to prepare for engineering practice. The resulting
document was called the CDIO Syllabus (Crawley, 2001). It is structured in four sections
according to Figure 1: The first is a placeholder for the subject knowledge relevant for a
particular educational programme, the second section lists personal and professional skills,
while the third contains interpersonal skills. The fourth overarching section contains the
ability to conceive, design, implement and operate products, processes, and systems, in the
enterprise and societal context – or what could be called the CDIO shorthand for engineering
competencies. Since the CDIO Syllabus is a very extensive set of goals, it must be
emphasised that it is intended to be comprehensive but not prescriptive; no program could
be expected to address all topics.

4. CDIO

1. Technical Knowledge 2. Personal and 3. Interpersonal

and Reasoning Professional Skills Skills

Figure 1. The four sections of the CDIO Syllabus (Crawley 2001).

It is not the CDIO Syllabus that defines the CDIO approach. Instead, the working definition is
expressed in the CDIO Standards, formulated in 2004 to define the distinguishing features of
a CDIO program, serve as guidelines for educational program reform and evaluation, create
benchmarks and goals with worldwide application, and provide a framework for continuous
improvement (CDIO 2004). Simply put, if the CDIO Syllabus defines what students should
learn, the CDIO Standards are a set of aligned strategies for developing programs to address
these learning goals. They focus on program aims (Standard 1), curriculum development
(Standards 2, 3, 4), engineering projects and workspaces (Standards 5, 6), teaching and
learning methods (Standards 7, 8), faculty development (Standards 9, 10), and assessment
and evaluation (Standards 11, 12). The structure of the Syllabus can be clearly recognised
when it is stated in the Standards that a program should set specific, detailed learning

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
outcomes for personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building
skills, as well as disciplinary knowledge, consistent with program goals and validated by
program stakeholders (Standard 2). Hence, the main aim of the CDIO Syllabus is to be an
instrument to guide the formulation of intended learning outcomes for a specific program,
making priorities based on a particular context, conditions, ambitions, and stakeholder needs.
As a comprehensive framework, it has been used for defining, analysing or comparing
learning objectives in curriculum development – on program or course level, as well as in
national and international quality assurance schemes.

KEY COMPETENCIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY

The consideration and implementation of competencies in educational systems has been an

integral part of the shift from input-oriented knowledge-based educations to outcome-
oriented competence-based educations, driven by the CDIO initiative, the Bologna process,
and similar activities around the world. Such a shift builds on the idea that education should
not only aim to provide knowledge in itself, but also foster the development of competencies
as an interplay between knowledge, skills, and attitudes among the learners.

Key competencies for sustainability are competencies that, within the Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) domain, are considered necessary for all learners to cope
with the increasingly diverse and interconnected world and to enable them to contribute to
the urgently needed transformations towards a sustainable society. For example the OECD
DeSeCo project (OECD 2005) resulted in the definition of a set of nine key competencies. de
Haan (2010) presented a set of twelve competencies subsumed under the term
Gestaltungskompetenz, noting that those possessing these competencies can help, through
active participation, to modify and shape the future of the society, and to guide social,
economic, technological and ecological changes along the lines of sustainable development.
Wiek et al. (2011) performed an extensive literature review, identifying various definitions of
competencies related to sustainability, which were then clustered into a compiled set of five
key competencies for sustainability. Here, critical thinking and basic communication skills
were not included with the motivation that they should be considered as general
competencies rather than key competencies. Rieckmann (2012) performed an empirical
study among experts on higher education for sustainable development in a number of
countries in Europe and South America, identifying a set of twelve key competencies, where
critical thinking, systemic thinking and handling of complexity, and anticipatory thinking, were
concluded to be the most important. The key competencies in the above mentioned
references have significant overlaps but also some differences, with several other definitions
found in the literature as well. Hence, there is no general consensus on the specific
definitions of key competencies for sustainability and the concept is still under development
(e.g. Shephard et al 2018). Some sort of convergence can however be seen, where key
competencies are generally considered to represent cross-cutting, multifunctional, context-
and domain-independent competencies.

In this paper, we use the eight key competencies for sustainability outlined by UNESCO
(2017) as reference when evaluating the CDIO Syllabus. Our motivation for choosing this
particular set of competencies is two-fold: firstly, they connect directly to the SDGs in the UN
2030 Agenda, and secondly, they are well founded in other related literature (e.g. de Haan
2010; Wiek et al. 2011; Rieckmann 2012; OECD 2005) and can thereby be considered as a
compilation of these. The UNESCO key competencies are here reproduced in Table 1, with
each competency defined, or rather exemplified, in terms of a number of abilities according
to UNESCO (2017). It should be noted that the UNESCO descriptions of the different
competencies in Table 1 are rather limited, not least for the strategic competency, and that
our analysis thereby will contain corresponding limitations.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
 Table 1. The eight key competencies for sustainability in UNESCO (2017).
Competency Ability to…
1. Systems − recognize and understand relationships;
thinking − analyse complex systems;
competency − think of how systems are embedded within different domains and different
scales;
− deal with uncertainty.
2. Anticipatory − understand and evaluate multiple futures – possible, probable and desirable;
competency − create one’s own visions for the future;
− apply the precautionary principle;
− assess the consequences of actions;
− deal with risks and changes.
3. Normative − understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie one’s actions;
competency − negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets, in a context of
conflicts of interests and trade-offs, uncertain knowledge and contradictions.
4. Strategic − collectively develop and implement innovative actions that further
competency sustainability at the local level and further afield.
5. Collaboration − learn from others;
competency − understand and respect the needs, perspectives and actions of others
(empathy);
− understand, relate to and be sensitive to others (empathic leadership);
− deal with conflicts in a group;
− facilitate collaborative and participatory problem solving.
6. Critical − question norms, practices and opinions;
thinking − reflect on own one’s values, perceptions and actions;
competency − take a position in the sustainability discourse.
7. Self- − reflect on one’s own role in the local community and (global) society;
awareness − continually evaluate and further motivate one’s actions;
competency − deal with one’s feelings and desires.
8. Integrated − apply different problem-solving frameworks to complex sustainability
problem-solving problems and develop viable, inclusive and equitable solution options that
competency promote sustainable development, integrating the abovementioned
competences.

