• Energy Research
• 4. Education close
• CH close
• IN close
• English close

The SmartBay NIAP fund was made available in 2012 through Dublin City University over a two year period to enable researchers to access the SmartBay Ireland National Test and Demonstration Facility in Galway Bay. Research proposals were invited for funding under a number of activity types that are in line with the objectives of the SmartBay PRTLI Cycle 5 programme. This fund provided small awards (typically €2-25K) to research teams through a national competitive process, which was open to all higher education institutions on the island of Ireland. There were both open and biannual calls. The SmartBay NIAP fund was established to enable researchers in academia and industry to access the SmartBay Ireland national test and demonstration infrastructure. Proposals to access the infrastructure were brief and required information on the researcher(s), a description of the proposed research and its potential impact to the research team arising from the access to SmartBay Ireland. Marine Institute

Secondary level education in Ireland is going through a major transition with the introduction of the new Junior Cycle programme. For the first time sustainability is being embedded into every subject and teachers have been given the opportunity, and flexibility to create their own curriculum. Addressing this, 8 teachers at Castletroy College worked collaboratively on the “E-Mining@School” project to incorporate sustainability into their subjects’ curriculum using an ambitious multidisciplinary approach. This approach attempted to connect sustainability to the student’s everyday lives through the product that teenagers covet the most; their smartphones.The project developed a collaborative cross- curriculum pilot that explored the common theme of ‘urban mining of e-waste for Critical Raw Materials (CRMs)’ and the teachers integrated this common theme into the curriculum of 5 subjects that included Science, Geography, Business, Technology, and Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE) that would be delivered concurrently. The pilot ran for 4 weeks, beginning at the end of January 2019. A cohort of 220 2nd year students attended 60 lessons over all 5 subjects. 24 teachers delivered these lessons and each student received, on average, over 38 hours of lessons. The project culminated in a public WEEE collection event that recovered over 11 tonnes of WEEE that was sent for recycling. The second running took place in the Spring of 2020 and it is planned to continue it as an annual endeavour. The pilot demonstrated to students the value of the resources used in their electronic products and the challenges of finite resource scarcity. It showed them not only where their stuff came from but also where it goes when they thought it thrown it away. Through the project students became familiar with and champions of the Circular Economy which was very evident in the WEEE collection event. The project was also the first occasion for the teachers to collaborate on a cross-curricular approach to secondary education and the paper includes findings on this topic.

Today’s complex global problems necessitate engineering solutions that not only consider sustainability, but include elements of design and creativity. Unfortunately, many engineering programs do not train students to think in terms of multiple contexts and at various scales. We often constrain students’ creativity to think within the narrow parameters of their specialization. Engineering educators face a difficult task of training students with both technical competencies and sustainability consciousness to tackle 21st century challenges. If we are to positively contribute to society, then we need to fundamentally change the way scientists, social scientists, and engineers are educated (Bielefeldt 2013). Two successful models for implementing sustainability grand challenges into engineering curricula have emerged in practice and in literature: stand-alone courses versus modules that are integrated into many courses. Engineering programs implement the stand-alone course-based model by establishing one to two distinct courses designed to address sustainability grand challenges and design in depth. One example of this is senior design. Conversely, engineering programs implement the modular-based model by integrating sustainability grand challenges and design throughout a host of existing courses and weave student exposure throughout the curriculum. These modules can be via ready-made modules, but more often than not faculty develop their own modules. The goal of this research was to evaluate the two models for implementing sustainability and to provide succinct recommendations and lessons learned for engineering programs tasked with integrating sustainability into their curricula. We review the implementation results of three sustainability courses, fourteen sustainability-themed modules, and senior design. We track progress towards responding to ABET Program Criterion related to sustainability and Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 2nd edition (BOK2) Outcome 10: Sustainability. Results compare outcomes of students’ senior design project from universities implementing the two different approaches. And finally, we present the results of a formative and summative surveys of hundreds of students who participated in classes implemented throughout the project as well as faculty perceptions and barriers to implementation.

All programmes of study in Institutes of Technology in Ireland are subjected to internal programmatic review in five yearly cycles to ensure that the education programmes meet the quality assurance standards and are fit for purpose. In addition engineering and construction programmes undergo voluntary external accreditation by their respective professional bodies. Both processes differ in their focus and intent and the preparation required by the programme teams and managers. The two processes emphasise different aspects of engineering education. From the research literature, it has emerged that these assessment types are used worldwide, in varying ways and in regular cycles, for the quality assurance of engineering education programmes. Both the programmatic review and accreditation processes have evolved and diverged over time. Engineers Ireland has formally accredited all University and Institutes of Technology engineering programmes in Ireland since 1982. Engineering education programmes which satisfy the appropriate criteria laid down in the Engineers Ireland accreditation documents are deemed to meet the education standard required of individuals seeking one of the registered titles of Chartered Engineer, Associate Engineer and Engineering Technician. The Engineers Ireland accreditation process is consistent with international best practice and this is verified by their inclusion in international mutual recognition agreements. Significant consultation has taken place with the gatekeepers of these processes which includes the Registrars and Heads of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) and the Registrar of Engineers Ireland. Incorporation of the programmatic review and accreditation processes into a single quality assurance process has long been an ambition of these gatekeepers. To achieve this ambition, it is imperative to determine whether it is possible to align the objectives of both processes. Twenty four triangulation documents were prepared comparing the QQI Engineering Award Standards, the QQI Professional Award Type Descriptors and the Engineers Ireland Accreditation Criteria. This allowed for comparison across the three engineering professional titles, their equivalent Irish National Framework of Qualifications levels for the three quality strands of knowledge, skill and competence and the five sub- strands of Mathematics and Sciences, Design and Development, Information Technology, Business Context and Engineering Practice. Even though there are differences in wording between the standards, there is over ninety percent alignment between all three sets of objectives in terms of their intent.

