Institut für

Werkzeugmaschinen und

Fabrikbetrieb

Fachgebiet

Nachhaltige

Unternehmensentwicklung

Prof. Dr. -Ing.

Holger Kohl

Master Thesis

Didactic concept for the mediation of sustainable

value creation within the framework of problem-

based engineering education

Presented by: André Brötz

Degree: Mechanical Engineering

Matriculation Number:

to acquire the academic degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.)

Institute for Machine Tools and Factory Management

Department of Sustainable Corporate Development

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Holger Kohl

Supervisor: Dipl. -Ing. Bernd Muschard

Berlin, January 8, 2018

Produktionstechnisches Zentrum Telefon: +49 (0)30 / 314 - 25662

Sekretariat PTZ 9 Telefax: +49 (0)30 / 393 - 2503

Pascalstr. 8-9 E-Mail: muschard@mf.tu-berlin.de

D-10587 Berlin Internet: www.iwf.tu-berlin.de

i

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my family for their continuous support during this

formidable project, especially my parents Rolf and Christina Brötz, and my sister Julia-

Katharina Brötz. They greatly contributed to the successful completion of this thesis in a

variety of ways, and I am extremely grateful for how they stood by me during this time. I

would also like to thank my friends for their support and for their endurance, when dealing

with this thesis as my constant excuse for having to miss yet another social event. I assure

you dear friends, those days are over.

A special appreciation is directed towards my supervisor Bernd Muschard, who gave me an

incredible opportunity to integrate learning and didactics into my engineering education. Our

regular conversations about learning and sustainable development gave me valuable fuel

for my work and kept me believing that my contributions are meaningful. His ongoing trust

and expertise in maker spaces were pivotal in enabling me to write this thesis. I particularly

enjoyed tinkering in his office/maker space, and am grateful for the helpful reception that I

received there from his colleagues at the institute. They constantly shared experiences with

me from their everyday practices, and showed a steady interest in my planned contributions

to the mediation of sustainable value creation.

Finally, I would like to thank the Institute for Machine Tools and Factory Management (IWF),

and Prof. Holger Kohl in particular, for the possibility to write a modern, interdisciplinary

thesis related to sustainable engineering. I learned a great deal throughout this process and

have developed a much deeper understanding of how to effectively integrate sustainability

issues and personalized didactic approaches into engineering education.

ii

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that I have not received any outside

assistance. All references and other sources used by me have been appropriately

acknowledged in the work.

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und eigenhändig sowie

ohne unerlaubte fremde Hilfe und ausschließlich unter Verwendung der aufgeführten

Quellen und Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe.

Die selbstständige und eigenständige Anfertigung versichert an Eides statt:

Berlin, den

_____________________________

André Brötz

geb. am

iii

Definition of Task for M.Sc. candidate: André Brötz Matriculation number: Faculty: 5 Degree: Mechanical Engineering

Topic: Didactic concept for the mediation of sustainable value creation

within the framework of problem-based engineering education

Sustainability is a major challenge for the global community. In the long term, it will not be

enough to meet this challenge only in a technological way. There is and will be the need to

raise awareness for sustainability, and to gain and foster new forms of social learning to

have better educated consumers.

A relatively new approach to mediation in engineering education are the so-called maker

spaces. Maker spaces are open workshops that aim to provide individuals with access to

production equipment and with the knowledge of modern industrial production processes

for one-of-a-kind products. But until now the topic of sustainability has hardly come into play

in this combination of mediation and value creation.

The aim of this thesis is the planning and development of a didactic concept for the

mediation of sustainable value creation in engineering education using maker spaces as

learning environments. The concept to be developed should be oriented towards the

approach of problem-based learning and shall foster self-regulated learning processes.

Particular consideration should be given to the mediation of engineering-educational

content and to incorporate this exemplarily into the concept. In detail the following points

shall be elaborated:

• State of the art research about (1) engineering education, (2) mediation of sustainable

value creation, (3) learning and (4) didactics.

• Examination of influencing factors which are crucial for the learner’s success and

learning outcome.

• Developing a didactic concept for engineering education using the approach of problem-

based learning in the environment of maker spaces to foster the mediation for

sustainability.

The work on this task must be carried out in constant contact with the supervising assistant.

iv

Summary (in German) Nachhaltigkeit ist eine große Herausforderung für die gesamte globale Gesellschaft. Es wird

langfristig nicht ausreichen, dieser Herausforderung nur aus einer technologischen

Richtung zu begegnen. Daher ist es zu einer Priorität geworden, ein Bewusstsein für

Nachhaltigkeit zu entwickeln und eine entsprechende Handlungskompetenz zu fördern. In

vielen Industrien und anderen wichtigen Bereichen der Gesellschaft werden innovative und

interdisziplinäre Lösungen benötigt, um große Schritte in Richtung einer nachhaltigen

Entwicklung zu gehen. Hier spielen Ingenieure eine besonders wichtige Rolle, da sie

trainierte Problemlöser sind und in der Gesellschaft für viele Gestaltungsaufgaben

zuständig sind. Es findet zurzeit ein schwieriger und umfangreicher Wandel statt, von

traditionellen Fertigungsprozessen zu einer nachhaltigen Produktion. Weltweit ist die

universitäre Ingenieurausbildung gefragt, innovative didaktische Konzepte zu entwickeln

und einzusetzen, um junge Ingenieure auf eine offene und komplexe Zukunft vorzubereiten,

in der sie als Experten und Agenten für Nachhaltigkeit handeln können.

Ein relativ neuer Ansatz der ingenieurwissenschaftlichen Vermittlung ist der Einsatz von

sogenannten Maker Spaces. Diese sind offene Werkstätte, die digitale Fertigungs-

technologien (z.B. 3-D Drucker) eindrucksvoll mit traditionellen Produktionsverfahren (z.B.

Bohren und Fräsen) verbinden. Sie bieten gemeinschaftliche Erfahrungsräume, wo

Studenten handlungs- und problemorientiert mit modernen Technologien umgehen können.

Der Einsatz von Maker Spaces eignet sich besonders für die Vermittlung von nachhaltiger

Wertschöpfung, jedoch ist es hier wichtig, ein klares und modulares didaktisches Konzept

zu entwickeln. Ein tieferer Blick in den aktuellen Stand der wissenschaftlichen Forschung

über Lernen und Didaktik zeigt, dass selbstgesteuertes und kollaboratives Lernen in diesem

Zusammenhang besonders effektiv sein können.

Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit wird ein didaktisches Konzept geplant und entwickelt, das auf

dem neuesten Stand der Technik basiert und darüber hinaus versucht, konkrete

Implementierungsschritte zu ermöglichen. Es beinhaltet die Schaffung eines Raums, in dem

Studenten ihr Bewusstsein für Nachhaltigkeitsthemen ausbauen und dieses in ihren

täglichen Entscheidungen und Verhaltensweisen als Ingenieure berücksichtigen können.

Um das volle Potenzial einer effektiven Vermittlung von nachhaltiger Wertschöpfung in

Maker Spaces auszunutzen, ist das Konzept langfristig orientiert und soll Studenten dazu

ermutigen, mehr Verantwortung für ihre Lernprozesse zu übernehmen. Das entwickelte

Konzept kann als Basis dienen für konkrete Implementierungsversuche, mehr

Nachhaltigkeit in die Ingenieurausbildung zu integrieren.

v

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

2. Motivation ................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Sustainable Development .................................................................................... 4

2.2 Circular Economy ................................................................................................ 7

2.3 Eco-Design ........................................................................................................ 11

2.4 Maker Spaces .................................................................................................... 13

3. State of the Art: Learning .......................................................................................... 16

3.1 Learning Theories .............................................................................................. 16

3.1.1 Behaviorism ................................................................................................ 16

3.1.2 Cognitivism ................................................................................................. 18

3.1.3 Social Cognitivism ...................................................................................... 20

3.1.4 Discussion .................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Influencing Factors ............................................................................................ 22

3.2.1 Motivation ................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Attention ..................................................................................................... 25

3.2.3 Emotions .................................................................................................... 27

3.2.4 Self-Efficacy................................................................................................ 29

3.2.5 Memory ...................................................................................................... 31

3.2.6 Media ......................................................................................................... 34

3.3 Didactics ............................................................................................................ 35

3.3.1 Introduction and Discussion ........................................................................ 35

3.3.2 Knowledge .................................................................................................. 40

3.3.3 Competences ............................................................................................. 42

3.3.4 Formal and Informal Learning ..................................................................... 44

3.3.5 Self-Regulated Learning ............................................................................. 45

3.3.6 Problem-Based Learning ............................................................................ 48

3.3.7 Role of the Teacher .................................................................................... 51

3.3.8 Learning Environment ................................................................................. 54

vi

4. State of the Art: Engineering Education .................................................................... 56

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 56

4.2 Case Studies ..................................................................................................... 58

4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 58

4.2.2 Problem-Based Learning at Aalborg University ........................................... 59

4.2.3 Blue Engineering at TU Berlin ..................................................................... 61

4.2.4 The Invention Studio at the Georgia Institute of Technology ....................... 62

5. Gaps ......................................................................................................................... 64

6. Didactic Concept ....................................................................................................... 66

6.1 Introduction and Framework .............................................................................. 66

6.2 Learning Concept .............................................................................................. 69

6.3 Teaching Concept.............................................................................................. 74

6.4 Outlook .............................................................................................................. 77

7. Conclusion and Outlook ............................................................................................ 79

8. Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 81

vii

Table of Figures

Figure 1: World energy consumption, 1990 - 2040 in quadrillion Btu (British thermal unit) (U.S.