Self-awareness Systems thinking

competency competency

Critical thinking Anticipatory

competency competency

Integrated
problem-solving
competency

Collaboration Normative
competency competency

Strategic competency
Figure 2. Our schematic illustration of the UNESCO key competencies framework.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
METHOD

The objective of this paper is to evaluate to what extent the UNESCO key competencies for
sustainability are reflected in the current version of the CDIO Syllabus as basis for further
revision of the Syllabus. The evaluation is performed in two steps.

The first step is an analysis identifying topics, terms and concepts in the CDIO Syllabus that
correspond to the different abilities of the UNESCO key competencies (as in Table 1). We
use the current CDIO Syllabus version 2.0 (see Appendix B in Crawley et al. 2011) including
sub-titles and explanatory keywords under the X.X.X level. The identified mapping is
categorized on two levels: either i) explicit or otherwise strong mapping or ii) implicit or partial
mapping.

Since the Syllabus section 1 is a placeholder for the subject knowledge relevant for a
particular education programme, this mapping analysis only considers Syllabus sections 2-4.
Further, it has become obvious through the process of this analysis that the 8th UNESCO key
competency, integrated problem-solving, has a different character and role than the other
competencies. As seen in Table 1, UNESCO defines this 8th competency as integrating the
other seven key competencies. Similarly Wiek et al (2011) describes the incorporation of
some of the key competencies in an integrated problem solving framework. Based on these
observations we are here only addressing competencies 1-7 in the first step of the analysis,
leaving integrated problem-solving for consideration in the second step.

The second step of the evaluation is a qualitative discussion where areas of strong mapping
are highlighted and aspects that could be better visualized or strengthened in, or added to,
the Syllabus are identified. Differences in definitions of various concepts between the CDIO
Syllabus and the UNESCO key competencies and the overall relation between the two
frameworks are discussed.

The different key competencies have here been analysed by different working groups
consisting of three to four of the co-authors of this paper representing different universities,
disciplines and experiences. Several video conference discussions have provided further
negotiation of our interpretation of the differences, providing a broad view and more valid
understanding of the Syllabus and the key competencies. The analysis has hence been an
interpretive process guided by conceptual reasoning and discussions between colleagues.

MAPPING

Overview

An overview of the identified mapping between the CDIO Syllabus and the UNESCO key
competencies 1-7 is given in Table 2. Here dark coloured fields indicate explicit or otherwise
strong mapping whereas light coloured fields indicate implicit or partial mapping. Fields
marked with an asterisk indicates where we identified potential for development. More details
about the mapping analysis are provided in the appendix.

Strong mappings with basically all key competencies are identified for the Syllabus section
4.1 External, Societal and Environmental Context. This could be expected, not least since
this is the section that was most updated regarding sustainability in the Syllabus 2.0 revision
(Crawley et al 2011). Considering the nature of the sustainability concepts and concerns it is
also expected that strong mapping with several of the key competencies is identified for the
Syllabus sections 2.4 Attitudes, Thought and Learning and 2.5 Ethics, Equity and Other
Responsibilities. On the other hand, rather weak mapping is identified between the key
competencies and the Syllabus sections 4.2 Enterprise and Business Context; 4.4 Designing;
4.5 Implementing; 4.7 Leading Engineering Endeavors; and 4.8 Entrepreneurship.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
Table 2: Identified mapping between the CDIO Syllabus and the UNESCO key competencies 1-7. Dark colour=explicit/strong
mapping; Light colour=implicit/partial mapping; Asterisk=potential/need for improvement.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
Considering the individual key competencies, particularly strong mapping is found for the
systems thinking competency basically all through Syllabus sections 2 and 4. Strong
mapping is also found between the collaboration competency and the Syllabus section 3.1
Teamwork and quite strong also with 3.2 Communication. Quite some mapping is also found
for the anticipatory, normative, and critical thinking competencies, whereas the mapping is
weaker regarding the strategic and self-awareness competencies. Some further observations
and opportunities for strengthening the CDIO Syllabus in relation to the UNESCO key
competencies are discussed in the following sub-sections.

