1 Introduction
Engineering education is in a constant state of flux. This is partly because the needs and goals of the engineering profession, and of higher education as a whole, are continuously changing. While contemporary engineering education continues to emphasize traditional knowledge transfer methods—such as lectures, problem sets, and quantitative problem-solving (
Sterling, 2011;
Rammel and Vettori, 2021)—there is a growing push for innovation and adaptation to meet emerging challenges. Although student-centered pedagogical methods, like active learning, are being increasingly implemented, the dominant focus remains on passive learning techniques. These traditional approaches are not well-suited to preparing students for the complex, poorly defined, multidimensional, and open-ended problems that today’s engineers must confront—challenges that often extend beyond conventional engineering disciplines.
Modern scientists and engineers recognize that climate change, resource depletion, air and water quality degradation, biodiversity and habitat loss, and excessive energy consumption are all interconnected. Moreover, these environmental issues are almost always intertwined with social conditions, commercial and industrial activities—including food production—and significant human challenges such as poverty, hunger, inadequate education, and inequality (
Liebenberg, 2024, Ch. 4). In the Anthropocene, an era defined by the profound impact of human activity on the planet, economic, technological, cultural, and political factors are reshaping Earth’s natural systems. In turn, these changes to natural systems drive societal transformations. We are living in an era of accelerating change, increasing complexity, contested knowledge claims, unpredictable global challenges, and inherent uncertainty (
Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015). To address these issues effectively, many argue that higher education must evolve toward more systemic and reflexive approaches to thinking and acting (
Wals and Schwarzin, 2012;
Jickling and Sterling, 2017;
Leal Filho et al., 2021).
Systems thinking is valuable because it encourages a holistic understanding of complex issues, helps identify interconnections, and supports the development of comprehensive, sustainable solutions.
Reflexive thinking is equally essential in this context, as it involves critically reflecting on one’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and actions, particularly in relation to the influence of one’s social, cultural, or environmental context. This type of systemic and reflexive learning often blurs the distinction between formal and informal learning, facilitating effective dialog and fostering the creation of sustainable ways of thinking and acting (
Wals and Schwarzin, 2012;
Jasanoff and Kim, 2015). In this context,
formal learning refers to structured education that takes place within institutions such as universities.
Informal learning, on the other hand, refers to learning that occurs through everyday experiences, interactions, and self-directed exploration, typically outside formal educational settings.
Universities play a critical role in shaping future leaders and have a responsibility to ensure that graduates are prepared to address both current and emerging societal and environmental challenges (
Michel et al., 2020). With significant human and financial resources at their disposal, universities have a profound impact on the planet through their decisions and actions (
UNEP, 2021). Also, higher education experts recognize the potential of technology, infrastructure, global connectivity, and student engagement to drive innovative sustainability solutions (
Lavey, 2019;
National Academies, 2020;
Reimagine our Future, 2024). Therefore, it is important for higher education institutions to prioritize sustainability by integrating sustainability education—especially regarding sustainable energy—into their curricula.
It is essential for engineering students, as well as those in allied disciplines, to understand sustainable energy systems and related technologies, while developing the ability to consider the interconnected social, cultural, technological, environmental, economic, and political dimensions of their application (
Liebenberg, 2024). Students should recognize that a sustainable energy system involves not only technologies, industries, and initiatives but also the complex networks and structures that facilitate the generation, distribution, and utilization of sustainable energy. For the purposes of this study, we define
sustainable energy as energy generation and use that strikes a balanced equilibrium between ensuring equitable access to energy-intensive goods and services for all and safeguarding the planet for future generations (
Tester et al., 2012;
Liebenberg, 2024).
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while controversial in several respects (
Burford et al., 2013;
Fanning et al., 2020;
Kopnina, 2020;
Zeng et al., 2020), represent one of the most widely recognized frameworks for conceptualizing sustainability (
Costanza et al., 2014;
Morton et al., 2017;
Fuso Nerini et al., 2024). In this study, we use the SDGs as a foundational element in our approach to understanding sustainability. By developing action-oriented skills—such as problem-solving, critical thinking, collaboration, and decision-making—and applying the learning strategies discussed in this paper, students can deepen their understanding of sustainability and the interrelated, multidisciplinary nature of the SDGs (
UNEP, 2021).
For this study, we define
sustainability thinking as reflective thinking that considers both the immediate and long-term environmental, social, and economic impacts of actions, decisions, or systems. It involves recognizing the interconnectedness of human activities with natural ecosystems and communities, while seeking solutions that foster resilience, equity, and well-being—both for the present and for future generations. Sustainability thinking is holistic and forward-looking, prioritizing the preservation of natural resources, the enhancement of social well-being, and promotion of economic prosperity, all while maintaining ecological balance and societal stability (
Liebenberg, 2024). This suggests that education for sustainability is pivotal.
Effective learning occurs when students are engaged both intellectually and emotionally (
Immordino-Yang, 2016). Learning environments that scaffold cognitive, metacognitive, emotional (affective), and motivational processes can empower students to become more strategic in their learning and enhance their success in completing learning tasks (
Azevedo et al., 2017). It is therefore crucial to transform higher education in ways that engage students on both these levels, particularly in relation to sustainability thinking (
Michel et al., 2020;
Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2020;
Roth, 2023).