EIA, 2013 p.1). .............................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2: Model that represents sustainability as concentric rings, with the environmental

dimension encompassing the social and economic dimensions (Pelletier et al., 2012 p.14). .... 5

Figure 3: Model to illustrate possible material flows through society, including resource recovery

routes (Singh et al., 2016 p.348). ................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4: Circular economy system diagram illustrating the continuous flow of technical and

biological materials through the 'value circle' (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). ................... 9

Figure 5: The economics of recovery diagram shows the relative cost of recovery as a fraction

of fraction recovered. The “economic sweet spot” is found at the minimum of the curve. Over

time units are collected and their value recovered, but collection costs rise as more are

recovered and those remaining become harder to find (Ashby, 2016 p.229). .......................... 10

Figure 6: Individual phases of the product and service design processes. The blue arrows are

shown to indicate that the two processes can be linked, so that integrated product-service

systems can be developed (author’s own representation). ....................................................... 12

Figure 7: A comparison between a professional, industrial 3-D printer and its affordable

counterpart for personal fabrication. a) Dimension Elite 3-D printer, ca. 30.000 Euro, b)

MakerBot Replication Mini, ca. 1.000 Euro (Assaf 2014, p.145). .............................................. 15

Figure 8: Examples of reinforcement and punishment. Both have a positive and a negative

version. Based on figure from (Lefrançois, 2015 p.102). ........................................................... 18

Figure 9: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs represented as a ladder. Since self-actualization is not

an ultimate goal, this representation is preferred to that of a pyramid with a peak at the top

(author’s own representation)..................................................................................................... 24

Figure 10: A common representation of the Yerkes-Dodson law that demonstrates the

relationship between performance and level of arousal (Diamond et al., 2007). ...................... 26

Figure 11: These four categories can affect motivation and learning. They give a general

overview of the possible emotions involved in completing a task (Pekrun et al., 2002 p.92). .. 28

Figure 12: An overview of the categories of causal attributions of Weiner’s theory (Lefrançois,

2015 p.335)................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 13: The didactic triangle provides a framework for instructional design. A focus is placed

on the component found at the top of the triangle. Based on (Sünkel, 1996). .......................... 37

Figure 14: A holistic competence model with respect to learning. It provides a general

framework, within which a further distinction among more detailed competences can be

developed (Arnold et al., 2001 p.27). ......................................................................................... 43

viii

Figure 15: The inquiry-based learning framework, consisting of general phases, sub-phases,

and their relations (Pedaste et al., 2015 p.56). .......................................................................... 49

Figure 16: The Lewinian model illustrates that experiential learning is a cyclical process, with an

emphasis on “here-and-now” concrete experiences and on feedback processes (Kolb, 1984

p.21). ........................................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 17: An integrative competence management model that illustrates the various

participants who meet in the research, educational, and job markets. These markets and their

participants make up a part of the global society (Meyer, 2005). .............................................. 56

Figure 18: Exchange of knowledge as a learning strategy that benefits communities, university

faculty, and students. Partners, like local businesses, university lecturers or civil servants,

provide students with access to knowledge and learning opportunities, that help them develop

integrated solutions to real-world sustainability problems (Lehmann et al., 2008 p.291). ......... 60

Figure 19: (above) A view into the entrance area of the Invention Studio, a 4500 square foot

state-of-the-art prototype fabrication facility (Forest et al., 2014 p.8). (below) A layout plan of the

facility, made up of individual machine rooms (http://inventionstudio.gatech.edu/our-space/). 63

Figure 20: A student-centered didactic triangle that illustrates the framework of the didactic

concept, with sustainable value creation as the topic and the maker space as the learning

environment (author’s own representation). .............................................................................. 67

Figure 21: A morphological box that enables concrete initial choices among a spectrum of

implementation possibilities, ranging from short to long term options. The service design process

can generally be applied to process and system design (author’s own representation). .......... 69

Figure 22: A student-centered learning concept that integrates a theoretical background and a

practical application. Students receive teacher support and gain feedback in group discussions.

Author’s own representation based on (Riel et al., 2015 p.33). ................................................. 70

Figure 23: A list of technical and professional learning outcomes that enable students to become

sustainability leaders in industry and society (Litchfield et al., 2016 p.73). ............................... 71

Figure 24: The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle enables a continuous improvement of

processes. Firstly, the current process is assessed and changes to bring about improvements

are planned. Then small-scale changes are implemented in the do-phase as a trial and to gather

initial feedback. In the check-phase the results from the do-phase are evaluated to see if the

changes are working to improve the process. Finally, if the changes are viable and successful,

they are standardized and integrated into further training procedures. The cycle is continued

iteratively, thereby ensuring that the process is always improved over time (Sandrino-Arndt,

2012 p.443)................................................................................................................................. 78

ix

Index of Abbreviations 3R reduce, reuse, recycle 6R recovery, redesign, remanufacture, reduce, reuse, recycle Btu British thermal unit CAD computer-aided design CSR corporate social responsibility FMEA failure mode and effects analysis LCA life cycle assessment LCC life cycle costing LCE life cycle engineering OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PBL problem-based learning PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act (cycle) PSS product-service systems QFD quality function deployment REALs rich environments for active learning SRL self-regulated learning TU technical university

1

1. Introduction

In the last 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in production and consumption

patterns worldwide. Much of this is due to the increasing economic activity in many Asian,

African, and South American markets, who are in the process of rapid economic

development. Nonetheless, worldwide the extraction of resources and the investment of

capital is still primarily driven by the demands of North American and European societies.

Overall, the current situation shows that natural resources are diminishing rapidly,

greenhouse gas emissions are increasing yearly, and social injustice remains a pressing

issue. An increasing awareness of these and other critical issues has put humanity under

tremendous pressure to react. Sustainable development has emerged as a promising

solution to addressing the problematic consequences of unsustainable production and

consumption patterns. There is now an understanding that economies, societies, and the

environment must be thought of as interdependent and holistic systems. However, the

transition to sustainable development is proving to be extraordinarily difficult, since the

paradigm necessitates a great number of fundamental changes to products, services,

processes, and systems. Implementing these changes requires new and innovative

solutions to complex and multidimensional problems. As problem solvers, engineers play a

crucial role in this transition, while today it is generally recognized that orienting engineering

toward sustainable practices can act as an important lever for creating more sustainable

societies.

Global challenges, such as the depletion of natural resources and increasing pollution

levels, are deeply interconnected with manufacturing processes and systems. In order to

confront these challenges constructively, engineers have to reassess their understanding

of value creation methods. New concepts, including eco-design and circular value chain

cycles, are needed to establish sustainable value creation in manufacturing practices.

Engineers are responsible for these innovations and must constantly adjust to rapid

technological and societal advancements. Many problems that societies face today cannot

be solved solely through technological improvements, they must be addressed in an

interdisciplinary manner. Here, engineers must play the role of sustainability leaders in

society, thereby realizing their potential to develop innovative solutions and to help societies

transition to more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Engineering education

institutions, especially universities, are currently re-evaluating their programs, so that they

can better prepare their students to contribute to sustainable value creation in industry and

society. A major priority is placed on raising an awareness for sustainability issues, but also

on going beyond this awareness and providing opportunities for students to establish

2

sustainable habits as engineers. An innovative approach to learning and teaching

processes is required to prepare young engineers to incorporate sustainability

considerations into their decision-making processes.

There is a growing understanding in the engineering education community that universities

must create more production-oriented learning environments, that bring students closer to

the complex reality of industrial practice. Simultaneously, there is a strong need to make

learning more self-regulated and problem-oriented, so that students are more able to

transfer their acquired knowledge, skills, and competences to situations outside of the

university setting. A relatively new approach to incorporating these aspects into engineering

education are the so-called maker spaces. They are community production workshops, that

incorporate both modern digital fabrication technology (e.g 3-D printers) and traditional

machine shop tools (e.g. drills and lathes). Students can acquire hands-on experiences with

inexpensive technological equipment, and can design and produce physical prototypes and

products. As learning environments, maker spaces have the potential to integrate group

collaboration and design-oriented project work. They are particularly well suited for the

mediation of sustainable value creation in engineering education. However, in order to

achieve and maintain a sustainability orientation, a clear didactic concept must be planned

and developed. State of the art research in engineering education shows that a problem-

oriented and student-centered concept is most promising. This necessitates a deeper

understanding of learning and teaching processes, which requires a closer look at state of

the art research on learning and didactics. These processes are influenced by many factors,

that should be examined and incorporated into planning and development of the concept,

as they are crucial for the successful execution of learning.

The aim of this work is to plan and develop a didactic concept for an effective mediation of

sustainable value creation in engineering education, using maker spaces as learning

environments. Firstly, it is important to understand why this is necessary and to evaluate

the possibilities that maker spaces present (chapter 2). The concept is oriented toward

problem-based and self-regulated learning, requiring a deeper understanding of didactics

and state of the art learning psychology, including learning theories and influencing factors

(chapter 3). This work is therefore meant to be interdisciplinary and to provide a holistic

understanding of learning and teaching processes. Engineering education at universities

provides multiple opportunities for implementation of the didactic concept. Best practice

case studies give a general overview of how sustainable value creation can be integrated

into maker spaces and university programs (chapter 4). Students should have opportunities

to develop into life-long learners, who are capable of dealing with open-ended sustainability

problems. There are research gaps regarding how this can be achieved, and how maker

3

spaces can effectively be integrated as learning environments (chapter 5). The didactic

concept presented in chapter 6 is therefore based on the state of the art research that is

available, but also aims to go beyond it by attempting to bridge some of the gaps holding

back the successful integration of sustainable value creation into engineering education.