Systems thinking

The identified strong mapping with the systems thinking competency all through the Syllabus
sections 2 and 4 and the fact that there is a particular Syllabus section dedicated for System
Thinking (2.3), on one hand indicates that the CDIO notion of systems thinking is more
narrowly defined than the UNESCO systems thinking competency. On the other hand, this
reflects that systems thinking in a broader sense, also including a practical “systems doing”,
is a core aspect of engineering. This is particularly strongly expressed in the Syllabus section
4. It can also be seen in the CDIO Standard 1, citing the principle that product, process, and
system lifecycle development and deployment – Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and
Operating – are the context for engineering education.

Temporal and spatial perspectives

The mapping analysis indicates opportunities for strengthening the CDIO Syllabus in relation
to both the systems thinking and anticipatory key competencies regarding the consideration
of different scales, in time as well as space, and future scenarios. Although CDIO certainly
advocates broadening the view on technology and engineering, global perspectives,
temporal perspectives, and future-oriented thinking are more narrowly expressed and could
be emphasized for example in the Syllabus sections 2.3.1, 2.3.4, 2.5.1, 4.1.4 and 4.1.6.
Abilities to apply the precautionary principle could be more emphasized, for example in 2.4.2
and 2.5.1. The Syllabus considers various visionary aspects, however limited to one’s own
personal future and visions for products and enterprises. Abilities to create one’s own vision
for the future could be strengthened in 2.5.3.

Personal value-related aspects

The UNESCO description of normative competency emphasizes the understanding of norms

and values that forms the basis for one’s actions, and the ability to reflect upon those. It also
stresses the importance of the ability to negotiate trade-offs among complex conflicts of
interest about values, principles and goals, where information may be uncertain or
contradictory, i.e., to handle complex value added systems. The UNESCO description for
critical thinking competency is closely related to normative competency and together they
illustrate some of the overall differences between the CDIO Syllabus and the UNESCO key
competencies. While there is a good match for critical thinking with respect to particulars,
there are differences in the overall view of the nature of the competency. The CDIO Syllabus
does not explicitly address norms based in specific interests, ideology or belief systems in
the same way that the UNESCO description does. Instead, the CDIO Syllabus takes
prevailing systems more as given, and emphasises familiarity with current practices (2.5.4).
The focus is rather on understanding important contemporary values more generally (4.1.5).
Both these abilities, addressing norms and reflecting, seem to be missing from the current
CDIO Syllabus, and could be added under to section 2.4 Attitudes, Thought and Learning,
with question norms, practices and opinions included into 2.4.5 or even meriting its own, new,
goal (a suggested 2.4.8). The ability to reflect on one’s own values, perceptions and actions
could be added as part of 2.4.2 or 2.4.5.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
It is clear that UNESCO links both normative competency and critical thinking to one’s ability
to take a position in the sustainability discourse (rather than, for example, plan and
implement actions for sustainability, which is part of strategic competency). The UNESCO
descriptions view both these competencies as personal, value-related competencies of
questioning prevailing norms and practices, including the ability to reflect on one’s own
values and actions. There is a distinction between, on the one hand, norms and standards
based on engineering practices and calculations, which should be challenged on scientific
grounds, and, on the other hand, norms founded in specific interests, ideology or belief
systems. The latter may form boundary conditions for which solutions or actions are
acceptable in a given situation. An understanding of this distinction is central to the ability to
negotiate trade-offs among conflicting interests. While the UNESCO description conflates the
two aspects, the CDIO Syllabus could clarify the distinction by distinguishing between them,
most profitably in the syllabus sections indicated above.

This difference can also be seen in relation to the self-awareness competency. The CDIO
Syllabus seems to connect self-awareness mainly to the cognitive domain of learning and
metacognition, while the UNESCO approach emphasizes self-reflection regarding one’s own
role, feelings and desires. The Syllabus could be strengthened in relation to the self-
awareness competency by adding abilities to reflect also one’s own role locally and globally,
and the ability to recognize and deal with one’s feelings and desires in sections 2.4.5, 4.1.1
and 4.1.6. The ability to recognize and deal with one’s feelings and desires, and also the
ability to understand how they influence one’s behaviour, willingness, effectivity, flexibility
and motivation, could be added to 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 4.7.5. The ability to continually evaluate
and further motivate one’s actions could be emphasized more in 2.5.3, 4.7.6, and 4.7.5.
Finally, the collective abilities for self-awareness competency could be included in 4.7.7. With
these developments, the CDIO Syllabus would actually go beyond the UNESCO key
competency also including self-awareness for others and not just for one self.

Learning from others, participatory and empathic approaches

Collaboration is an important part of the CDIO framework and the Syllabus matches the
collaborative competency to a very high degree. We found that the CDIO Syllabus focus to a
high degree on team work primarily among engineers, and less so on collaboration across
disciplines. The latter aspect is consistent with our findings with respect to normative
competency and critical thinking, where we noted an absence in the CDIO Syllabus of an
explicit mention of how to deal with values. Also, we found that the Syllabus could better
emphasise the ability to learn from others (2.4.6), the need to consider collaborative and
participatory problem-solving (3.1.4), and empathic leadership (4.7.5 or 4.8.7). At the same
time, the CDIO Syllabus goes beyond the UNESCO competency when it comes to
encouraging and inspiring others, and supporting their learning.