While this article focuses on the use of self-directed learning pedagogies, such as mini projects, in an undergraduate engineering course (Thermodynamics), we believe it will also be valuable to educators in related disciplines who are considering a radical reimagining of their teaching approaches.
2 Guided Self-directed Learning (GSDL)
Guided self-directed (or
guided “
self-regulated”)
learning (GSDL) is an educational approach that combines elements of both self-directed learning and guided instruction. In this approach, learners maintain autonomy and responsibility for their learning process—setting their own goals, selecting resources, and managing their time. However, they also receive guidance, support, and structure from instructors who provide scaffolding (which involves gradually decreasing support as students gain proficiency and independence in completing assignments), feedback, and resources to help learners navigate their educational journey effectively (
Biggs, 1985;
Caffarella, 2000;
Brookfield, 2009).
GSDL strikes a balance between learner autonomy and instructor guidance, allowing learners to choose objectives and pathways while instructors facilitate by suggesting resources, posing questions, and providing feedback (
Thornhill-Miller et al., 2023). This approach nurtures independence, critical thinking, and self-regulation while ensuring learners receive necessary support (
Thornhill-Miller et al., 2023).
Critical thinking, a key component of engineering education for designing better outcomes, involves evaluating evidence, adjusting beliefs based on that evidence, and reassessing the confidence with which those beliefs are held (
Pasquinelli et al., 2021).
The case for GSDL is especially compelling when we remind ourselves that undergraduate students have recently experienced the significant and unprecedented challenge of adjusting to online or hybrid modes of learning (
Watson et al., 2021). Students typically experience a sense of emotional disconnect while adjusting to a new environment, especially one that is unprecedented, unfamiliar, and unexpected, which suggests the increased importance of fostering effective learning methods, such as GSDL. This sort of learning enables them to understand and manage various facets of their learning—enhancing their motivation and improving their time management and organization (
Dhawan, 2020).
More broadly, educators can foster self-direction through teamwork and a sense of community, helping students navigate the increasingly autonomous nature of contemporary higher education (
Liebenberg and Tucker, 2022). Crucially, effective learning communities and collaborative teamwork encourage the exchange of diverse perspectives, promoting thoughtful engagement and the sharing of learning strategies (
Pagano et al., 2019;
MacGregor et al., 2000).
Effective GSDL requires not only the provision of clear instructions and explicit modeling of possible solutions and problem-solving strategies, but also designing a learning environment conducive to such learning (
Kirschner et al., 2006). Whether self-directed learning is effective also partly depends on the extent of the learner’s prior knowledge within the subject domain (
Zimmerman, 1989).
A key facet of self-direction is
self-efficacy, which is a learner’s belief in their own ability to accomplish a specific task or achieve a goal. It encompasses confidence in one’s capacity to mobilize cognitive, motivational, and behavioral resources to overcome challenges, perform competently, and attain desired outcomes. Self-efficacy in learning requires the knowledge and use of specific learning strategies and performance self-monitoring (
Bandura, 1982). Learners with higher self-efficacy tend to implement more effective learning strategies as well as better self-monitoring of their learning outcomes as compared to students with lower self-efficacy (
Kuhl, 1985). Self-direction also involves learners taking responsibility for reflecting on their learning (
Mezirow, 2010), which requires them to possess the requisite skills to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and reflect on meeting their learning objectives (
Meyer et al., 2012). Furthermore, learners need to identify the positive aspects of, and areas of improvement for, each learning experience.
A key challenge for university educators is how to effectively support the development of GSDL, particularly since it requires fostering self-efficacy, introspection (as part of reflexive thinking), and critical thinking. Effective support must also address the challenge of balancing theoretical understanding and relevant, authentic practical application. Successful self-direction is not a state that learners are likely to achieve on their own (
Zimmerman, 2002).
Instructors can promote the development of guided self-direction skills through several strategies, including modeling successful problem-solving approaches; providing clear guidance and encouragement to enhance self-efficacy (
Bandura, 1986); and offering students opportunities to make autonomous discoveries through team-based projects. Online learning environments rely heavily on students’ autonomy, requiring them to take the initiative in activities such as viewing pre-recorded lectures, participating in online discussions, and managing group work remotely (
Song and Hill, 2007). These strategies necessitate that instructors are empathetic to students’ needs.
2.1 Incorporating collaboration and peer learning
GSDL skills can be deployed in both solo and team-based problem-solving. However, it is important to communicate to students the importance of collaboration both for solving problems and their role as creators and co-owners of their learning communities. By stressing interdependence as a member of a team over independence and going solo, instructors can help students begin to witness the collective changes that occur when individuals and small diverse teams engage one another in the presence of others doing the same (
Block, 2018).
Such teamwork can be amplified by teams grading each other’s assignments. Peer grading helps students to learn from others’ analyses and reflections. In addition to illustrating the advantages of collaboration, peer grading facilitates the development of students’ problem-solving skills and knowledge acquisition by assisting them in: (a) building confidence in sharing knowledge and learning from peers, and (b) reinforcing and delineating their own areas of expertise (
Liu and Carless, 2006).