4

2. Motivation

2.1 Sustainable Development According to the 'Brundtland Report' of the United Nations World Commission on

Environment and Development sustainable development is “development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs” (UNWCED, 1987 p.41). It is a process of change in which the use of resources,

the direction of investments, the orientation of technological improvements and the

institutional structures must be adjusted and balanced consistently between current and

future needs (UNWCED, 1987 p.17). Under the pressure of climate change, increasing

resource scarcity and social injustice, sustainability has become a mega-trend highly

relevant to all members of industry and society worldwide. 'Limits to Growth', a report

published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, urged that a steadily rising global population as well

as unsustainable production and consumption patterns would lead to major problems for

humans across the entire planet (Meadows et al., 1972). Since then resource use and

particularly energy consumption have increased significantly. Figure 1 shows that especially

non-OECD countries1 are increasing their energy consumption substantially, regardless of

the fuel type, while OECD countries seem to have slowly stagnated (U.S. EIA, 2013). Today,

it is commonly understood that this sharp rise in energy consumption is directly responsible

for increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, depletion of resources, various forms

of pollution, and can in no way be seen as sustainable with regard to the needs of future

generations. The concept of sustainable development acts as a guideline for human

behavior and should be understood as “a continuous process that requires a balance

between (the emergence of) problems and our capacities and capabilities to solve these

problems” (Lehmann et al., 2008 p.281).

1 OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; major non-OECD countries include China and India.

Figure 1: World energy consumption, 1990 - 2040 in quadrillion Btu (British thermal unit) (U.S. EIA, 2013 p.1).

5

There are three main dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic

(see Figure 2). This 'triple bottom line' enables decision-making among various

stakeholders to solve issues related to sustainable development (Elkington, 1999). In

environmental terms the objective is to preserve nature and the environment for future

generations, including climate protection. The depletion of non-renewable resources and

high rates of pollution and waste generation have significant environmental effects that must

be taken seriously. Taking social factors into account means ensuring social justice,

participation and human dignity in institutional arrangements, in addition to providing

conditions where human needs can be met and social integration is encouraged. Decision-

making in social systems is always highly dependent on a large variety of stakeholders.

Economic sustainability is based on providing opportunities for long-term employment and

prosperity, as well as making sustainable practices economically viable for all members of

society. The triple bottom line illustrates the necessity of a multi-dimensional and holistic

approach when it comes to solving problems related to sustainable development

(Herkommer et al., 2004).

In order to achieve sustainable production and consumption patterns societies must

drastically reduce their consumption of raw materials and energy (Riel et al., 2015 p.31).

This is particularly relevant for organizations involved in manufacturing, an industry that has

a significant impact on economical, environmental and social factors. It has great potential

for generating prosperity, jobs and better life quality, while simultaneously creating a

multitude of serious problems and challenges. The current economic system puts

organizations under constant pressure to optimize costs, quality and time. Rising

awareness for the urgency of sustainable development has led to organizations now being

held responsible for their environmental and social performance by major stakeholders

(Walker et al., 2013). Resource efficiency and cleaner production have emerged as two

promising ways of enabling sustainable manufacturing. The manufacturing industry is

Figure 2: Model that represents sustainability as concentric rings, with the environmental dimension encompassing the social and economic dimensions (Pelletier et al., 2012 p.14).

6

currently transitioning towards this approach, but faces a major dilemma in doing so.

Producing environmentally friendly products is often more expensive, and transitioning from

an already installed production base to adopting new more sustainable technologies

requires a large economic investment (Ueda et al., 2009). This illustrates the nature of

decision-making for sustainable development: there are always trade-offs between the short

and the long run. Ultimately, relying less on natural resources leads to relying more on

renewable energy, efficient technology, human knowledge and innovation. Industries that

are innovation-driven are expected to be more sustainable than traditional industry sectors

and to bring long-term value in all dimensions of sustainable development (Mrozewski et

al., 2011 p.63). New discoveries and technological breakthroughs are often only achieved

by bridging gaps between different disciplines, through a process of matching the problems

(needs) of systems with solutions which are new and relevant to those needs (Ueda et al.,

2009 p.688).

Adjusting to sustainable development is a major challenge for many manufacturing

organizations. The main purpose of manufacturing is to create value2. Due to the expansive

networking of information and rapid globalization, in addition to challenges presented by the

triple bottom line, it has become increasingly difficult to understand and control values of

products and services. Value is not only created through functionality, but is also co-created

through interactions between customers, products and producers. In a sustainable society

the integration of products and services into product-service systems (PSS) is expected to

be pivotal for sustainable value creation (Ueda et al., 2009 p.681). In this new service-

oriented economy value is more closely related to the performance and actual utilization of

the products, within an integrated system that aims to generate maximum customer use

with a minimum of used resources (Pigosso et al., 2011 p.239). Life cycle engineering (LCE)

is another promising way to maximize product performance and minimize negative impacts

by considering a product's entire life cycle. A variety of tools and methods have already

been developed to integrate aspects related to the tripe bottom line into product

development, such as life cycle assessment (LCA) for environmental and life cycle costing

(LCC) for economical impacts (Luttikhuis et al., 2015 p.550). LCE places a strong emphasis

on supply chain management, which has become progressively challenging, as many

manufacturing processes today are organized among a network of enterprises that are often

globally distributed. Overall, sustainable development requires holistic thinking, a global

perspective, and an integrated understanding of the interrelations between economic,

environmental, social, political and technical systems.

2 For a detailed discussion on value and sustainable value creation see (Ueda et al., 2009).

7

2.2 Circular Economy

The current dominant economic development model is based on the linear process of “take,

make and dispose” (Ghisellini et al., 2016 p.11). Alarmingly high levels of resource

consumption and waste production are a direct result of such unsustainable patterns of

production and consumption (Genovese et al., 2017). In this model valuable materials are

consistently disposed of as waste, i.e. not recovered and thus lost to the economy.

According to an estimation by the OECD one fifth of the raw materials extracted worldwide

ends up as waste, roughly 12 billion tons of waste per year (OECD, 2012). This puts an

enormous strain on the environment, as much of that waste is diverted to landfill as a final

disposal solution. There is now a growing awareness among organizations that they need

to rethink their value chain cycles and take a holistic approach to designing products,

processes and systems. The concept of a circular economy has emerged as a viable

alternative economic development model, as can be seen by the recognition and partial

implementation by national governments in the European Union and China3 (Genovese et

al., 2017 p.354). The circular economy is characterized by a reduction of the use of the

environment as a sink for residuals and by the creation of self-sustaining production

systems in which materials are used over and over again. This shift from a linear to a circular

economic model has major social implications, as it requires a steady transition from an

economy based on the sale of goods to an economy based on the sale of performance (e.g.

PSS) (Genovese et al., 2017 p.354). The challenges of resource consumption and waste

production are met by the circular economy paradigm through cleaner production, industrial

ecology and life cycle engineering, thereby putting a particular focus on a sustainable supply

chain management (Sarkis, 2003).

The main stages of a product's life cycle are extraction and processing of raw materials,

manufacturing, transport and distribution, use and final disposal. The resulting supply chain

has to deal with challenges including high energy and resource usage, pollution and

emission of greenhouse gases, as well as high levels of waste generation. Waste refers to

“substances or objects which are disposed or are intended to be disposed or are required

to be disposed of by the provisions of national laws” (Singh et al., 2016 p.344). Products

that have reached the end of their life cycle are often considered waste and hence discarded

as an “end-of-pipe solution” (Koho et al., 2011 p.307). In contrast to the continuous material

drain of such a linear supply chain, circular supply chains close the life cycle loop by

diverting after-use products from being discarded as waste. Value can then be recovered

3 In China the circular economy is promoted as a top-down national political objective. For more on this and on circular economy in general see (Ghisellini et al., 2016).

8

through a so-called “reverse supply chain”, which relies on “activities dealing with product

design, operations and end-of-life management in order to maximize value creation over an

entire life cycle through value recovery of after-use products either by the original product

manufacturer or by a third party” (Genovese et al., 2017 p.345). This innovation-based

transformation from an open-loop, single life cycle manufacturing system to a closed-loop,

multiple life cycle paradigm is enabled by the “6R” approach, which extends the

conventional “3R” concepts of reduce, reuse and recycle with the processes of recovery,

redesign and remanufacture (Jawahir et al., 2011 p.300). The principles involved in the “6R”

approach require an integrated and system-oriented view of the entire supply chain and

product life cycle. Figure 3 illustrates the potential for resource recovery routes with regard

to the various material flows through society.

Figure 3: Model to illustrate possible material flows through society, including resource recovery routes (Singh et al., 2016 p.348).

In recent years, many companies have started placing a much stronger focus on actively

managing their reverse supply chain, as they are beginning to recognize the increasing

value of end-of-life products. Managing the flow of product returns has become a major

activity of manufacturing companies (Schuh et al., 2011 p.399). In a circular economy they

are required to take back their own products to recover their material resources, using not

just waste management systems, but also “manufacturing-centred take-back systems”

(Singh et al., 2016 p.342). These systems rely on value recovery routes that focus less on

energy recovery and disposal, and more on managing replacement and reduction, recovery

(reuse by resale, repair, refurbishing, reconditioning and remanufacturing) and

9

reprocessing (upcycling, recycling, downcycling) (Singh et al., 2016 p.344). Since products

are more valuable than the materials they are made of, “reuse – repair – recycle” describes

a descending path of value recovery (Ashby, 2016 p.225). Products and materials in a

circular economy are considered valued assets to be tracked and preserved as active stock,

thereby requiring an efficient spare parts management and innovative PSS (see Figure 4).

Maintenance, repair and overhaul services increase product lifetime and performance, while

minimizing costs for both producers and customers4. Although providing services presents

organizations with the challenge of engaging customers in the recovery process, the

implementation of a product-service model can bring increased customer loyalty, reduced

marketing costs and a competitive advantage (Steingrimsson et al., 2011 p.91). A circular

economy meets sustainable development challenges with innovate business models, e.g.

PSS. These new models incorporate holistic, system-oriented approaches that are based

on collaboration, communication, and information. Industries that have traditionally worked

separately from each other are now becoming engaged in complex and dynamic resource

exchanges (material, water, energy and by-products). This is called industrial symbiosis and

generally refers to a network of companies that exchange by-products and share various

resources, e.g. eco-industrial parks (Ghisellini et al., 2016 p.20).

