Coming to understand sustainable energy using guided self-directed learning

Abstract

Contemporary engineering education faces evolving challenges due to shifting professional, social, and student demands. While traditional knowledge transfer methods persist, there is growing recognition among leaders in engineering education of the inadequacy of passive learning approaches for addressing complex, multidimensional problems. Moreover, the imperative to cultivate sustainability capabilities among engineering students necessitates a departure from conventional pedagogies toward more innovative and inclusive educational practices. This study explores the efficacy of guided self-directed learning (GSDL) methods in promoting both cognitive and emotional engagement among undergraduate engineering students, while focusing on sustainable energy education. Over four semesters (Fall 2019, Fall 2020, Spring 2021, and Spring 2022), a total of 609 students (N = 609) enrolled in a sophomore-level thermodynamics course were introduced to guided self-directed assignments and active learning strategies, delivered through in-person (2019, 2022), synchronous online (2020), and hybrid (2021) modes of instruction. These approaches aimed to enhance problem-solving skills while fostering both cognitive and emotional connections to sustainability issues. Of these students, 351 (n = 351) actively participated in the study. By integrating these strategies, the course promoted deeper engagement with the material and its real-world applications, encouraging students to explore and strengthen their understanding of sustainability concepts, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Furthermore, the study underscores the importance of fostering collaborative interdisciplinary learning communities and incorporating an understanding of new technologies into various learning environments. While challenges such as student anxiety and varying levels of interest remain, the adoption of GSDL approaches holds promise for encouraging future engineers to think more creatively, critically, and independently while also developing greater empathy. Student evaluations of the course support these “think-feel-do” methods. Guided Self-Directed Learning also presents itself as a potential foundation for developing solutions to sustainability challenges. We propose that the transformative educational practices we probe in this paper can help inspire students to transcend traditional paradigms and catalyze positive shifts toward a more sustainable future.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

guided self-directed learning (GSDL) / sustainable energy / emotional learning / think-feel-do

References

[1] AzevedoR, TaubM, MudrickN V (2017). Understanding and reasoning about real-time cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with advanced learning technologies. In: Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance. London: Routledge: 254–270

[2] Bandura A (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.Am Psychol, 37(2): 122–147

[3] BanduraA (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action . Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs, 23–28

[4] Biggs J B (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes.Br J Educ Psychol, 55(3): 185–212

[5] BlockP (2018). Community: The Structure of Belonging. Berrett-Koehler Publishers

[6] BrookfieldS D (2009). Self-directed learning. International Handbook of Education for the Changing World of Work, 2615–2627

[7] Burford G, Hoover E, Velasco I, Janoušková S, Jimenez A, Piggot G, Podger D, Harder M K (2013). Bringing the “missing pillar” into sustainable development goals: towards intersubjective values-based indicators.Sustainability (Basel), 5(7): 3035–3059

[8] CaffarellaR S (2000). Goals of self-learning. In: Straka G A, ed. Conceptions of Self-Directed Learning: Theoretical and Conceptual Considerations. Munster: Waxmann, 7–48

[9] Costanza R, McGlade J, Lovins H, Kubiszewski I (2014). An overarching goal for the UN sustainable development goals.Solutions, 5(4): 13–16

[10] Dhawan S (2020). Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis.J Educ Technol Syst, 49(1): 5–22

[11] Fanning A L, O’Neill D W, Buchs M (2020). Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries.Glob Environ Change, 64: 102135

[12] Forster P M, Smith C, Walsh T, Lamb W F, Lamboll R, Hall B, Hauser M, Ribes A, Rosen D, Gillett N P, Palmer M D (2024). Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence.Earth System Science Data, 16(6): 2625–2658

[13] Fuso Nerini F, Mazzucato M, Rockström J, van Asselt H, Hall J W, Matos S, Persson Å, Sovacool B, Vinuesa R, Sachs J (2024). Extending the sustainable development goals to 2050—a road map.Nature, 630(8017): 555–558

[14] Halverson L R, Graham C R (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: a conceptual framework.Online Learn, 23(2): 145–178

[15] Immordino-YangM H (2016). Emotions, Learning, and the Brain. Exploring the Educational Implications of Affective Neuroscience. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

[16] IPCC(2022). ClimateChange 2022 impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC Sixth Assessment Repor

[17] IRENA (2023). World Energy Transitions Outlook 2023: 1.5 °C Pathway. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency

[18] JasanoffS, KimS H (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

[19] Jay A K, Avery C W, Dahl T A, Dodder R S, Hamlington B D, Lustig A R, Méndez-Lazaro P A, Osler M S, Terando A, Weeks E, Zycherman A (2023): Ch. 1. Overview: understanding risks, impacts, and responses. In: Crimmins A R, Avery C W, Easterling D R, Kunkel K E, Stewart B C, Maycock T K, eds. Fifth National Climate Assessment. U. S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA

[20] JicklingB, Sterling S (2017). Post-Sustainability and Environmental Education: Remaking Education for the Future. New York: Springer

[21] KampA (2016). Engineering education in the rapidly changing world: Rethinking the vision for higher engineering education. TU Delft

[22] Kim J H, Nguyen N T, Campbell R C, Yoo S, Taraban R, Reible D D (2021). Developing reflective engineers through an arts-incorporated graduate course: a curriculum inquiry.Think Skills Creativity, 42: 100909

[23] Kirschner P A, Sweller J, Clark R E (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.Educ Psychol, 41(2): 75–86

[24] Kopnina H (2020). Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals.J Environ Educ, 51(4): 280–291

[25] KuhlJ (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, eds. Action Control. Berlin: Springer

[26] Lavey W G (2019). Teaching the health impacts of climate change in many American higher education programs.Int J Sustain High Educ, 20(1): 39–56

[27] Leal Filho W, Frankenberger F, Salvia A L, Azeiteiro U, Alves F, Castro P, Will M, Platje J, Lovren V O, Brandli L, Price E, Doni F, Mifsud M, Ávila L V (2021). A framework for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in university programmes.J Clean Prod, 299: 126915

[28] LiebenbergL (2024). Energy Systems. A Project-Based Approach to Sustainability Thinking for Energy Conversion Systems. New York: John Wiley and Sons

[29] LiebenbergL, TuckerT (2022). Implementing mini projects to build community and improve student engagement. In: 129th ASEE Annual Conference (Technical Session). ASEE

[30] Liu N F, Carless D (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment.Teach High Educ, 11(3): 279–290

[31] Lotz-Sisitka H, Wals A E, Kronlid D, McGarry D (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction.Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 16: 73–80

[32] MacGregorJ, CooperJ L, SmithK A, Robinson P (2000). Strategies for energizing large classes: from small groups to learning communities. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 47–59

[33] Mejias S, Thompson N, Sedas R M, Rosin M, Soep E, Peppler K, Roche J, Wong J, Hurley M, Bell P, Bevan B (2021). The trouble with STEAM and why we use it anyway.Sci Educ, 105(2): 209–231

[34] Meyer J, Knight D, Baldock T, Kizil M, O’Moore L, Callaghan D (2012). Scoping metalearning opportunity in the first three years of engineering. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association of Engineering Education, Melbourne, 2, 2012

[35] MezirowJ (2010). Transformative learning theory. In: Mezirow J, Taylor E, eds. Transformative Learning in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 18–23

[36] Michel J O, Holland L M, Brunnquell C, Sterling S (2020). The ideal outcome of education for sustainability: transformative sustainability learning.New Dir Teach Learn, 2020(161): 177–188

[37] Morton S, Pencheon D, Squires N (2017). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation: a national global framework for health, development and equity needs a systems approach at every level.Br Med Bull, 124(1): 81–90

[38] National Academies (2020). Strengthening Sustainability Programs and Curricula at the Undergraduate and Graduate Levels. National Academies of Sciences, Policy, Global Affairs, Board on Higher Education, Technology for Sustainability Program, Committee on Strengthening Sustainability Programs, Curricula at the Undergraduate and Graduate Levels. National Academies Press

[39] PaganoA, Liebenberg L, GoldsteinM H (2019). Play-in-learning: studying the impact of emotion and cognition in undergraduate engineering learning. In: 2019 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition

[40] Pasquinelli E, Farina M, Bedel A, Casati R (2021). Naturalizing critical thinking: consequences for education, blueprint for future research in cognitive science.Mind Brain Educ, 15(2): 168–176

[41] Rammel C, Vettori O (2021). Dealing with the intangible: using the analytical lens of hidden curricula for a transformative paradigm of sustainable higher education.J Educ Sustain Dev, 15(2): 234–249

[42] Reimagine our Future (2024). Reimagine our Future: Sustainability Competition for Undergraduate Students. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA

[43] Rockström J, Donges J F, Fetzer I, Martin M A, Wang-Erlandsson L, Richardson K (2024). Planetary boundaries guide humanity’s future on Earth.Nat Rev Earth Environ, 5(11): 773–788

[44] RothM S (2023). The Student: A Short History. Yale University Press

[45] Schunk D H, DiBenedetto M K (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.Contemp Educ Psychol, 60: 101832

[46] Song L, Hill J R (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments.J Interact Online Learn, 6(1): 27–42

[47] Sterling S (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground.Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5(11): 17–33

[48] SterlingS (2024). Learning and Sustainability in Dangerous Times. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing

[49] TesterJ W, DrakeE M, DriscollM J, Golay M W, PetersW A (2012). Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options. MIT Press: Boston

[50] Thornhill-Miller B, Camarda A, Mercier M, Burkhardt J M, Morisseau T, Bourgeois-Bougrine S, Vinchon F, El Hayek S, Augereau-Landais M, Mourey F, Feybesse C, Sundquist D, Lubart T (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education.J Intell, 11(3): 54

[51] TuckerT, WolfA, DancholvichitN, LiebenbergL (2021). Transforming an engineering design course into an engaging learning experience using a series of self-directed mini projects and ePortfolios: face-to-face versus online-only instruction. In: 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference

[52] UNEP (2021). Over 1,000 universities and colleges make net-zero pledges as new nature initiative is unveiled. United Nations Environment Programme

[53] Wals A E J, Schwarzin L (2012). Fostering organizational sustainability through dialogical interaction.Learn Organ, 19(1): 11–27

[54] WatsonM K, Barrella E, SkenesK (2021). Self-directed learning readiness among engineering students during emergency online instruction. In: 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1–5

[55] Zeng Y, Maxwell S, Runting R K, Venter O, Watson J E M, Carrasco L R (2020). Environmental destruction not avoided with the sustainable development goals.Nat Sustain, 3(10): 795–798

[56] Zimmerman B J (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.J Educ Psychol, 81(3): 329–339

[57] Zimmerman B J (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview.Theory Pract, 41(2): 64–70

Acknowledgments

The study was approved by the UIUC Institutional Review Board (IRB), protocol No. 19162, titled “Evaluation of Pedagogies of Engagement.” The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Drs. Jay Mann and Chris Migotsky from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s (UIUC’s) Academy for Excellence in Engineering Education (AE3) for their invaluable support of this exploratory research. We are also thankful for the inspirational discussions with Dr. Robert Baird and other members of the UIUC’s ENGINE (“ENGagement In eNgineering Education”) group, sponsored by AE3. We also acknowledge the support provided by the UIUC Siebel Center for Design and extend our gratitude to Drs. Saad Shehab and Alex Pagano for their contributions. Our ENGINE team greatly benefited from an enlightening exchange with Professor Don Wuebbles, in whose honor this paper has been prepared. Furthermore, through dedicated seminars, our undergraduate students had the exceptional opportunity to learn from this globally renowned scientist, gaining profound insights from his expertise in atmospheric science.

Additionally, we wish to extend our appreciation to the following engineering students for their invaluable contributions and active participation in discussions of the findings: Juan Reynoso, Shreyas Venkatarathinam, Thomas Posthuma, Esmée Vernooij, Noboru Meyers, Michael Ciss, Aaryaman Patel, and Juan David Campolargo. The various Thermodynamics classes also benefited from insightful site visits, and we are grateful to the following individuals for their support: Mike Brewer (Abbott Power Plant); Mike Larson (Oak Street Chiller Plant; Abbott Power Plant); Lisa Parsons (Friendsville Coal Mine / White Stallion Energy); Karl Gnadt, Ashlee McLaughlin, and Josh Berbaum (C-U MTD green hydrogen program / fuel-cell electric buses); and Rhett Simpson (Andrae’s Harley Davidson).

We are deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful feedback and constructive suggestions significantly enhanced the quality of this manuscript and helped identify directions for future research. Special thanks are also due to Professor John Abelson (UIUC Materials Science and Engineering) for his helpful comments and suggestions.

Finally, we dedicate this work to the memory of Professor Robert McKim, whose unwavering commitment to sustainability thinking and significant contributions to this and related fields profoundly shaped the development of this paper. Professor McKim authored and refined key sections of the manuscript up until a week before his untimely passing. His unwavering commitment and enduring impact will not be forgotten. Thank you, Robert!

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 Higher Education Press