2.2 Cultivating empathy and other competencies and skills in engineers
Promoting collaboration and GSDL, both within and outside university curricula, is essential for preparing students for a modern workforce. This workforce demands not only academic achievement—such as knowledge, credits, and courses completed—but also emotional intelligence, independent thinking, and the ability to work effectively in teams (
Kamp, 2016). According to
Kamp (2016), qualities like self-direction, organizational sensitivity, and empathy are becoming increasingly important as hiring criteria for engineering graduates.
It is also crucial for students to engage in systems thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, problem solving, communication, and the development of adaptability. University educators must meet the challenge of engaging students both cognitively and emotionally by providing authentic, meaningful, and immersive experiences, while also delivering an academically rigorous and intellectually stimulating curriculum.
To summarize, instructors should encourage students to recognize the importance of using both “thinking” and “feeling” competencies when tackling problems. Thinking competencies refer to cognitive abilities and skills such as processing information, analyzing data, problem-solving, critical thinking, and decision-making. These competencies involve logical reasoning, creativity, analytical skills, and the ability to evaluate information critically.
On the other hand, feeling competencies are related to emotional intelligence and encompass skills for understanding, managing, and expressing emotions effectively. These competencies include self-awareness, empathy, emotional regulation, and interpersonal skills, as well as the ability to recognize and understand both one’s own emotions and those of others. They also involve the capacity to consider and apply different perspectives when facing challenges and making decisions. Additionally, feeling competencies include communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution—skills that are essential for building positive relationships and promoting social and emotional well-being. The objectives of collaborative learning closely align with the goal of nurturing empathetic engineers and graduates in related disciplines.
3 The focus of this study
This study examines the use of GSDL methods, focusing on how these approaches promote both cognitive and emotional engagement in students. Specifically, we explore an undergraduate engineering course on sustainable energy, taught at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The course, a sophomore-level 16-week thermodynamics class, was offered in Fall 2019, Fall 2020, Spring 2021, and Spring 2022. Across these semesters, all coursework—whether directly or indirectly—was connected to the SDGs and included reflections on sustainable energy practices. Understanding the context of this study is essential to appreciating its significance.
Research highlights the alarming impact of human activities on the planet, particularly the burning of fossil fuels for energy and the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH
4), and nitrous oxides (NO
x). These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, intensifying the “enhanced greenhouse effect” and contributing to rising global temperatures—a trend that has accelerated over the past few decades (
Jay et al., 2023). Between 1989 and 2019, global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased by approximately 67%. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO
2 levels surpassed 422 parts per million (ppm) in 2024, marking a 50% rise from pre-industrial levels. Since 1750, global surface temperatures have increased by more than 1.2°C—a change that threatens the long-term stability of ecosystems worldwide (
IPCC, 2022;
Liebenberg, 2024;
Forster et al., 2024).
Despite this urgent trajectory, global efforts to mitigate CO
2 emissions have been insufficient (
IPCC, 2022). According to leading scientific models, we must reduce per-capita energy demand by half within the next 30 years to avoid catastrophic environmental consequences (
IRENA, 2023;
Liebenberg, 2024, Ch. 28). However, in the past three decades, global per-capita energy demand has increased by 20%, while the world’s population has grown by around 30%. Moreover, projections show that global primary energy consumption will rise by more than 30% by 2040 (
Liebenberg, 2024, Ch. 28). The most concerning aspect of this trend is the irreversible nature of the environmental damage. Estimates suggest that we may reach a tipping point by 2030, beyond which the damage could be irreversible, threatening not only human societies but entire ecosystems (
Liebenberg, 2024, p. 96;
Rockström et al., 2024). The stability of global climates, economies, and societies hangs in the balance.
In this setting, our study aims to delve deeper into how educational practices—particularly those focused on GSDL using a series of mini projects, among other techniques—can engage students both intellectually and emotionally. By doing so, we hope to contribute to a broader conversation on how future generations of engineers and graduates in related disciplines can be better prepared to tackle these critical global challenges.
3.1 Hypothesis
We argue that undergraduate students currently have limited opportunities to explore and reflect on the impact of human activities on the climate and, more broadly, to engage in sustainability thinking. Moreover, students have few chances to engage in GSDL when addressing complex issues such as energy sustainability. To address this gap, we propose integrating GSDL into as many courses as possible. We believe that doing so will not only enhance student engagement but also lead to improved learning outcomes, better equipping students with the tools and mindset needed to tackle the pressing challenges of sustainability.