A note on the structures of the frameworks

This mapping process helped us see interconnections and dimensional qualities, making it
clear that neither framework is a straight list. In the UNESCO framework, integrated problem
solving integrates the other seven competencies. We illustrate this by placing it in the centre
of the heptagon in Figure 2. Similarly, the CDIO Syllabus also has dimensions, as shown in
Figure 1. In the CDIO framework it is engineering – or conceiving, designing, implementing
and operating – that is the overarching and integrating competency, with 4.1 and 4.2
representing the context. If the CDIO Syllabus is further updated with respect to sustainability,
as outlined in this paper, it could show a way for practical integrated problem-solving, well
aligned with the UNESCO key competencies framework.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
TOWARDS CDIO SYLLABUS 3.0

This study has shown that the current version of the CDIO Syllabus is already to quite some
extent aligned with the UNESCO key competencies for sustainability. This can partly be
explained by the previous enhancements regarding sustainability in the Syllabus 2.0 revision
(Crawley et al. 2011) but even more by the strong emphasis on generic engineering skills as
one of the core aspects of the CDIO Syllabus and the obvious correspondence between
those skills and some of the key competencies such as collaboration, systems thinking and
problem solving. Still, several opportunities (not to say needs) for strengthening the Syllabus
in relation to the key competencies have been identified.

Just like we reason with regards to the generic engineering skills, sustainable development
and therewith related competencies should not be treated as an add-on in isolated courses,
but instead be thoroughly integrated in education program curricula in line with the CDIO
philosophy of integrated learning. Enhanced integration of sustainable development will
contribute in improving the relevance and future compliance of engineering educations and
could also contribute to students’ and teachers’ motivation. This study has shown that the
UNESCO key competencies, and the underlying research literature, are useful instruments
for scrutinizing and updating the CDIO Syllabus. In the other way around, implementations in
the Engineering Education domain could also contribute in developing further understanding
of the key competencies within the Education for Sustainable Development domain. Also
regarding pedagogical approaches and learning activities there are opportunities for
knowledge and methods transfer between these two educational domains (see for instance
chapter 2 in UNESCO (2017) and Lozano et al (2017) in relation to the CDIO Standards 7
and 8).

We propose that the results from this study are used as a basis for a structured process for
updating the CDIO Syllabus into a version 3.0. As demonstrated and discussed in this paper
such updating would partly be about adding words and expressions and partly about
broadening and deepening the current conceptions of generic skills for better alignment with
the key competencies.

Somewhat outside the scope of this paper, but still worth stating in the context of Syllabus
updating, is the opportunity (not to say need) to add generic sustainability knowledge as an
element in the Syllabus section 1. This section was deliberately excluded from our mapping
analysis since it is mainly a placeholder for fundamental scientific and engineering
knowledge that has to be defined for each education programme. However, as highlighted by
Knutson-Wedel et al. (2008), in addition to domain-specific sustainability knowledge to be
considered for each education program, there also exists a common domain- and program-
independent core of sustainability knowledge that is crucial for all engineers and therefore
would be motivated to include in section 1. This for example concerns knowledge of
fundamental sustainability concepts, international policies, and possibilities and limitations of
the use of different natural resources from a sustainability point of view.

Neither the CDIO Syllabus nor the UNESCO key competencies are prescriptive and they
only address what students should learn. Enhanced integration of sustainable development
in the CDIO framework will therefore require parallel revisions of the CDIO Syllabus and the
CDIO Standards. Further background to and proposals of revisions of the CDIO Standards is
considered in the parallel paper by Malmqvist et al (2019).

With these changes, we suggest that the CDIO community can adopt the aim to educate
students to conceive, design, implement and operate complex value-added engineering
products, processes, systems and services for a sustainable society.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
REFERENCES

Crawley, E. F. (2001). The CDIO Syllabus – A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Engineering
Education. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Lucas, W. A., Brodeur, D. R. (2011). The CDIO Syllabus v2.0 – An
Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education. 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical
University of Denmark, Copenhagen, June 20 – 23.
CDIO (2004). The CDIO Standards. The CDIO Initiative, 12 April 2004. Available at
www.cdio.org/files/standards/cdio_standards_1.0.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2019).
Delors, J., et al. (1996). Learning – the Treasure Within: Report to UNESCO of the International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, France.
de Haan, G. (2010). The Development of ESD and Related Competencies in Supportive Institutional
Frameworks. International Review of Education 56 (2&3), pp 315–28.
Knutson Wedel, M., Malmqvist, J., Arehag, M., Svanström, M. (2008). Implementing Engineering
Education for Environmental Sustainability into CDIO Programs, Proceedings of the 4th International
CDIO Conference, Gent, Belgium.
Lozano, R., Merrill, M.Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., Lozano, F.J., (2017). Connecting
Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A
Literature Review and Framework Proposal Sustainability 2017, Vol.9, No.10, pp.1889–1904;
doi:10.3390/su9101889
Malmqvist, J., Knutson Wedel, M., Lundqvist, U., Edström, K., Rosén, A., Fruergaard Astrup, T., Vigild,
M., Munkebo Hussmann, P., Grøm, A., Lyng, R., Gunnarsson, S., Leong, H., Kamp, A., (2019).
Towards CDIO Standards 3.0. Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus,
Denmark.
OECD (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary. Paris.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf. (accessed on 29 January 2019).
Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-Oriented Higher Education: Which Key Competencies Should be
Fostered Through University Teaching and Learning? Futures, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 127–135.
Shephard K, Rieckmann M, Barth M (2018). Seeking Sustainability Competence and Capability in the
ESD and HESD Literature: An International Philosophical Hermeneutic Analysis, Environmental
Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1490947.
UN (2015). Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Resolution
A/RES/70/1.
UNESCO (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals – Learning Objectives, ISBN 978-92-
3-100209-0.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C.L., (2011). Key Competencies in Sustainability: a Reference
Framework for Academic Program Development. Sustainability Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 203–218.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Anders Rosén is Associate Professor at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology working as
teacher and researcher at the Centre for Naval Architecture, as pedagogic developer at the
Department of Learning in Engineering Sciences, and as Deputy Director of Global
Development Hub. Currently focusing on promoting integration of sustainable development in
higher education and development and implementation of challenge driven education.