Figure 4: Circular economy system diagram illustrating the continuous flow of technical and biological materials through the 'value circle' (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).

4 For example, the companies Caterpillar Inc. and Renault both already embrace the concept of a circular materials economy, by implementing an extensive reconditioning and remanufacturing program (Ashby, 2016 p.227).

10

Cradle to cradle is an innovative product-service model for manufacturing that uses nature

as a role model for how to design sustainable circular systems. Waste is defined as a

nutrient, differentiating between biological nutrients that can safely return to the environment

(biosphere) and technical nutrients that circulate within closed-loop industrial cycles (see

Figure 4). Given that the biosphere is a closed system, it has a limited capacity to provide

resources and absorb waste. However, natural systems have managed to sustain an

equilibrium (steady-state) for long periods, through circular loops based on the full recycling

of waste, such as the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles (Ashby, 2016 p.214). In a circular

economy, industries aim to emulate such natural systems and their sustainability through

environmentally-oriented, closed-loop approaches like industrial ecology5. Full circularity

however remains an ideal, as there is a degeneration of materials in a production system

over time, and given that from an economic viewpoint it is impractical, e.g. paper recycling

(see Figure 5). Although there are major economic challenges in their implementation, there

are many environmental advantages to using circular supply chains, such as decreasing

primary resource use, greenhouse gas emissions, waste production and disposal.

Innovative strategies for an increased material efficiency include better material and

information technology, regulation and change of customer behavior, service-oriented and

collaborative business models, and design for a longer product life (Ashby, 2016 p.222).

These strategies and an overall holistic, interdisciplinary approach are crucial for industries

to transition from a reactive position (e.g. pollution and waste control) to a proactive position

(e.g. circular economy) with regard to sustainable development.

Figure 5: The economics of recovery diagram shows the relative cost of recovery as a fraction of fraction recovered. The “economic sweet spot” is found at the minimum of the curve. Over time units are collected and their value recovered, but collection costs rise as more are recovered and those remaining become harder to

find (Ashby, 2016 p.229).

5 Industrial ecology views the industrial system and its environment as a “joint ecosystem characterized by flows of material, energy and information as well as by provision of resources and services from the biosphere” (Ghisellini et al., 2016 p.14).

11

2.3 Eco-Design The sustainability of products, services, processes and systems is highly influenced by the

decisions made in the design stage. There is a strong interdependency between design and

other life cycle stages, especially in terms of environmental performance (Riel et al., 2015

p.32). Eco-design refers to product/service/process/system design activities that aim to

integrate sustainability considerations into the design process. It is a proactive management

approach that guides design towards environmental impact reductions throughout the entire

life cycle (from raw material extraction to end-of-life), without compromising other criteria

such as performance, functionality, aesthetics, quality and cost (Pigosso et al., 2011 p.239).

Eco-design has the potential to improve material and resource circularity, by using multiple

life cycles as an opportunity to increase environmental performance. In a circular economy

more environmentally friendly products and processes are designed, while regarding

“disassembly, disposability without negative environmental impacts, ease of distribution and

return, durability, reliability and customer success” (Ghisellini et al., 2016 p.18). The Ellen

MacArthur Foundation proposes that designers should reject the concept of waste entirely,

as they plan for the re-circulation of biological and technical nutrients during the design

phase (e.g. cradle to cradle approach) (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Overall,

sustainable products are designed to extend product lifetime and are ultimately

characterized by their environmental, social, and economic benefits.

The development of products and services generally follows the processes displayed in

Figure 6. Throughout the process decisions are continuously made that influence product

life cycles and functional lifetime. There are numerous ways for designers to extend product

lifetime, for example through serviceability, modularity, upgradeability and the prevention of

misuse. Choosing materials is also an important task for designers, and with regard to eco-

design it is a priority to avoid toxic materials that cannot be returned safely to the biosphere.

Here nature serves as a strong role model, as in natural systems mostly only few, non-toxic

substances6 are used elegantly and effectively (Ashby, 2016 p.214). Nature is also

increasingly being seen as a promising source of inspiration and innovation for designers,

as can be seen with the emergence of the field of biomimicry (Theileis et al., 2011 p.279).

Natural systems are dependent on circularity, making them essentially zero-waste. In a

circular economy incorporating the 6R approach becomes an inevitable requirement for

product and process design (Seliger et al., 2011. p.4). Eco-design is therefore also

concerned with the development of distribution, return/recovery and waste management

6 Four of the 92 usable elements of the periodic table are of particular importance for life: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen.

12

systems, which can all contribute to closing material loops and conserving energy and

resources. Extending product lifetime relies on preparing for disassembly, reassembly, and

inspection during the design stage. Component reusability can be maximized through a life

cycle design approach to ensure that products can be easily dismantled for reconditioning

and material recycling, e.g. by avoiding adhesive bonds. Some products fit a circular

business model more easily than others, for example machinery, engines, gearboxes and

drive trains are particularly suited to reconditioning and remanufacture (e.g. Caterpillar Inc.

and Renault). Product-service systems should be designed to include efficient recovery

routes, as designers place an emphasis on how to improve and maintain customer

relationships, ultimately leading to reduced owning and operating costs in the long term

(Ashby, 2016 p.228).

Figure 6: Individual phases of the product and service design processes. The blue arrows are shown to indicate that the two processes can be linked, so that integrated product-service systems can be developed (author’s own representation).

Designers have a limited influence over how products are used and discarded. A product

can be designed perfectly for recycling, but that does not ensure that it will be recycled in

the end. These end-of-life uncertainties are easier to manage when product design relies

on recirculating industrial waste instead of post-consumer waste. Nonetheless, using

industrial waste in new product design processes should not be preferred to the proactive

prevention of waste through product optimization (Singh et al., 2016 p.349). In order to close

material loops, designers must face the following major challenges: managing uncertainties

at the use and end-of-life phases; maintaining product quality throughout the life cycle of a

product; maintaining quality of products made from recovered materials; and addressing

issues relating to agency and ownership of products (Singh et al., 2016 p.350). In recent

years, gains in performance of products have often come with an increase in complexity,

and thus an increased difficulty of recycling. For example, in the automotive industry

innovations are more and more driven by electronics, which are also known to be very

critical in terms of sustainability (e.g. high energy and resource use in production). Many

13

electronic products are strongly dependent on consumer lifestyles, often leading to short

product life cycles, as with mobile phones (Dombrowski et al., 2011 p.337). This illustrates

that designers must anticipate potential social, economic and environmental challenges in

their design process. Effective methodologies and tools to evaluate environmental impacts,

while regarding costs and technical implications, are offered by life cycle engineering, LCA

and LCC in particular. Also, traditional methods and tools such as quality function

deployment (QFD) and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) can be adapted to suit the

eco-design process (Pigosso et al., 2011 p.242). Designing sustainable products, services,

processes and systems is complicated by rapid technological advancements and global

supply chains, however through innovation and decision-making among various

stakeholders these challenges can be met constructively.

2.4 Maker Spaces Makers are producers and creators, they build and shape the world around us. To a certain

degree all people are makers, since it comes naturally to humans to use our hands and

minds to create (e.g. cooking). Today, the term most commonly refers to people who

approach technology constructively and use it as an “invitation to explore and experiment”

(Dougherty, 2016 p.xv). Hobbyists, artists, tinkerers, engineers and inventors are all

makers. Making is generally rather challenging and requires skills, knowledge, and tools. In

recent years, a “maker movement” has emerged, i.e. a strong increase in people engaged

in making activities, largely enabled by the communication and knowledge sharing potential

of the internet and increasingly affordable digital manufacturing technologies for design and

production (Dougherty, 2016 p.xix). Shared maker spaces are workshops with low-cost

digital fabrication equipment (e.g. 3-D printers, laser cutters) and traditional manufacturing

tools, such as drills, lathes, and even CNC machines (Kohtala et al., 2015 p.334). They

provide a creative and flexible environment for innovation and community support, as

members transform products from idea into reality. Maker spaces encourage exploration

and the solving of problems using machines, without high levels of formal experience

necessary (Van Holm, 2015 p.28). Digital fabrication technology has never been easier to

use, due to a plethora of online platforms that embrace the open-source philosophy7 and

share 2-D and 3-D CAD (computer-aided design) models of products, that can simply be

downloaded and printed into a physical artifact using 3-D printing technology. Shared maker

spaces can be found in schools, universities, libraries, and are often organized as

7 Open-source refers to a decentralized software development model that promotes peer production and open collaboration. For more on open-source and its influence on maker spaces see (Anderson, 2012).

14

collaborative workshops for prototyping and small-scale production (e.g. Fab Lab and

TechShop) (Assaf, 2014 p.145).

Digital fabrication refers to the manufacturing of products with the help of computers and

computer-controlled machines, e.g. 3-D printers, laser cutters and CNC machines. These

machines have drastically reduced in size and in prices. Personal, small-scale 3-D printers

can now be purchased by anyone for roughly thirty times cheaper than their industrial

counterparts, albeit inferior in quality, speed and energy efficiency (see Figure 7). This

advancement in technology enables individualized digital fabrication at home for little costs,

but the significant growth of shared maker spaces suggests that peer production is often

preferred (Kohtala et al., 2015 p.340). The quality of the technology is sufficient for

prototyping, physical modeling and small-scale production, and the accompanying software

is openly available on the internet and often open-source. Due to the internet, sales and

distribution have also become easier than ever before, while information technology has

enabled small-scale production by non-industry members of society. This distributed

manufacturing, based on digital technology, takes place primarily on a local level, although

sales and distribution are often global. Compared to mass production processes it has the

potential to reduce material, waste and energy, at least for small batches (Kohtala et al.,

2015 p.334). This development has been referred to as the “democratization of production”

and a new “industrial revolution” (Anderson, 2012 p.53). For small batches digital fabrication

technology offers a more individualized production, which allows for increased complexity

and flexibility in design, and a better adjustment to customers' needs. For higher batch sizes

the shift to mass production processes and industrial-scale technology is preferred, based

on more repetition and standardization (Anderson, 2012 p.102). Maker spaces often attract

lead-users8 of industrial consumer products, who use the available technology and

community know-how for repair, redesign, and maintenance work. Therefore, there is a

strong potential with regard to incorporating the 6R approach and to reducing negative

impacts connected to product supply chains (Kohtala et al., 2015 p.334).