3.2 Methods
Students in a sophomore-level thermodynamics course were tasked with investigating energy sustainability. Students worked in small teams or alone on mini projects, performed independent research to address well-defined analytical questions and ill-defined design questions pertaining to sustainable energy, and reflected on their learning using several communications media among which they could choose. Students also performed a range of other activities that focused on GSDL, including take-home quizzes featuring open-ended questions, class participation exercises, attending guest lectures that usually provided an opportunity for students to interact with the guest lecturer, site visits where students themselves acted as tour guides, peer grading, and completing pedagogy questionnaires that demanded student reflection on their learning. The study was conducted over four years and four semesters and involved 351 students (n = 351) out of a total of 609 students (N = 609) who took the class. Instruction modes varied from in-person (Fall 2019 and Spring 2022) to synchronous online (Fall 2020) to hybrid (Spring 2021). No control group was used in any of the semesters, meaning that all students experienced the same pedagogies.
4 Course intervention pedagogies
Mini Projects The course material was divided into “bite-sized” segments, with each segment representing a core aspect of the syllabus. A series of four mini projects was designed for each segment and students were asked to work on these either as team-based or solo assignments. The series of mini projects accounted for 40% of the course grade. Mini projects were designed to build cumulatively upon a student’s previously acquired knowledge (
Liebenberg and Tucker, 2022). Tab.1 outlines the mini projects designated for the course, while Appendix A provides an example of a typical mini project.
Team members were required to evaluate both their own and their teammates’ contributions to the mini projects. The average score that team members gave each other was used to adjust their individual mini-project score (assessed by the instructor). For example, if student A’s team earned 90% on mini-project 3, but student A’s teammates rated their contributions at an average of 72%, then student A’s individual project score would be adjusted to 0.72 × 90% = 65%. In cases where a team member negatively impacted the team’s performance, that student could be removed from the team and required to complete the remaining mini projects independently. This measure served as a strong motivational factor for students to invest their best effort into the projects.
Additionally, at the end of the semester, the five highest-scoring teams were invited to participate in a competition where they presented their mini-projects to the class. The team with the most class votes for the best project received a 1% increase in their final course grade. Unlike peer evaluations of each other’s mini-projects, which do not affect the final grade, peer assessments of team members’ contributions and the class-wide evaluation of the top five projects can modestly impact students’ final grades.
Take-Home Quizzes Students were assigned rigorous weekly take-home quizzes designed to deepen their understanding of the course material. These quizzes covered energy conversion processes and foundational thermodynamic principles. Many questions were open-ended, requiring students to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topics. If sufficient technical information was not provided to solve a problem, students had to make and explain their assumptions. Frequently, students were expected to find additional information beyond the textbook or course notes. As the course progressed, students had the opportunity to earn extra credit by answering challenging questions that required extensive independent study.
Class Participation Exercises and Student Class Presentations Student participation was actively encouraged throughout the course, with students being given opportunities to take responsibility for their learning. Lectures regularly addressed sustainability and contemporary social issues, incorporating real-world examples. The instructor guided students through key issues, while students were encouraged to share their thoughts and perspectives. When appropriate, the lecture format became an open forum, allowing students to present their own ideas, drawing on both what they were learning in the course and their prior knowledge (see Fig.1).
Toward the end of the course, students participated in discussions centered around open-ended questions from the take-home quizzes, their understanding of the lecture material, and the broader course content. These discussions often included faculty and students from outside the class. When course participants or guest speakers made presentations, students had the opportunity to ask questions, raise objections, and engage in thoughtful dialog. This interactive format significantly enhanced student engagement. Fig.2 illustrates student presentations in the Thermodynamics class.
Guest Lectures and Class Visits In addition to their assignments, students had the opportunity to engage with leaders in the energy industry through guided tours and guest lectures. These experiences included visits to the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, where students learned about a photovoltaic-powered hydrolysis facility used to produce green hydrogen for fuel-cell electric buses, and to the local Abbott Power Plant, which features multi-fuel combustion, flue gas desulfurization, and carbon capture technologies. These field trips provided valuable insights into contemporary energy systems. Students also attended three or four guest lectures by energy industry professionals, who covered topics not directly addressed in the course. These lectures exposed students to areas such as ecological economics, sustainable living, and sustainable design—topics that some students later explored in their mini projects.
Fig.3 illustrates an activity where teams participated in a student-led tour. Initially, the teams took part in tours themselves to gain firsthand experience. Later, they assumed the role of guides, leading groups of students from various disciplines across the campus. The goal of this immersive learning experience was to foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter. When executed effectively, the activity generates a remarkable sense of energy and enthusiasm—not just among the student guides, but for all participants involved.
Fig.4(a) shows world-renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Don Wuebbles (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign), delivering a guest lecture about the role of scientists and engineers in climate change mitigation. Fig.4(b) shows Professor Wuebbles interacting with a smaller group after his guest lecture. The opportunity for students to interact directly with distinguished guest speakers in this intimate, personal setting was both highly engaging and impactful.
Use of different communication media Students were tasked with providing technical analyses, such as a complete thermodynamic cycle analysis of a local 70-MWe fossil-fuel-fired steam power plant. In addition to their technical reports, students were given the opportunity to communicate their findings using a medium of their choice. These included a wide range of creative approaches, from student-produced interactive infographics and graphic novels, to augmented reality experiences, 360-degree virtual tours of the power plant, poetry, and even interpretive dance (see Fig.5).