Kristina Edström is Associate Professor in Engineering Education Development at the

Department of Learning in Engineering Sciences, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, one of
the founding members of the CDIO Initiative. Her research takes a critical approach to the
“why”, “what” and “how” of engineering education reform. She serves on the CDIO Council
and has written numerous publications with relation to CDIO.

Audun Grøm is an Assistant Professor and currently working as a Vice Dean of Education at
Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering at NTNU - the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology. He is also the project leader of a NTNU Teaching
Excellence project, TettPÅ, where he is researching the use of new innovative learning
spaces, response technology and the facilitation of changes in practise. He was the former
head of Department of Electrical Engineering.

Lena Gumaelius holds a position as Associate Professor at the Department of Learning,

KTH Royal Institute of Technology. She is the research leader for the newly established
group “Engineering education in Society” and is also Directing the Nordic STEM initiative.
Her research interests span a relatively broad spectrum, and includes engineering education
at all educational levels, where education for sustainability is one important focus area.

Peter Munkebo Hussmann is Head of Community and Operations at DTU Skylab at the
Technical University of Denmark. He is working strategically to support the development of
entrepreneurial mind-sets among DTU students and faculty through events, hackathons,
courses and other activities held at DTU Skylab. Through the Sustainable Development
Goals drive innovative engineering initiative DTU Skylab engages students and researchers
to impact society using the 2030 Global Sustainable Development Goals as the framework
for new innovations.

Anna-Karin Högfeldt is a Lecturer, PhD student and Director of Faculty Training at KTH
Royal Institute of Technology. Anna-Karin is actively involved in Nordic and International
education evaluation, development and research projects. She is co-author of the book
Guide to Challenge Driven Education (2015), which originates from a collaboration project
with partners in East Africa. At KTH, she has for more than a decade worked strategically to
support management, schools, education program directors and individual teachers to
strengthen education and system level approaches.

Meeri Karvinen is Doctoral Candidate Water and Environmental Engineering at Aalto

University.

Marko Keskinen is Senior University Lecturer at Aalto University, Finland. He is the

Programme Director of Aalto's Master's Programme in Water and Environmental Engineering,
and his research interests include sustainability, science-policy-stakeholder interaction as
well as multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. He is also working and doing research
on educational leadership and novel ways of learning.

Maria Knutson Wedel is Vice President for Undergraduate and Master's Education at
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden and Professor of Engineering
Materials. She served on the CDIO Council for several years as one of two Theme Leaders

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
for Teaching and Learning. At Chalmers she was director of the international Materials
Engineering Masters’ Program 2006-11. She is engaged in integration of sustainability in
engineering and during 2011 she had the position as vice director of the Gothenburg Centre
for Environment and Sustainability. She has a M.Sc. in Engineering Physics and a Ph.D. in
Physics from Chalmers.

Ulrika Lundqvist is a PhD and senior lecturer at Chalmers University of Technology in

Sweden. She is part of Chalmers’ executive committee for education as director for life-long
learning and education for sustainable development. Her research is within Industrial
Ecology, focusing on criteria, indicators, and backcasting for sustainable development, and
she is also active within education for sustainable development.

Reidar Lyng is Associate Professor of university pedagogics at the Department of Education

and Lifelong Learning, at NTNU, presently working at the Center for Science & Engineering
Education at NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. He is a M.Sc. in Chemical Engineering, and holds
a Ph. D. degree in Physical Chemistry. He has more the 30 years experience of education
development from NTNU and several Swedish universities. His research interests are wide
ranging and include the systemic interplay between teachers, students, and learning spaces.

Johan Malmqvist is a Professor in Product Development and Dean of Education at

Chalmers University of Technology. His current research focuses on information
management in the product development process (PLM) and on curriculum development
methodology.

Mads Nygaard is Professor and Dean of Engineering Education at NTNU – the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology. He also chairs the Norwegian National Council for
Information and Communication Technology, and chairs CESAER’s Task Force Benchmark.
He has further been Chairman of Norway’s National Council for Technology Education, and
Vice President of CESAER. His main research areas are Distributed and Operating Systems.

Martin E. Vigild is Professor at the Technical University of Denmark, DTU, and former
president of the European Society for Engineering Education, www.sefi.be. For 10 years he
has been responsible for undergraduate education and student environment at DTU. During
this period CDIO – in general – and the imperative of sustainability – in particular – was
implemented at DTU for the overall purpose of improving engineering education and making
it challenging and attractive for students.