Maker spaces not only offer access to state of the art small-scale production tools, but also

to “open communities, where ideas, knowledge, and machines are shared” (Van Holm,

2015 p.29). In addition to creating physical artifacts, members of these communities

generate knowledge and develop skills, which are then shared within the maker space and

over online platforms. Making focuses on tinkering with existing products, creating new

products, and on collaboration. It also “ties together physical manufacturing skills with the

8 Lead-users are people, who are the first to adopt new methods, products, and technologies, thereby discovering needs and making choices before much of the general market.

15

higher end technical skills of hardware construction and software programming” (Schrock,

2014 p.9). In order for maker spaces to encourage collaboration, and thereby also group

innovation, they require social contexts for creative play. Individuals are connected to

materials, social collaboration, and global networks, ultimately improving the quality of their

ideas. “As members share knowledge of tools and ideas for projects they form a dense

network of individuals with different training, experiences, and skills, creating an ideal

setting for novel designs” (Van Holm, 2015 p.25). Innovation is thus a critical driver of maker

spaces, contributing to the creation of new products and enterprises, which even create

new jobs. They also make prototyping more available and affordable, which is an important

element of bringing a product to market. Prototyping within maker communities also

provides the opportunity to gain feedback from other members early and to potentially

improve any designs. This contribution to entrepreneurship is a major impact of maker

spaces (Van Holm, 2015). Since they can also contribute to education, community

development, and sustainability, maker spaces are increasingly being introduced at schools

and universities to provide more opportunities for students to gain expertise in an applied

environment. Open institutions, such as libraries, are also beginning to embrace the unique

blend of innovation, collaboration, handcraft, and digital fabrication technology (Assaf, 2014

p.146). Although there are many benefits to maker spaces, their sustainability performance

depends on the practices of the individual members. Many challenges, including the toxicity

of additive manufacturing materials (e.g. plastics in 3-D printing) and the high energy

consumption of digital fabrication, must be confronted constructively in order to enable

sustainable manufacturing processes in maker spaces (Kohtala et al., 2015 p.334). In

general, makers are characterized as individuals who can adapt well to change as self-

regulated learners, giving them the potential to be “agents of change” in society and industry

(Dougherty, 2016 p.xvii).

Figure 7: A comparison between a professional, industrial 3-D printer and its affordable counterpart for personal fabrication. a) Dimension Elite 3-D printer, ca. 30.000 Euro, b) MakerBot Replication Mini, ca. 1.000 Euro (Assaf 2014, p.145).

16

3. State of the Art: Learning In order to fully explore the potential of the use of maker spaces in engineering higher

education it is necessary to develop a basic understanding of learning. This is not a trivial

matter, since learning is a very complex phenomenon that is difficult to define in simple

terms. Traditionally, learning has been defined in terms of gaining knowledge or

understanding through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984 p.38), or comprising

relatively permanent changes in behavior and behavior potential (Lefrançois, 2015 p.6).

However, these are simplified definitions that do not wholly reflect the complexity of the

learning process. Therefore, a more complex definition is chosen as a starting point for the

topics presented throughout this chapter:

“Learning is the disposition of human beings, and of the social entities to

which they pertain, to engage in continuous dialogue with the human,

social, biological and physical environment, so as to generate intelligent

behavior to interact constructively with change” (Visser, 2001 p.453).

Much of our understanding of human learning is derived from the vast and extensive field

of learning psychology. This chapter gives a brief glimpse into the historical development of

this field, highlighting the main learning theories and the key scientific researchers who

developed them. A further focus is placed on the various influencing factors of the learning

process and on the discipline of didactics. The main goal of this chapter is to develop a

deeper and more complete understanding of what learning is, how it functions, and how it

can be guided and controlled.

3.1 Learning Theories

3.1.1 Behaviorism In the early 20th century psychology used mainly contemplation and introspection as

research methods, making it an intuitive and highly subjective discipline. Early

psychologists, such as Wilhem Wundt and Edward B. Titchener, believed that

consciousness should be the primary focus of the discipline (UC Berkeley, 2017). They

named their methodology structuralism, since it involved breaking down consciousness into

its basic sensations and feelings (Schacter et al., 2010). Unquantifiable, subjective first-

person accounts were relied upon to gain an understanding of physical stimuli and their

effects.

17

One of the first major contributions to the field of psychology came from the physiologist

Ivan P. Pavlov. He noticed that many of his dogs began to salivate before they were

supposed to be fed. The dogs began to salivate in the presence of Pavlov even when there

wasn't any food yet in sight. In his famous experiment on classical conditioning he showed

that not only the sight of food could cause the response of the dogs to salivate, but that any

discernible stimulus could have the same effect if paired often enough with food. A stimulus

is an occurrence in an organism's environment that has an influence on it. In Pavlov's

experiment the sight of food is an unconditioned stimulus, since it has an influence without

learning having occurred. The salivation is an unconditioned response, as it is associated

with the unconditioned stimulus. Pavlov tried many other stimuli, such as a buzzer that went

off every time food was presented to the dogs. Through repetition the buzzer became the

conditioned stimulus that triggered a conditioned response of salivation. The learning

process involved in classical conditioning can be explained using the concept of contiguity.

Contiguity refers to the simultaneous or nearly simultaneous occurrence of events. When

one event is experienced simultaneously to another often enough, the two become

associated with each other. Pavlov's work was the foundation of a new approach to studying

psychology, one that focused on behavior (Lefrançois, 2015 p.42).

A young American by the name of John B. Watson took it upon himself to revolutionize

psychology. He was strongly influenced by Pavlov's classical conditioning and is generally

regarded as the initiator of behaviorism (Lefrançois, 2015 p.43). Highly critical of the

subjective nature of early psychological disciplines, he believed that psychology must be a

purely objective science. The central postulate of behaviorism is that all human action can

be understood by examining behavior, which can easily be observed objectively. Its goal is

the prediction and control of behavior, by understanding the relationship between stimuli,

responses and the following conditions (Watson, 1919 pp.1-2). Edward L. Thorndike's law

of effect was an important contribution to behaviorism. It states that “responses that produce

a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation,

and responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that

situation” (Gray, 2014 p.116). The law of effect doesn't explain how behavior can be

controlled through its consequences, instead it explains how a connection between a

stimulus and a response is formed.

Burrhus F. Skinner is known for his theory of operant conditioning. In Pavlov's classical

conditioning stimuli are followed by purely reflexive behavior, such as the dog's salivation.

Through operant conditioning, behavior can be controlled by changing the consequences.

This can be done either through reinforcement or punishment (see Figure 8). Positive

reinforcement occurs when a satisfying consequence follows a certain behavior, increasing

18

the probability of that behavior occurring again under similar conditions. Negative

reinforcement refers to the removal or prevention of an unsatisfying stimulus, following a

certain behavior. In general, both positive and negative reinforcement lead to an increase

in the probability of a behavior occurring again. Punishment has the opposite effect and is

also split into a positive and negative version. Positive punishment is the introduction of a

dissatisfying stimulus as a consequence of a certain behavior, whereas negative

punishment refers to the removal of a satisfying stimulus (Lefrançois, 2015 pp.101-102).

Figure 8: Examples of reinforcement and punishment. Both have a positive and a negative version. Based on figure from (Lefrançois, 2015 p.102).

3.1.2 Cognitivism Behaviorists focused on behavior and on mechanistic links between stimuli and responses,

as well as the influence of following conditions. They claimed that “consciousness is neither

a definite nor a usable concept” (Watson, 1930). So-called “neobehaviorists” (Lefrançois,

2015 p.187), such as Donald O. Hebb and Edward C. Tolman, set the foundation for what

would be known as “the cognitive revolution” (Bruner, 1990 p.1). They believed that

scientific psychological studies must be objective, however must also factor in processes

like thought and conception. Hebb suggested that “higher mental processes”, commonly

referred to as thought, are independent of sensory input, but work together with this input

to decide which of the possible responses is shown and when (Hebb, 1958 p.217). These

processes act as a facilitator for behavior and form a bridge between stimuli and responses.

Knowledge of these processes is deductive and therefore theoretical. Like behaviorists

before him, he believed that only knowledge of observable behavior can be taken as fact,

therefore he attempted to link higher mental processes with observable events.

Nonetheless, he studied neurological processes and emphasized the plasticity of the brain.

Plasticity is the property of an organism that allows changes to the physical structure of the

19

brain as a result of experience. Plasticity, as well as reactivity, the property of an organism

to react to external stimuli, are responsible for learning (Lefrançois, 2015 p.179).

Cognitivism is a psychological approach that deals with mental processes, such as problem

solving, information processing, thought and conception (Dinkelaker, 2012 p.136). One of

the early roots of this approach is the work of Edward C. Tolman. He stated that all behavior

has a purpose and relies on cognition (Tolman, 1932 p.12). Similarly to Hebb, he insisted

that “mental processes are to be identified and defined in terms of the behaviors to which

they lead” (Tolman, 1932 p.3). Sometimes, however, learned changes in skills or disposition

aren't instantaneously displayed in behavior, but instead after a certain amount of time has

passed. This is referred to as latent learning (Lefrançois, 2015 p.407). An important

implication of Tolman's theory is that behavior is guided by expectations, which are linked

to the purpose of that behavior and develop from experiences with stimuli and following

conditions, such as reinforcement. What is learned is not a specific response to a stimulus,

but rather a cognition, which represents a knowledge of the physical space and the

possibilities for reinforcement within that space (Lefrançois, 2015 p.192).