Peer Grading Mini projects were peer-graded by other teams, with the peer assessments checked by teaching assistants before being returned to students. This approach allowed students to learn from one another’s analyses and reflections. To ensure effective peer grading, teams were provided with detailed grading keys and rubrics that required written comments for each question, rather than just a numerical score. This approach helped maintain rigor while fostering curiosity and encouraging critical evaluation of peer work. Additionally, both students and teaching assistants were tasked with providing feedback aimed at improving peers’ “thinking” and “feeling” competencies. While students were penalized for being too lenient or too harsh in their grading, they could earn bonus credit for performing excellent peer grading and providing thorough, constructive feedback. This approach worked well as no team was penalized for overly harsh grading; rather, around 5% of the teams received bonus credit for effective peer grading. Peer grading was conducted via Google Forms for ease of workflow, and it was used solely as a learning tool to help students engage with and learn from one another. We found that peer grading proved to be an excellent method for students to deepen their own understanding of the course material.
Sustainability and Pedagogy Questionnaires Students evaluated the course through a standard campus-wide teaching and learning questionnaire. In addition to this, the instructor and teaching assistants designed a supplementary questionnaire, distributed after the completion of the mini projects. This supplementary questionnaire focused specifically on the mini projects and aimed to assess how these projects influenced students’ engagement with GSDL, as well as their cognitive and emotional engagement with the course content.
The assessment criteria, detailed in Appendix B, were divided into two categories: cognitive engagement and emotional engagement. Cognitive engagement included factors such as understanding, attention, effort, persistence, time on task, cognitive or metacognitive strategies, creativity, and curiosity. Emotional engagement focused on factors such as enjoyment, confidence, willingness to take risks, motivation, comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty, empathy, and the absence of anxiety, frustration, or boredom, as well as teamwork.
Students were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to these factors. Responses were recorded on a six-point Likert scale, where a higher number represented stronger agreement with the statements.
5 Results
5.1 Quantitative data
Tab.2 summarizes the survey data on student perceptions of the mini projects focused on sustainable energy, while Fig.6 provides a graphical representation of the results. This survey offered valuable insights into how students perceived their engagement in guided self-directed learning activities within the course.
A total of 351 students (N = 351) participated across four semesters: Fall 2019, Fall 2020, Spring 2021, and Spring 2022. The survey used a six-point Likert scale to capture students’ responses: strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly agree. The survey addressed 13 factors: attention, comfort with ambiguity, creativity, curiosity, willingness to embrace risk, empathy, enjoyment, lack of anxiety, lack of boredom, lack of frustration, optimism, teamwork, and conceptual understanding.
Each response was numerically coded to reflect positive or negative tendencies, with values assigned as follows: “strongly disagree” = −3, “disagree” = −2, “slightly disagree” = −1, “slightly agree” = 1, “agree” = 2, and “strongly agree” = 3. Factor analysis was then used to connect students’ responses to their task-related experiences. A full list of survey questions can be found in Appendix B.
5.2 Qualitative data
The quantitative data from students’ responses to the mini projects is supplemented by qualitative feedback gathered from the university’s standard end-of-semester teaching and learning questionnaire, which students complete anonymously via the online learning management platform. At the end of each semester, instructors receive a summary of these responses, highlighting key results and insights. Some of the feedback, whether positive or negative, has been thematically categorized into factors related to cognitive engagement and emotional engagement, as outlined below. Linguistic or typographical errors have been preserved to maintain authenticity, but the instructor’s name has been omitted where applicable. (The dates of student feedback are provided in parentheses.)
Cognitive engagement
i. Enhanced understanding
Students consistently reported an increased understanding of course concepts through the mini projects. One student commented that the “The major strength of this course is usage of out-of-class group projects to bring in the concepts taught in the class, all together” (2020), while another observed that “Thermodynamics is a class that seems to be universally despised in engineering, but the professor made this class very easy to understand and fun” (2022).
ii. Effort / Persistence
A few students addressed the effort or persistence required for the mini projects, including one student who observed, “I felt like the projects were challenging but fair” (2020). Another mentioned that “The take home quizzes were challenging. And the open-ended mini projects were annoying at first but I learned that that was actually the best way to learn and practice all the content on my own at home and were actually extremely useful for exams too. Amazing class” (2021).
iii. Time on task
A recurring theme from the responses is the important role of workload and time management. One student observed, “There is quite a lot of work that students have to do to succeed in the course, but it’s not busy work, it’s valuable work” (2020), while another noted, “A lot of the time outside of class was spent on the mini projects” (2021).
iv. Cognitive or metacognitive strategies
Several students commented on cognitive aspects, such as practicing, structuring, and expanding on information, as well as metacognitive aspects, including planning, monitoring, reflecting on, evaluating, and adapting strategies. This is illustrated by the response, “The mini projects greatly improved my self-study skills. I am a more independent student now” (2019), and “The course is very well set up so that the students can learn in the most effective way possible. I wanted to self-learn many things to be at the same level as my team mates” (2020). Yet another student remarked, “Major strength of course and instructor: his method of teaching and way of keeping the class engaged with challenging but manage-able projects” (2021).
v. Attention
Some students directly addressed the fact that mini projects or related self-directed learning improved their attention. For instance, one student noted, “Leaving the class in the hands of the students ensured that [the instructor] had our attention and ensured that the students enjoyed the class” (2020).