Thomas Fruergaard Astrup is Professor at DTU Environment at the Technical University of

Denmark. He carries out research within waste and resources, in particular in relation to
sustainable recycling and utilization of resources in waste from households and industry. The
research focuses on environmental aspects of resource recovery and management in society.

Corresponding author

Anders Rosén
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
SE10044 Stockholm, Sweden
+46-702580210 This work is licensed under a Creative
aro@kth.se Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs 4.0 International License.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
APPENDIX – MAPPING ANALYSIS DETAILS

Systems thinking competency

Systems thinking is a central concept within the CDIO framework and in the CDIO Syllabus
we find a very strong match with the Systems thinking competency. It is covered by the
sections 2.1 Analytic Reasoning and Problem Solving, 2.3 System Thinking and 4.1 External,
Societal and Environmental Context. The four abilities that are explicitly mentioned (see
Table 1; underlined below) correspond to the following items in the CDIO Syllabus: The
ability to recognize and understand relationships is present throughout 2.3 System Thinking,
most directly in 2.3.2 emergence and interactions which specifies abstractions necessary to
define and model the entities or elements of the system, and the important relationships,
interactions and interfaces among elements. The ability to analyse complex systems is fully
addressed by a combination of 2.1 Analytic Reasoning and Problem Solving and 2.3 System
Thinking. The former lists problem identification and formulation (2.1.1), modeling (2.1.2),
estimations (2.1.3), analysis with uncertainty (2.1.4) and recommendations (2.1.5), while the
latter lists thinking holistically (2.3.1), prioritization and focus (2.3.3), and trade-offs, judgment
and balance (2.3.4). Arguably, this requires creative thinking (2.4.3), with keywords such as
conceptualization, abstraction, synthesis and generalization, as well as critical thinking (2.4.4)
with purpose and statement of the problem or issue, logical arguments, supporting evidence,
points of view and theories, conclusions and implications. The ability to think of how systems
are embedded within different domains and different scales matches thinking holistically
(2.3.1), explicitly mentioning transdisciplinary approaches that ensure the system is
understood from all relevant perspectives, and the societal, enterprise and technical context
of the system. Another relevant aspect is willingness to consider and embrace various
viewpoints (2.4.2). Also 4.1 External, Societal and Environmental Context is relevant, as
seen in phrases such as the impact of engineering on the environmental, social, knowledge
and economic systems in modern culture (4.1.2) historical and cultural context (4.1.4),
contemporary issues and values (4.1.5), global perspective (4.1.6) and sustainability (4.1.7).
The ability to deal with uncertainty is addressed in 2.1 Analytic Reasoning and Problem
Solving, for instance in relation to estimations and assumptions in problem formulation (2.1.1)
and modeling (2.1.2), and also in analysis with uncertainty (2.1.4) An associated attitudinal
component is the willingness to make decisions in the face of uncertainty (2.4.1).

In the comparison some aspects emerge that could be expressed more explicitly in the
Syllabus. There are cases where the heading (on x.x.x level) is highly appropriate, but the
sub-items listed suggest a narrower scope or understanding of a topic. For instance:
1) In the historical and cultural context (4.1.4), we miss items such as “Interpreting
problems and issues in a historical and cultural context” and “Applying a historical
and cultural perspective in creating and evaluating potential solutions”.
2) In developing a global perspective (4.1.6), we suggest adding “Assessing the
consequences of technical systems in a global perspective”
3) While system improvement and evolution (4.6.4) is highly relevant, the given
examples seemingly refer to commercial handling of product generations. A more
general bullet could be added, such as “Continuous improvement and evolution
based on observations of system performance, changing needs or new opportunities”.

Anticipatory competency

The ability to create one’s own vision for the future is to some extent considered under
proactive vision and intention in life (2.5.3) and leadership and entrepreneurship (4.7.2, 4.7.3,
4.7.7). Future perspectives are further considered in terms of: needs and opportunities in
general (2.4.1, 4.7.1, 4.8.2) and particularly regarding sustainability (4.1.7, 4.3.1); goals and
trade-offs (2.3.4, 4.3.3); and various life-cycle considerations (4.3.3, 4.4.6). Life-cycle

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
considerations can also be related to the ability to assess the consequences of actions,
which is also addressed in terms of new technology development and assessment (4.2.6),
implications and impact of engineering and technology on social, environmental, and
economic systems (2.5.4, 4.1.2, 4.8.5), and modeling (2.1.2, 2.1.3). The ability to deal with
risks and changes is explicitly considered in the contexts of 2.1 Analytical Reasoning and
Problem Solving and 2.4 Attitudes, Thought and Learning in terms of analysis with
uncertainty, probabilistic and statistical models, cost-benefit and risk analysis (2.1.4, 2.4.1),
and also in the context of leadership and entrepreneurship (4.7.7). The ability to understand
and evaluate multiple futures – possible, probable and desirable and to apply the
precautionary principle are to some extent considered in 2.2.3 and 4.7.7 and by the above
identified vision and future related elements. Anticipatory competency could also be
considered as implicitly included in all considerations of sustainability related to conceiving,
designing, implementing and operating (4.1.7, 4.4.6, 4.5.1). There could however be options
for strengthening these formulations in the syllabus, for example by adding ‘sustainable’ (e.g.
in 4.8.5) and by emphasizing societal needs and how legal and political systems do and
could regulate and influence engineering in a sustainable direction (in 4.1.3).