The world is becoming increasingly urbanized. Municipal, metropolitan, regional and national governments, companies, international organizations, financiers, technology developers and civil society across the globe are faced with increasingly complex problems to transform the potential challenge of rapid urbanization into an opportunity to foster development and prosperity in societies. Cities are under immense pressure to address environmental sustainability issues. In addition, utilizing the potential of technologies and innovations, often under the label of Smart City initiatives, to enhance the performance in terms of efficiency, resilience and sustainability has become an important priority on many cities' agendas. In this complex urban context, infrastructures, which are best conceptualized as complex socio-technical systems, play a crucial role in attaining the desired performance for cities. Governance of urban infrastructures plays a pivotal role in enabling cities to deliver quality services to citizens. Addressing complex problems associated with governance of large urban infrastructures calls for a genuine holistic-multidisciplinary approach. However, literature shows that urban practitioners (both in the public and private sector) seldom approach complex urban problems from such a holistic and multidisciplinary perspective, and technical and discipline-specific approaches continue to prevail. The current literature also highlights the important role that professional training can play in helping urban practitioners to adopt such a perspective. Yet, only a limited number of studies have attempted to shed light on the challenges associated with training urban practitioners to adopt a holistic perspective; even fewer studies go on to propose effective strategies for dealing with those challenges in practice. This thesis precisely sheds light on this understudied domain of research. Action Research is used as the research methodology in this thesis. A full-scale Executive Master program on innovative governance of large urban systems (IGLUS) was developed and served as the empirical context of the research. The thesis reports the processes undertaken for the design, implementation, and continuous evaluation of the IGLUS Executive Master. Building upon this solid empirical basis, it also provides a systematic and structured illustration of some of the most important challenges associated with training urban practitioners to adopt a more holistic-multidisciplinary perspective to address complex urban problems. Strategies for effectively dealing with these challenges, and ultimately delivering a transformative learning experience, are also proposed. The key findings of this thesis are that critical reflection is instrumental to developing meaningful learning experiences for adult learners. Developing and using conceptual frameworks can serve as an invaluable pedagogical exercise; supporting the meaning-making processes for both the educators and learners. Helping adults to effectively engage in critical reflection in and on their actions is absolutely essential, but is an inherently complex and delicate task. Thus, delivering a learning experience on the basis of promoting critical reflection requires a genuinely innovative, reflective and comprehensive approach towards the design and delivery of the training programs; in these settings knowledgeable, dedicated and creative program managers and educators play a pivotal role.

Theme of the Colloquium The extreme vulnerability of humans and contemporary societies, recently laid bare by the Covid-19 pandemic, has led to extreme poverty, famine and numerous sorts of inequality, injustice, and exploitation affecting a vast proportion of the global human population. Different and unexpected forms of vulnerability felt worldwide urge philosophy and philosophers to reflect upon the present situation and to take action towards finding humane and well-reasoned answers to some of today’s most pressing problems. To this end, and in line with its core commitment to the “philosophy of care,” the IEF aims to foster an interdisciplinary dialogue between philosophers and all of those who, in their own fields of inquiry and expertise, are engaged in taking care of the Earth and its inhabitants by doing their utmost to mitigate the perils currently threatening our planetary household. A precise definition of the nature, aims and methods of a “philosophy of care” has yet to be established, but its scope has widened to encompass major challenges, notably the promotion of inclusive and democratic societies, gender equality, climate and environmental sustainability, cultural, artistic and human heritage, and universal access to high-quality and affordable healthcare and education. These are the fundamental issues we addressed in this colloquium. In its 2nd edition, the colloquium also payed tribute to Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (1930-2004), former Portuguese prime-minister and a pioneering contributor to the development of the philosophy of care, whose life and work were evoked by a special panel. 761A-88F4-6066 | Robert Andres Martins Junqueira info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Circular economy (CE) is drawing attention in the fields of sustainable science and engineering. The aim of the paper is to describe how a consortium of 6 European universities or research institutes (Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, Finland; Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands; Fraunhofer, Germany; Technical University of Denmark; Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy; University of Helsinki, Finland) that build new co- created learning modules in CE based on modern collaborative pedagogical approaches that include flipped learning (Bergman & Sams, 2012). In the modules a feed-forward toolkit for student engagement and participation was applied. The paper also discusses student and teacher experiences and perceived benefits of using the pedagogical engagement approach.

As the world's focus turns to the future and not the present, the engineering profession must respond to the ever increasing need to bring about a sustainable future. The objective of this paper is to support the reform of engineering education by acknowledging and building upon the current awareness and understanding of sustainable development held by key stakeholders in the process. This paper presents the outcomes of a study involving twelve focus groups with Academics, Employers and Students in four European countries (Denmark, Finland, France and Ireland) as part of the A-STEP 2030 European Project. Based on the findings, it is clear that the key stakeholders closely associate the theme of the environment with Sustainable Development. There is also mention of the pillar of economy, but less so, that of society. The findings also reveal differences in the awareness of specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with SDG 13 (Climate Action) being most widely noted. The findings allow educators to engage in discussion with students to build a more complete understanding of aspects of sustainable development and to act in redesigning curricula to ensure engineers can contribute to a sustainable future.

The paper highlights some of the key concerns across the sectors of school, higher and teacher education. A few potential research themes that can help problematise the issues raised have been identified. An emphasis is laid on the need to build on practice-based repositories of knowledge, curricular framing and pedagogic strategies. Examining the contours of and potential for ESD includes: addressing questions of environmental, social, economic and epistemic justice in school and higher education contexts; exploring linkages between ESD and climate change education, education on sustainable cities and communities and identifying novel methods of wider public engagement and social education.