Emotional engagement
vi. Enjoyment
Another key theme from the responses is that students enjoyed engaging with the mini projects as part of their self-directed learning. One student reflected, “I really enjoyed the style of the course where emphasis was put on self learning. I also really enjoyed the process of working on the mini projects and how sustainability was integrated into a course that could very easily forgo it” (2021). Another student said, “I liked having projects and quizzes instead of homework, normally I don’t think I would but this class executes it well” (2021). Another agreed with that sentiment, and added, “I really enjoyed the emphasis and themes of sustainability through the course and I loved how application-based all the learning was. Overall, this course was taught excellently” (2022).
vii. Confidence
Several students made comments suggesting that their confidence had improved. One student noted, “I love that he [the instructor] challenges us to do independent learning because it pushes us to learn on our own but also helps us develop a passion for independently wanting to learn” (2021). Another observed, “The mini projects were great at reinforcing our knowledge and looking at thermodynamics in the real world” (2022).
viii. Motivation
The self-directed learning elements of the mini projects, along with other factors, apparently motivated students to envision and actively pursue their future aspirations. Comments such as the following were common in all four semesters: “Before this class, I never found anything relating to thermodynamics to be interesting. I recently applied for an internship in my hometown at a power plant because of my experience with this class. My major is aerospace engineering” (2022).
ix. Comfortable with ambiguity / risk
How do we prepare students for an unscripted world? The GSDL assignments apparently helped students become more comfortable with ambiguity and risk, as inferred from the following student’s observation: “The instructor has immense respect for students in engineering. The teaching style is much more lucrative, and I especially enjoy the open ended projects he assigns. The instructor was the most organized and well-prepared professor I have had, especially during this COVID-19 pandemic” (2020). Another student said, “I think the project could be changed in a way to allow students to learn about the real-world application of the power/chiller plant, but without being an unnecessary work load. The change to online was difficult, but that was out of his control” (2020). Another student contextualized their learning experience as follows: “[The instructor] prioritizes the learning of students in the course. The instructor understands what it means to teach beyond just the letter of the grade. If one truly puts in the effort and does whatever the instructor recommends, the grade becomes less of a concern and one can focus on just learning about the topic” (2021).
x. Empathy
Empathy is a critical quality in both educators and engineers, fostering understanding, collaboration, and the ability to address complex human-centered challenges. Several students noted the instructor’s empathetic approach, emphasizing its positive impact on their learning experience. For example, one student remarked, “Instructor explains concepts clearly. Cares about his students” (2021). A second student highlighted, “[The instructor] is passionate about thermodynamics and energy and highly promotes students to be globally responsible engineers in the future by planting the fundamentals of SDGs” (2022). A third reflected, “I felt that the instructor cared about our learning, and I liked the take home exams that allowed me to use my resources to figure out the test on less pressure than a timed one” (2022).
When students perceive their instructor as empathetic, it creates a supportive learning environment where they feel valued and understood, which can enhance their engagement and motivation. Furthermore, by experiencing empathy firsthand, students may be more inclined to cultivate their own sense of empathy—an essential trait for addressing the multifaceted needs of society through engineering solutions.
xi. Productive frustration
The guided self-directed projects were intentionally designed to be challenging, encouraging students to apply their knowledge in open-ended, real-world contexts. This approach often led to moments of “productive frustration,” where students encountered difficulties that ultimately fostered deeper learning and problem-solving skills. However, these challenges sometimes left students struggling to connect coursework with project tasks, as reflected in comments such as “It was sometimes hard to see the connection between the coursework and these projects” (2019); “I would suggest that the projects be more focused on calculations/what is learned in class rather than outside research, because I felt like I had a hard time figuring out if what I read and researched online was accurate in relation to what we were learning” (2020); and “Sometimes the mini-project instructions were a bit unclear. I understand the importance of self-study but having to self-study calculations was confusing” (2022).
xii. Teamwork
Another key theme is the importance of teamwork and effective communication skills. For instance, one student noted that the instructor should “Consider less calculation-based things in the second mini project, since it is hard to divide up calculation based stuff amongst a group” (2021). Another stated that “I worked hard to make things work in my team. We struggled at first, but then found that weekly meetings worked best” (2022).
5.3 Grades
Tab.3 provides an overview of class performance, summarizing the grades for the mini projects and final course grades across the four assessed semesters. Final course grades were typically composed of the following components: mini projects (40%), take-home quizzes (30%), one mid-term exam (10%), and one final exam (20%). The instructor did not adhere to a predetermined target grade distribution; consequently, no grade curving was applied in this class.
6 Discussion
We utilized the XLMiner Analysis ToolPak to analyze the survey data. Specifically, we conducted an ANOVA (Two-Factor Without Replication) analysis on the data presented in Tab.2 and illustrated in Fig.6. To assess the internal consistency of our survey questions, we calculated Cronbach’s Alpha, which yielded a value of α = 0.81 (p < 0.001), indicating a high level of internal reliability.