According to Jerome S. Bruner, learning and cognition involve mainly information

processing, allowing humans to simplify the world around us and find meaning within it

(Bruner, 1990). We simplify the world by grouping related objects and events together into

categories, which are abstract symbolic representations. Properties of objects and events,

known as attributes, help us categorize and thereby allow us to react to them. He

emphasized the importance of “going beyond” a category, opening up the possibilities of

linking that category to others (Bruner et al., 1956 p.13). Bruner believed that the main goal

of cognitive psychology is to understand the mind and the process of creating meaning.

Constructivism is a viewpoint that we construct our own perception of reality, creating

meaning based on our experiences. Bruner was a strong proponent of constructivism and

emphasized the influence of culture and language on this process. (Lefrançois, 2015 p.221).

According to him, we tell each other stories about our lives, so-called “personal narratives”

(Bruner, 1990). By connecting various events in our lives into coherent, meaningful stories,

we construct our own reality of our life. These narratives bridge past and current events,

and often include conceptions of our future. Another major advocate of constructivism was

Jean Piaget, who is perhaps most famously known for his four stages in the cognitive

development of children (Piaget, 1997). According to Piaget, individuals change as a

reaction to their environment through adaptation, which is enabled through the processes

of assimilation and accommodation. When an individual manages new information or

experiences by incorporating it into an existing knowledge framework, that is referred to as

20

assimilation. Accommodation is when an individual alters their own knowledge schemes as

a result of new information or experiences. Piaget emphasized that there must be an

equilibrium between assimilation and accommodation for learning to take place. He referred

to this tendency towards finding balance between old and new thoughts “equilibration”

(Piaget, 1997).

3.1.3 Social Cognitivism

With his theory of equilibration, Piaget claims that the strongest influences on constructing

meaning are found within the individual. Bruner's approach had a more social orientation

and placed importance on the influences of culture and language on an individual's cognitive

development. Lev Vygotsky also emphasized the role of culture and social interactions in

human development with his social cognitive theory, which claims that the construction of

meaning is most strongly influenced by an individual's social environment (Bruner, 1997).

Vygotsky's most important argument can be summarized in a single sentence: “social

interaction is fundamental to the development of cognition” (Lefrançois, 2015 p.242). Early

human development was a primary focus of Vygotsky's work, as it was with Piaget.

According to him, culture and social interactions enable language acquisition. “Every

function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later,

on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child

(intrapsychological)” (Vygotsky, 1978 p.57). Even higher mental processes, such as

thought, problem solving and imagination, develop through social interactions and in

interaction with culture. Vygotsky claims that the relationship between thought and language

shapes intellectual development. His “zone of proximal development” represents the

potential of an individual to develop intellectually, and “[…] defines those functions that have

not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow

[...]” (Vygotsky, 1978 p.86).

Canadian psychologist Albert Bandura theorized that individuals learn from social

interactions through imitation, like learning to shake hands by watching others do it. Those

who we learn from provide us with models, templates for behavior, that we can then imitate.

Models don't always have to be humans; they are more generally representations of

behavioral patterns. These can also be symbolic, as with pictures or characters in books

and movies. Models don't only inform us how to do certain things, they also inform us about

the consequences our potential behavior may have. Therefore, learning through imitation

is a very cognitive process (Lefrançois, 2015 p.351).

21

3.1.4 Discussion

The scientific theories presented in the previous chapters give a basic overview of the

development of the field of learning psychology. There is no one most accurate theory,

since each is based on a different understanding of the learning process. Each has

established valuable contributions to our understanding of how learning takes place, and

taking a closer look at these theories leads to a more complete view of the learning process

and its influencing factors.

One aspect that has historically shaped the field is the question of how learning can be

observed. The initial subjective orientation of structuralists, like Wilhelm Wundt, was

strongly criticized by early behaviorists. Behaviorism fundamentally insists that by

understanding the relationship between stimuli, responses and the following conditions,

behavior can be predicted and controlled. The theory claims that all learning is ultimately

shown through behavior, and cognitive processes are neither “definite” nor “usable”

(Watson, 1930). As learning psychology developed, it became clear that this exclusive focus

on behavior is a mechanistic simplification of the learning process and of the complexity of

humans. For example, the concepts of classical and operant conditioning provide useful

methods of dealing with certain human and animal behavior, however can only be applied

to limited learning situations. By insisting on the objectivity of psychological research and

on the influence of environmental factors on learning, behaviorists made lasting

contributions to the field. Many psychologists in the following years built upon and valued

behaviorist elements, such as contiguity or reinforcement. Behaviorism is limited by its focus

on behavior, which excludes the mental processes vital to human development, such as

language, thought, problem solving and imagination.

The cognitive revolution certainly stands out as a paradigm shift in learning psychology.

Research for behaviorists was exact, objective and typically done on animals, such as dogs

and mice. Cognitive psychology shifted towards a more subjective and human-centered

approach, once cognition and mental processes started to become more relevant. It also

began to recognize that the learner is an active participant in the learning process, and not

just passively reduced to mechanistic responses to stimuli and following conditions. Bruner

claimed that learning involves information processing, and that we categorize objects and

events into abstract symbolic representations that help us simplify the world and ultimately

find meaning within it (Bruner, 1990). Many cognitive psychologists emphasized information

processing over finding meaning, and so computational models of learning9 became

9 These models compare a human’s cognitive systems to a computer’s processing mechanisms.

22

dominant. Bruner strongly criticized this, stating that computational models “cannot […] deal

with the messy, ill-formed interpretive procedures involved in constructing contexts and

construing meanings in terms of them” (Bruner, 1997). Learning always takes place in a

particular context and it is strongly influenced by many factors, such as motivation, attention,

emotions, self-efficacy, and memory. Our ability to change and adapt to our environments,

as Piaget suggested, relies on these factors.

Any given context also has a social dimension. Social cognitivists, such as Vygotsky and

Bandura, believe that our culture, language and social interactions are fundamental to the

development of cognition. Interestingly, important elements of social cognitivism are based

on behaviorism. For example, humans learn a great deal through imitation, which is a

behavior that can be reinforced through our social interactions. Language is an important

example of this, and enables us to interact with our social environment. “Much human

learning occurs either deliberately or inadvertently by observing the actual behavior of

others and the consequences for them” (Bandura, 1999 p.25). Humans and animals learn

by imitating models in their social environment. However, some models come from other

sources, such as from television, movies, advertising, etc. Media, especially electronic mass

media, emerges as another major factor that influences cognitive and behavioral

development. According to Bandura, humans are “agents” of their own experiences:

“producers as well as products of social systems” (Bandura, 1999 p.21). With this in mind,

learning becomes a process that can be self-directed (through planning) and self-regulated

(through reflection). This approach and the emphasized importance of culture, language

and social interactions on the learning processes of an individual set social cognitivism apart

from other learning theories, such as behaviorism and cognitivism. Nonetheless, all theories

contribute valuable descriptions of various aspects of the complex learning processes

involved in human development.

3.2 Influencing Factors

3.2.1 Motivation Motivation is one of the key factors that influences learning in humans. The term derives

from the Latin word movere, which means to move or to set in motion. Thereby, a motive is

a conscious or unconscious force that drives humans to act, or sometimes not to act. To

understand what motivates humans means to understand what drives human behavior.

When someone puts their hand on a hot stove, they will pull it back rather quickly. This

natural reflex is an unconditioned response, one that hasn't been learned, to the heat of the

23

stove. Reflexes are biological explanations for behavior, making them a type of motive.

However, most human behavior is not reflexive, but rather based on reason. Reasons are

rational explanations, which have to do with the intention, purpose and expectations of the

consequences of behavior (Lefrançois, 2015 p.318). Knowing that contact will be hot and

painful, is a reason to avoid touching the hot stove. This example illustrates that motivation

has behaviorist, as well as cognitive elements.

A drive is a motivational state that refers to “the internal condition that orients an individual

toward a specific category of goals and that can change over time in a reversible way (the

drive can increase and then decrease)” (Gray, 2014 p.196). Brehm and Self (1989 p.110)

claim that “the magnitude of motivation” depends on the “effort one is willing to make to

satisfy a motive.” Effort is influenced by internal states such as needs, potential outcomes,

and “the perceived probability that some behavior, if successfully executed, will satisfy the

need, produce or avoid the outcome” (Brehm et al., 1989 p.110). Food deprivation leads to

a need to eat, which results in a drive to acquire food. Once food is acquired and eaten, the

hunger drive disappears. Humans are oriented toward different goals by different drives,

which lead to behavior that reduces those drives. “Hunger orients one toward food, sex

toward sexual gratification, curiosity toward novel stimuli, and so on” (Gray, 2014 p.196).

Humans are also directed by incentives, which refer to the value of a goal or a certain

gratification, the term for when a certain need is satisfied. The processes of judging value

and developing expectations for goal outcomes are cognitive processes. A goal with a high

incentive serves as a strong motivator for behavior. Drives and incentives complement each

other: “if one is weak, the other must be strong to motivate the goal-directed action” (Gray,

2014 p.196).

Abraham H. Maslow starts his motivation theory with the physiological drives and needs.

He states that “man is a perpetually wanting animal” with basic physiological needs, e.g. for

food, water, sex, or keeping a comfortable body temperature (Maslow, 1943 p.316). When

these basic needs are unsatisfied they control behavior. This is why Maslow states (1943

p.374):

“[..]gratification becomes as important a concept as deprivation in

motivation theory, for it releases the organism from the domination of a

relatively more physiological need, permitting thereby the emergence of

other more social goals. The physiological needs, along with their partial

goals, when chronically gratified cease to exist as active determinants or

organizers of behavior. They now exist only in a potential fashion in the

sense that they may emerge again to dominate the organism if they are

24

thwarted. But a want that is satisfied is no longer a want. The organism is

dominated and its behavior organized only by unsatisfied needs. If hunger

is satisfied, it becomes unimportant in the current dynamics of the

individual.”