Some aspects that could be expressed more explicitly in the Syllabus are the importance of
different time scales and the abilities to evaluate different future scenarios. These could be
emphasized for example in thinking holistically (2.3.1) and in trade-offs, judgment and
balance in resolution (2.3.4). Further, historical and cultural context (4.1.4) and developing a
global perspective (4.1.6), could be complemented to also include influences on future
conditions and opportunities. The Syllabus considers various visionary aspects, however
limited to one’s own personal future and visions for products and enterprises. Abilities to
“create one’s own vision for the future” could be added in (2.5.3). Abilities to apply the
precautionary principle could be more emphasized, for example in 2.4.2 and 2.5.1.

Normative competency

The ability to understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie one’s actions is
explicitly addressed in ethics, integrity and social responsibility (2.5.1), which is about ethical
standards and principles, and the possibility of conflicts between ethical imperatives. With
respect to sustainability it is further addressed in contemporary issues and values (4.1.5)
which specifies the processes by which contemporary values are set, and in sustainability
and the need for sustainable development (4.1.7). Other Syllabus items specify aspects that
implicitly address and support the same ability, such as problem identification and
formulation (2.1.1) that addresses assumptions and sources of bias, thinking holistically
(2.3.1) that stresses the societal, enterprise and technical context of the system, and self-
awareness, metacognition and knowledge integration (2.4.5). Other relevant sections are
roles and responsibilities of the engineers (4.1.1), the impact of engineering on society and
the environment (4.1.2), developing a global perspective (4.1.6), together with understanding
needs and setting goals (4.3.1). The ability to negotiate sustainability values, principles,
goals, and targets, in a context of conflicts of interests and trade-offs, uncertain knowledge
and contradictions corresponds to trade-offs, judgment and balance in resolution (2.3.4), and
negotiation, compromise and conflict resolution (3.2.8). The ability is also implicitly
addressed and supported through analysis with uncertainty (2.1.4), inquiry, listening and
dialog (3.2.7) addressing aspects supporting negotiation skills, and system engineering,
modelling and interfaces (4.3.3) where trade-offs and iteration are identified as desired
aspects. Finally, the need to identify all aspects of a problem at hand, including underlying
paradoxes is addressed in identifying the issue, problem or paradox (4.7.1).

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
Strategic competency

The strategic competency is by UNESCO described as the ability to collectively develop and
implement innovative actions that further sustainability at the local level and further afield.
The CDIO syllabus reflects the components of this ability in several places. The collective
dimension is emphasised in various ways in team leadership (3.1.4) and technical and
multidisciplinary teaming (3.1.5). It could further be argued that development and
implementation of innovative actions is done through the familiar process of 4.3 - 4.6,
Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and Operating. Dimensions of furthering sustainability
at the local level and further afield is covered in different parts of the syllabus including the
impact of engineering on society and the environment (4.1.2), where the impact of
engineering on the environmental, social, knowledge and economic systems in modern
culture is addressed. The need to apply sustainability principles in engineering endeavours is
part of sustainability and the need for sustainable development (4.1.7). Also the awareness
of the the responsibilities of engineers to society and a sustainable future is identified in roles
and responsibility of engineers (4.1.1). Understanding needs and setting goals (4.3.1)
addresses environmental needs as well as ethical, social, environmental, legal and
regulatory influences, which must be furthering sustainability. Finally design for sustainability,
safety, aesthetics, operability and other objectives (4.4.6) and designing a sustainable
implementation process (4.5.1) addresses important aspects of the furthering dimension. To
conclude, we find a good match in the CDIO syllabus for every element of the strategic
competency. We still hold that the strategic competency, as described by UNESCO, could be
made to stand out more clearly in the syllabus.

Collaboration competency

The collaborative competency is directly addressed, and mostly covered, by the sections 2.5
Ethics, Equity and other Responsibilities, 3.1 Teamwork and 3.2 Communications. The ability
to learn from others is somewhat present in perseverance, urgency and will to deliver,
resourcefulness and flexibility (2.4.2), lifelong learning and educating (2.4.6), team growth
and evolution (3.1.3), inquiry, listening and dialog (3.2.7) and building and leading an
organization and extended organization (4.7.5). The ability to understand and respect the
need, perspectives and actions of others (empathy) is addressed by a combination of 2.5
Ethics, Equity and other Responsibilities and 3.1 Teamwork. It directly matches ethics,
integrity and social responsibility (2.5.1), equity and diversity (2.5.5), trust and loyalty (2.5.6),
forming effective teams (3.1.1), and establishing diverse connections and networking (3.2.10).
It is furthermore to some extent included in professional behavior (2.5.2), roles and
responsibility of engineers (4.1.1), sustainability and the need for sustainable development
(4.1.7), working in organizations (4.2.4), working in international organizations (4.2.5). The
ability to understand, relate to and be sensitive to others (empathic leadership) matches trust
and loyalty (2.5.6), working in organizations (4.2.4) and working in international organizations
(4.2.5). The ability to deal with conflicts in a group is highly present in team operation with a
focus on conflict mediation, negotiation and resolution (3.1.2), and in negotiation,
compromise and conflict resolution (3.2.8). Finally, the ability to facilitate collaborative and
participatory problem solving is present throughout 3.1 Teamwork, for instance in forming
effective teams (3.1.1), team operation (3.1.2), team growth and evolution (3.1.3), team
leadership (3.1.4) and technical and multidisciplinary teaming (3.1.5).