The survey data presented in Tab.2 was not normalized; therefore, we employed a Kruskal–Wallis test (from the statistical library scipy.stats in Python) to evaluate whether there were statistically significant differences in the medians of the 13 factors. Groups with p < 0.05 are considered statistically significant, meaning there is likely a difference in medians between the groups for these dimensions. For example, Understanding, Optimism, Lack of Boredom, Enjoyment, Empathy, Curiosity, Creativity, Comfortable with Ambiguity, and Attention show significant differences. This suggests that semester has a significant impact on the scores of these evaluated factors.
Groups with p > 0.05 are not statistically significant, so we fail to find sufficient evidence to claim differences among the groups. This was the case for Teamwork, Lack of Frustration, Lack of Anxiety, and Embracing Risk. This indicates that the differences in medians across semesters are not statistically significant for any of these factors, suggesting that a specific semester does not have a significant impact on the scores of these evaluated factors.
Fig.6 summarizes the results of mini-project surveys conducted over four semesters, highlighting notable trends in student responses. Fig.6 shows that the factor of “attention” consistently scored an average above 1 (“slightly agree”), while “understanding” remained positive but displayed greater variability, potentially influenced by external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Longitudinal analysis reveals that factors like “comfort with ambiguity,” “creativity,” “optimism,” and “attention” consistently scored between 1 and 2 on average, with occasional scores exceeding 2 (“agree”). This suggests that the guided self-directed mini projects effectively fostered students’ creativity, optimism, and engagement in course activities.
Interestingly, Fig.6 reveals that most factors achieved their highest average scores in Spring 2022, coinciding with the return to regular in-person instruction. These differences cannot be attributed to changes in lecture style (as opposed to lecture format), as the same instructor taught the course across all four semesters, maintaining consistent project requirements. The only variation was the project themes, which were updated each semester but retained the same level of difficulty, challenge, and open-endedness.
Fig.6 also shows that the factor of “optimism” similarly peaked during semesters of in-person learning (Fall 2019 and Spring 2022), aligning with broader research on the benefits of face-to-face collaboration. However, the consistently positive scores observed in online-only and hybrid settings indicate that the mini projects maintained their effectiveness across various instructional modalities, demonstrating their adaptability and potential for success in diverse learning environments.
Despite these strengths, the mini projects were less effective at reducing students’ “anxiety”, and their ability to sustain “interest” varied across semesters. This suggests that external factors, such as the overall classroom environment, may have influenced these outcomes. For instance, the increase in students’ willingness to embrace risk from the first to the last semester likely reflects influences beyond the mini projects themselves.
Future research will delve deeper into these dynamics by investigating additional classroom elements, including open-ended take-home quizzes, class participation activities, guest lectures, site visits, and peer grading. Such analysis will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how various course components contribute to students’ engagement and learning outcomes. Ideally, these pedagogies should be evaluated in comparison to a control group to better assess their effectiveness. Tab.3 summarizes the data for the course grades. To evaluate the relationship between mini-project grades and final course grades across different semesters, we analyzed the data using covariance and standard deviations, based on a total of 609 data points (n = 609 students). The Fischer Z-transformation yielded correlations of 0.28, 0.58, 0.81, and 0.61 for the four respective semesters. This gave a weighted average correlation coefficient of r = 0.58 (p < 0.001), indicating a moderate positive correlation between mini-project grades and final course grades. The moderate positive correlation suggests that students who performed well in their mini projects tended to also perform well in their final course grades. Conversely, students who had lower scores with their mini projects were more likely to also have lower final course grades.
With r = 0.58, about 33.6% of the variation in Final Course Grades (i.e., r2 = 0.582 = 0.336) can be explained by the variation in Mini Project Grades. The remaining 66.4% is influenced by other factors such as the two exams, weekly quizzes, class participation, or external circumstances. This result is not unexpected, given the grading structure of the course. Mini projects accounted for 40% of the final grade, while weekly quizzes contributed 30%, and two exams made up the remaining 30%. The quizzes and exams primarily assessed thermodynamics fundamentals, whereas the mini projects focused on applying thermodynamics concepts to sustainable energy challenges, encouraging self-directed learning. These differing emphases help to explain the modest positive correlation observed between mini-project performance and final course grades.
It is worth nothing that the correlations between mini project grades and exam grades are close to zero (r < 0.006) across all semesters, indicating minimal linear relationship between these two sets of grades. It suggests that success in the mini projects follows an intellectual path that does not necessarily translate into the type of subject mastery needed for high exam performance. Students performed best in both their projects and final grades during in-person instruction, specifically in Fall 2019 and Spring 2022. In contrast, students performed worst during the synchronous online-only instruction period, which occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fall 2020), as well as during the hybrid instruction period in Spring 2021.