Basically, when the most fundamental physiological needs for survival are satisfied, “higher”

needs emerge in a “hierarchy of relative prepotency” (Maslow, 1943 p.374). The needs that

follow gratification of physiological needs are arranged in a hierarchy, meaning that an

individual's behavior may become predominately oriented around trying to gratify the next

need (see Figure 9). Physiological needs make up the foundation of the hierarchy, and are

followed by: safety needs (e.g. protection from elements, security, order), love and

belongingness needs (e.g. friendship, intimacy, acceptance), esteem needs (e.g.

achievement, self-respect, respect from others), and finally the need for self-actualization.

The latter can be roughly defined as “the full use and exploitation of talents, capacities,

potentialities, etc.” (Maslow, 1970). According to Rowan (1998), self-actualization is not an

ultimate goal that an individual achieves, but rather a process, a continuous search for

development and growth. He also emphasizes that competence needs (e.g. mastery of a

skill) must be placed between safety and love and belongingness needs. These needs, as

well as physiological and esteem needs, make up the basic needs of humans, or deficiency

needs, and motivate people when unmet Growth needs refer to meta needs such as self-

actualization, transcendence (helping others achieve self-actualization), cognitive needs

(e.g. curiosity, knowledge, understanding), and aesthetic needs (e.g. beauty, symmetry,

form) (Maslow, 1970). These needs motivate people to develop and cannot be satiated as

the basic needs can.

Figure 9: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs represented as a ladder. Since self-actualization is not an ultimate goal, this representation is preferred to that of a pyramid with a peak at the top (author’s own representation).

25

With his theory of human motivation, that people are motivated to satisfy certain needs,

Maslow established a foundation of humanistic psychology. Humanism focuses “attention

on the whole, unique person, especially on the person's conscious understanding of his or

her self and the world” (Gray, 2014 p.602). Personal growth and fulfilment (self-

actualization) are basic human motives in Maslow's theory. Brewster Smith (1974 p.141)

argues that “human ineffectiveness or fulfilment cannot be usefully conceived or dealt with

as a property of the isolated individual. It is, rather, a characteristic of behavior that a person

shows as a participant in the small interpersonal systems that frame his daily life.” This

social dimension to motivation can be illustrated by distinguishing between two types of

esteem needs. Self-esteem is a type of self-validation that comes naturally and allows us

to grow. Esteem we receive from others has to do with interpersonal relatedness, a

dependence on social recognition and acceptance (Rowan, 1998 p.82). Social interactions

play a crucial role in the development of cognition, so it is no surprise that they also play a

pivotal role in motivating humans. Sometimes individuals engage in an activity for personal

gratification (e.g. for pleasure, growth). Whereas sometimes they engage, because they are

expecting a certain type of reinforcement from their environment (e.g. money, reward). This

explains the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and once again illustrates

how human behavior is based on reason (Deci et al., 2008 p.15).

Individuals translate their needs, expectations and wishes into intentions, which become

the basis for goals. The choice of pursuing one goal over alternatives depends on the

outcome expectancy, and represents a transition from a state of uncertainty to a

commitment of achieving a desired end state (Boekaerts et al., 2000 p.432). Goals are

organized into a hierarchy, based on an individual's own criteria and the relative value

attributed to each goal (Eccles et al., 2002). Once a particular goal is chosen to be pursued,

it plays an integral role in leading to action (Zimmerman 2000). Kuhl (1987) argues that

motivation doesn't lead directly to outcomes, but only to the decision to act. Once an

individual is engaged in action, volitional processes take over. Volition refers to “both the

strength of will needed to complete a task, and the diligence of pursuit” (Corno 1993).

Motivation and volition are both necessary to achieve a goal, and are strongly influenced

by factors such as attention, emotions, and self-efficacy.

3.2.2 Attention Arousal is an important prerequisite to learning, and has a psychological, as well as a

physiological dimension. As a psychological concept, arousal refers to either a tenseness

represented by a continuum from calmness to anxiety, or to an energetic arousal with

26

dimensions of wakefulness and vigor. In physiological terms, arousal is the level of activity

of an organism, often measured by changes in electronic brain activity or in blood pressure.

At a minimal arousal state, e.g. shortly after sleep, motivation is typically low and

performance ineffective. With an increasing arousal, motivation and performance also rise.

However, at a certain point arousal can become too high, e.g. anxiety or fear. This can be

represented by the Yerkes-Dodson law shown in Figure 10 (Lefrançois, 2015 p.327).

Figure 10: A common representation of the Yerkes-Dodson law that demonstrates the relationship between performance and level of arousal (Diamond et al., 2007).

A further dimension to the concept of energetic arousal is attention, a state of focal and

perceptive awareness, having to do with the immediate experience of an individual.

Dinkelaker (2011 p.177) claims the function of attention is to enable cognitive systems to

effectively pursue a goal, by disengaging them from stimuli that aren't relevant to achieving

it. Therefore, it is a selective process. If individuals choose to consider something they

perceive as valuable content, they must direct their attention to it, meanwhile excluding

many other stimuli. Thus, attention is always an active process and integral to motivation

and volition. Attention can be drawn to certain stimuli, e.g. light or pain, but can also be

directed intentionally. A good example of this is the role attention plays in social interactions,

which are formed when individuals reciprocally direct attention to what the others are paying

attention to. Dinkelaker (2011 pp.175-177) proposes that cultural practices, such as

language, develop in interactions with this “joint attention”. This enables individuals to learn

from others, for example how to communicate or how to perform a certain task. In general,

attention is a prerequisite for gaining new experiences. However, in many situations it can

be difficult to maintain attention. For example, when there are numerous stimuli it can be

difficult to stay focused on one or a few. Thus, it is important for an individual to be able to

direct and control attention. This process will be further explored in the next chapter, as it

involves dealing effectively with one's emotions.

27

3.2.3 Emotions As humans strive toward achieving goals they experience a great variety of emotions, which

act as motivators and feedback signals, and give behavior direction. Emotions can be

defined as spontaneously triggered affective reactions, which accompany temporary

changes in experience and behavior (Rothermund et al., 2011 p.166). When a person is

proud, they are proud of something. When a person is angry, they are angry about

something. This illustrates that emotions are always linked to reference objects, making

them object-oriented. They are temporary, since they are closely linked to the occurrence

of the reference objects. When a student is scared of writing an exam, this fear is felt before

and during the exam. Once the exam is completed, this fear more or less disappears, until

it's time for the next exam. It is important to distinguish between emotions and moods, as

well as between emotions and emotional dispositions (temperaments). Positive and

negative moods have no reference objects and are more long-term than temporary.

Emotional dispositions are lasting personality characteristics, e.g. aggression, irritability,

confidence etc. (Rothermund et al., 2011 p.166).

Motivation and emotions are closely connected and have a strong influence on one another,

as well as on learning in general. Emotions can act as motivators, when they direct a

person's attention to a particular event and help develop behavioral strategies to deal with

the event, as well as by supporting the physiological execution of these strategies

(Rothermund et al., 2011 p.165). For example, fear of an exam can motivate a person to try

and calm their nerves by focusing on their breathing. Human behavior is motivated by

striving toward goals. The motivational states involved in goal attainment are accompanied

by emotions. Attaining a goal leads to positive emotions (e.g. satisfaction, joy), whereas

failure leads to negative emotions (e.g. dissatisfaction, disappointment). Turner and Goodin

(2008) claim that “emotions are interlinked with one’s commitment to goals, are involved

with one’s motivation during goal-related activities, and may serve as feedback informing

one of the status of his or her goal attainment.”

The emotions we feel are linked to the nature of our goals and the status of trying to attain

them (Emmons, 2003 p.106). The signal function of emotions allows humans to use them

to adjust and control behavior, in order to have a higher chance of success with attaining

goals. Positive emotions generally signal that all is well, whereas negative emotions “invoke

complex thinking and problem solving to discern what went wrong” (Turner et al., 2008

p.695). This can lead to either motivated or helpless behavior, depending on situational

constraints and motivation-related factors. Although emotions are spontaneous reactions,

often unconscious, they can become conscious and controllable, by directing attention

28

toward them. However, it must be taken into account that this requires cognitive capacity

and consumes a person's mental resources (Pekrun et al., 2002 pp.96-97). Mental and

attentive capacity can also become inhibited by emotions, for example when people are

anxious, angry, or depressed it becomes difficult for them to learn. “Powerful negative

emotions twist attention toward their own preoccupations, interfering with the attempt to

focus elsewhere” (Goleman, 1995 p.89).

Since motivation means actively striving toward a goal or a target state, it is always oriented

toward future events. In contrast to this, the reference objects or events of emotions can

additionally be from the present or even from the past (Rothermund et al., 2011 p.167). We

can be motivated to do well on an exam in the future, and we can also feel joy when we

remember how we did well on an exam in the past. Based on research done on academic

learning, Pekrun et al (2002) propose that four categories of emotions can affect motivation

and learning: process-related emotions that happen during a learning task (e.g. enjoyment,

boredom); prospective emotions that occur with anticipation to future outcomes (e.g. hope,

anxiety); and retrospective emotions that occur after task completion (e.g. pride, shame).

These categories are task- and self-related, and must be complemented with emotions

involved in social interactions. Figure 11 gives an overview of both the positive and negative

emotions within these categories. It gives a broad overview of the possible emotions

involved in completing a task, and can be applied to the process of attaining a goal.