When considering the extent to which the CDIO Syllabus addresses the collaborative
competency, we find some parts are missing in the syllabus. There is far more emphasis on
communicating to others, than on learning from others. There is also a lack of empathic
leadership. We therefore propose adding the following three abilities to the Syllabus:
1) “Facilitate collaborative and participatory problem-solving” into team leadership (3.1.4),
2) “Ability to learn from others” into lifelong learning and education (2.4.6), and

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
3) “Developing empathic leadership” into building and leading an organization and extended
organization (4.7.5) or into building the team and initiating engineering processes (4.8.7).

On the other hand, the Syllabus emphasizes another point of view that is absent from the
UNESCO definition: how one is able to affect and encourage others. To mention but a few
examples, the ability to enable learning in others can be found in lifelong learning and
educating (2.4.6), the commitment to help others is mentioned in 2.5 Ethics, Equity and other
Responsibilities, and inspiring others is part of proactive vision and intention in life (2.5.3).

Critical thinking competency

Critical thinking (as described by UNESCO) is visible in CDIO Syllabus particularly in relation
to self-awareness, metacognition and knowledge integration (2.4.5), ethics, integrity and
social responsibility (2.5.1) and contemporary issues and values (4.1.5) that all emphasise
personal abilities for responsible, value-based actions and reflective thinking, and therefore
link directly to the first two abilities of UNESCO’s definition, question norms, practices and
opinions and reflect on own one’s values, perceptions and actions. These abilities are also to
lesser extent visible in a number of other places, including 2.4 Attitudes, Thought and
Learning (particularly 2.4.4 and 2.4.6), 2.5 Ethics, Equity and other Responsibilities
(particularly 2.5.2, 2.5.3 and 2.5.5) and 3.2 Communications (particularly 3.2.7 and 3.2.8).
The ability to take a position in the sustainability discourse) is most directly visible as the
impact of engineering on society and the environment (4.1.2) and sustainability and the need
for sustainable development (4.1.7). This ability is naturally related also to 4.1 External,
Societal, and Environmental Context (especially sub-goals 4.1.1, 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4.1.6). It
can also be seen to match other Syllabus items related to sustainability (including 4.3.1,
4.4.6, 4.6.1 and 4.7.1).

Self-awareness competency

Self-awareness is explicit in the heading self-awareness, metacognition and knowledge

integration (2.4.5). This ability to reflect on one’s own role in the local community and (global)
society is addressed in the Syllabus by: sense of responsibility for outcomes (in 2.4.2), a
personal vision for one’s future and considering one’s contributions to society (in 2.5.3), roles
and responsibility of engineers (4.1.1) and the Impact of engineering on society and the
environment (4.1.2). The ability to continually evaluate and further motivate one’s actions can
be recognized in: decisions, based on the information at hand and the potential benefits and
risks of an action or decision (both in 2.4.1), and in sense of responsibility for outcomes and
adaptation to change (both in 2.4.2). The ability to deal with one’s feelings and desires is to
some extent addressed by determination to accomplish objectives, a readiness, willingness
and ability to work independently, a willingness to work with others, and to consider and
embrace various viewpoints, the balance between personal and professional life, self-
confidence, courage and enthusiasm, and an acceptance of feedback, criticism and
willingness to reflect and respond (all in 2.4.2).

The content in section self-awareness, metacognition and knowledge integration (2.4.5)

could be made more relevant for the self-awareness competency by adding points that
reflect also one’s own role locally and globally, and the ability to recognize and deal with
one’s feelings and desires. One’s own role could be further strengthened also in the roles
and responsibility of engineers (4.1.1) and developing a global perspective (4.1.6). The ability
to recognize and deal with one’s feelings and desires, and also the ability to understand how
they influence one’s behavior, willingness, effectivity, flexibility and motivation, could be
added to Initiative and willingness to make decisions in the face of uncertainty (2.4.1),
perseverance, urgency and will to deliver, resourcefulness and flexibility (2.4.2), and building
and leading an organization and extended organization) (4.7.5). The ability to continually
evaluate and further motivate one’s actions could be emphasized more in proactive vision

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.
 and intention in life (2.5.3) as well as in managing a project and its human resources (4.7.6),
and could be strengthened even more by adding continuous self-evaluation in relation to
teamwork and leadership (to 4.7.5). Finally, the collective abilities for self-awareness
competency, could be included in exercising project/solution judgment and critical reasoning
(4.7.7).

The suggestions above to add self-awareness competency associated to leadership (in 4.7)
would imply that the Syllabus would go beyond the UNESCO key competency, since this
also includes self-awareness for others and not just for one self.

Proceedings of the 15th International CDIO Conference, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, June 25 – 27, 2019.

View publication stats