Across the four semesters reported, it became clear that guided, student-led planning and goal setting helped develop distinct problem-solving approaches among both teams and individuals. By incorporating guided self-directed assignments and active learning strategies, students faced exploratory, real-world challenges related to sustainability, which deepened their engagement and understanding. Instructors and teaching assistants played a crucial role in supporting students through these challenges, providing relevant course materials, and facilitating high-level discussions, while also allowing room for student-driven learning. The multifaceted assignments, guided by interconnected prompts, fostered an interdisciplinary environment that encouraged collaborative discussion and inquiry. With faculty guidance, students were able to exchange ideas and enhance their knowledge and competencies through meaningful interactions.
Tab.4 presents a summary of students’ end-of-semester course evaluations. Across the four semesters, students reported slightly more positive learning experiences during the two in-person classes ( = 4.33 ± 0.96 and 4.61 ± 0.60) compared to those during the online-only ( = 4.32 ± 0.75) and hybrid ( = 4.10 ± 1.03) periods.
Unexpected at the time, the class had a relatively positive learning experience with online-only instruction in Fall 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, that was not the case in Spring 2021 when the class was presented in hybrid format.
In the hybrid course offered in Spring 2021, students rated both the instructor ( = 4.15 ± 0.95) and the course quality ( = 4.02 ± 1.04) the lowest of the four semesters investigated, and with the largest variances in responses. Notably, students also assigned low scores with a high variability to the “out-of-class assignments” category ( = 3.96 ± 1.11), which included the mini projects. Additionally, students appeared to struggle with navigating the shift from online-only instruction, followed by in-person sessions, to a hybrid model that combined both modes. This transition occurred during a period when the university was still developing a consistent approach to managing the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, students reported an overall suboptimal learning experience across all aspects of the course, which is consistent with some of the student comments presented in the previous section on Qualitative Data.
In the in-person course offered in Spring 2022, students reported an overall positive learning experience ( = 4.61 ± 0.60). Student comments about the mini projects and self-directed learning activities were also most positive all four semesters assessed. This perhaps reflects the optimism of the time as the course took place after the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The open-ended nature of the mini projects highlighted in this paper prompted students to craft projects that reflected their perspectives, interests, intellectual skills, and experiences. One team included both a comedy routine and an interpretive dance about micro-nuclear power plants as part of their final mini project. Another team composed a piano piece to accompany their online animation about retrofitting dams for hydroelectric production. Yet another team of students produced an interpretive dance to convey the ills of fossil-fired power stations and the purported advantages of nuclear power. The recorded video was shared on social media and featured a reading of a poem which the students wrote. Each of the students or teams supplemented their reimagining of the future with detailed technical analyses. These projects aimed to elicit emotional and intellectual responses from others (
Kim et al., 2021;
Mejias et al., 2021).
This teaching approach effectively integrates
thinking (cognitive engagement),
feeling (emotional engagement), and
doing (actionable steps). Students were able to successfully engage with and enjoy all three aspects. The thinking aspect of the GSDL tasks deepened their understanding and helped them recognize patterns and relationships. The feeling aspect encouraged students to expand their areas of concern and interest. The doing aspect motivated students to align their intentions with their actions, while remaining mindful of the context and systemic consequences (
Sterling, 2024). This teaching method enabled students to grasp the broader context and critically reflect on the reasons behind existing energy systems, rather than simply learning how to design or analyze them.
From the students’ assignments and their written feedback to our queries, they aspire to be equipped with the tools to envision a new future. Additionally, GSDL provides a more personalized educational experience while actively engaging students in sustainability studies. It further encourages them to reflect on our cultural perspectives on energy systems. These features are expected to be valuable not only for the students as future professional engineers but also for society.
7 Conclusions
Guided self-directed learning (GSDL) serves as a solid foundation for encouraging students to think autonomously. However, it is essential to instill a sense of optimism in students and challenge them to explore their personal values and purpose.
GSDL fosters emotional engagement, allowing students to present their ideas in an open and receptive environment. It helps develop creativity, empathy, critical thinking skills, and a sense of belonging and community within the learning environment.
Our analysis of survey data and interviews revealed that engaging in attention-grabbing, self-directed mini-projects focused on sustainability encourages students to explore real-world issues in depth. This pedagogical approach is further enhanced by integrating peer- and self-assessment, fostering critical self-evaluation. Through student-initiated and directed work, trans-formative educational practices emerge, nurturing the knowledge and skills essential for advancing sustainability action.
As this course used mini projects alongside other GSDL techniques, such as peer learning, take-home quizzes, class participation exercises, and student class presentations, future research should delve deeper into how these pedagogies might be reinforcing each other. Such analysis will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how various course components contribute to students’ engagement and learning outcomes. Additionally, future studies should evaluate GSDL techniques in comparison to a control group to more effectively assess their impact and overall effectiveness.
In higher education, universities play a vital role in shaping the future of sustainability. By fostering an environment that promotes critical thinking, open dialog, and innovation, they can provide a foundation for aspiring engineers and other professionals to explore and challenge existing paradigms. Universities must cultivate spaces where students are not only equipped with technical knowledge but also inspired to think deeply, feel empathetically, and act responsibly in response to global challenges.
In this regard, GSDL serves as a solid foundation for encouraging students to think autonomously. However, it is essential to instill a sense of optimism in students and challenge them to explore their personal values and purpose.
PDF
(1831KB)