Figure 11: These four categories can affect motivation and learning. They give a general overview of the possible emotions involved in completing a task (Pekrun et al., 2002 p.92).

29

3.2.4 Self-Efficacy There is a strong relationship between emotional reactions and motivation when striving to

accomplish a task or attain a goal. Bernard Weiner (1985) proposes that individuals

retrospectively judge the causes of a successful or failed attempt at a task or goal, making

so-called causal attributions (see Figure 12). These attributions are explanations that lead

to consequent emotional responses, that help determine the magnitude of motivation for

future attempts. According to Weiner's attribution theory, there are three categories for

causal attributions (Weiner, 1985). Locus of causality refers to an individual’s perception of

whether their success or failure has internal (e.g. effort or ability) or external (e.g. luck or

chance) causes. Stability concerns whether causes change over time (e.g. ability is stable,

whereas effort is unstable). Controllability differentiates between causes that one can

control (e.g. effort), and causes that one cannot control (e.g. luck, other's actions). For

example, if a task is completed successfully and attributed to one's intelligence (internal and

stable) and effort (internal and controllable), then this will most likely result in positive

emotions (e.g. happiness, pride) and further attempts at equally or more difficult tasks.

Weiner (1980 p.4) emphasizes that action is not motivated by attributions themselves, but

rather by the emotional responses to specific attributions.

Figure 12: An overview of the categories of causal attributions of Weiner’s theory (Lefrançois, 2015 p.335).

Causal attributions are fundamentally influenced by self-efficacy, an individual's confidence

in their ability to complete tasks and reach goals. Bandura (1993 p.118) claims that “efficacy

beliefs influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave.” He

differentiates between outcome expectations (beliefs that a certain behavior will lead to a

certain outcome) and efficacy expectations (beliefs about whether one can perform that

behavior). An individual's efficacy beliefs are a major factor in goal setting, behavior choice,

willingness to expend effort, time dedicated to a task, and persistence. In general, an

30

individual with strong confidence in their own ability is more likely to reach their goals and

perform well on tasks (Bandura, 1997). This has much to do with persistence despite

occurring challenges. However, as Whyte et al (1997) demonstrate, individuals with a high

self-efficacy can sometimes persist with a path, despite it clearly leading to failure. The

influence of self-efficacy on our actions and performance is outlined by Bandura (1993

p.118):

“Ability is not a fixed attribute residing in one's behavioral repertoire.

Rather, it is a generative capability in which cognitive, social, motivation,

and behavioral skills must be organized and effectively orchestrated to

serve numerous purposes. It also involves skill in managing aversive

emotional reactions that can impair the quality of thinking and action.

There is a marked difference between possessing knowledge and skills

and being able to use them well under taxing conditions. Personal

accomplishments require not only skills but self-beliefs of efficacy to use

them well. Hence, a person with the same knowledge and skills may

perform poorly, adequately, or extraordinarily depending on fluctuations

in self-efficacy thinking.”

According to Bandura (1993), people with a high sense of self-efficacy set higher goal

challenges for themselves, and are more committed to achieving them. They visualize

scenarios where they succeed, giving them positive guides and support for their actions.

Self-doubt in efficacy leads to visualizing failure scenarios, resulting in a stronger focus on

what could go wrong. Individuals with a low efficacy belief for accomplishing a task may

avoid it completely, whereas more efficacious individuals generally are more motivated to

actively pursue it (Schunk, 1984). Often self-efficacy beliefs are inaccurate, for example

when a person believes they are capable of something, which in reality they are not (or vice

versa).

Individuals judge their own efficacy based on four factors: personal experiences, vicarious

experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). Positive

experiences, such as good performance, result in high self-efficacy, increasing the

probability that a task of similar difficulty will be attempted again. Negative experiences can

have the opposite effect, depending on their causal attributions. People can develop high

or low self-efficacy vicariously through observing other people's actions, by comparing them

to their own ability. Seeing someone in a similar situation to oneself succeed, can increase

self-efficacy. Encouragement or discouragement from others, as well as states of strong

31

emotional arousal (e.g. anxiety before a presentation), can also have a major impact on a

person's efficacy beliefs.

Attributions and efficacy beliefs can also be influenced by an individual's view of their own

intelligence. Dweck and Master (2008) distinguish between two theories of intelligence. The

entity theory of intelligence refers to the belief that intelligence is fixed at birth and

unchangeable. Individuals who believe this theory tend to strive toward performance goals,

meaning they wish to be regarded as competent by others (external orientation). This

defines their version of success, whereas failure can then be attributed to inadequate

intelligence or ability. The incremental theory of intelligence refers to the belief that

intelligence can be developed and is malleable. This belief directs individuals toward

mastery goals, which entail the desire to make advancements through effort and learning

strategies (internal orientation). Here success and failure are both generally attributed to a

sufficient, or insufficient, amount of effort expenditure.

Efficacy beliefs are integral to human agency. Individuals do not live in social isolation,

therefore the personal dimension of efficacy must be extended to include a collective

efficacy. In accord with social cognitive theory, “people's shared beliefs in their collective

power to produce desired outcomes is a crucial ingredient of collective agency” (Bandura,

1998 p.65). Personal and collective efficacy are reciprocally linked to each other, since

group performance depends on the dynamics of its members. Group activities are

successful when members perform their roles with a high self-efficacy, which can be

achieved when personal orientation is compliant with the individual's social system. This

relationship is influenced strongly by cultural values and the social arrangements through

which they are expressed (Bandura, 1998). Self-efficacy beliefs play a critical role in the

success or failure of attempts at reaching a goal or completing a task, regardless of whether

they are achieved individually or through a collaborative group effort.

3.2.5 Memory One approach to understanding more about learning processes is to study memory, which

refers to the ability to store and retrieve recollections of past events, experiences or

information (Lefrançois, 2015 p.280). Memory functions through successive processes of

encoding, storage and retrieval. Remembering something begins with changing the

information that comes into our memory system (e.g. through sensory input) into a form that

is storable. Many types of encoding are possible, including: visual, using mental images;

elaborative, linking old and new information; acoustic, processing audio information;

32

semantic, based on meaning and context. Storage and retrieval are interconnected aspects

of memory. Something can only be retrieved, if it has been previously stored, i.e. if learning

has taken place. Sometimes the process of remembering a past event, experience or

information happens unconsciously, which is referred to as implicit memory (Tulving, 2002

p.4). When riding a bike, one does not consciously remember how to do it, one performs

the behavior of riding automatically. This shows that often we can retrieve memories without

being aware of when they were formed, or without being able to put them into words. In

contrast, explicit memories can be retrieved consciously, as with names and addresses of

friends and family.

Goldblum (2001 p.87) differentiates between two types of memory. Many memories are

lasting and permanent, such as recalling the names of the planets in our solar system or a

favorite poem. This sort of knowledge is retained throughout life and rarely changes. Other

memories are temporary and do not need to be remembered for a long time. These occur

often in our daily activities, for example when we remember what we had for breakfast

today. Although much of what humans learn is forgotten, some information is retained over

longer periods of time.

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968 p.90) propose a model that divides memory into three

components: the sensory register, the short-term memory, and the long-term memory.

Humans constantly process incoming sensory information through sight, smell, touch, etc.

Sensory input first enters the sensory register, which refers to the immediate, unconscious

sensation of stimuli, and remains there only briefly (for milliseconds). The main purpose of

the sensory register is to make sensory input available for further processing. We only pay

attention to a limited amount of these stimuli at any given time. Once we direct attention

toward a stimulus it enters our short-term memory. Here information spends merely

seconds before either being disregarded, used immediately, or transferred to the long-term

memory. Our short-term memory allows us to call a phone number out of a phone directory

without having to look at each number again individually. It is limited in the number of items

it can store at one time. Humans overcome this limitation by “chunking” or grouping multiple

items together, such as when letters are grouped together into words (Miller, 1956 p.90).

Long-term memory is more permanent and stable. Transferring information from the short-

term to the long-term memory is a cognitive process during learning that involves certain

control strategies. Rehearsal, i.e. repetition, is an effective strategy for this, as well as for

retaining information in the short-term memory. Other possibilities are to elaborate upon

information (e.g. by associating it with previously learned material) or to organize material

in a system (e.g. chunking, categorization) (Lefrançois, 2015 p.309). Permanent memories

33

can be retained for very long periods of time, however are generative in their nature.

“Memory is not a literal reproduction of the past but instead depends on constructive

processes that are sometimes prone to errors, distortions, and illusions” (Schacter et al.,

1998 p.290). The purpose of our behavior has a strong influence on long-term memory.

There is a difference, e.g. in control strategies used, between reading a novel for leisure or

reading a textbook for study purposes. Often humans only remember a meaning or a central

idea. Sometimes the purpose of memorizing information helps to remember details,

however it is a less effective strategy for generalizing learned concepts to new situations

(Linderholm, 2006).

The short-term memory retains information only long enough to solve immediate problems,

make decisions or perform medial tasks, such as dialing phone numbers. In order to do this,

it requires mental activity and a processing mechanism. Baddeley's (2000 p.77) model of

the working memory is a “multicomponent system that utilizes storage as part of its function

of facilitating complex cognitive activities such as learning, comprehending, and reasoning.”

Linderholm (2006 p.72) provides a conceptual definition of working memory, based on the

example of reading:

“[..] one’s working memory capacity is related to how efficiently cognitive

resources are allocated to processing relevant information during

complex tasks such as reading. As it relates to reading specifically,

individual differences in working memory capacity influence how

accurately readers comprehend text, generate inferences, determine

relevant themes, and retain what is read.”

The more meaningful material is to us, the more likely we are to retain it in our long-term

memory. This is largely due to the influence of emotions experienced during learning and

during memory retrieval (Buchanan 2007). Experiencing success or failure arouses certain

emotional reactions, which cause an individual to focus their attention on making causal

attributions. A major determining factor of memory of an event is the emotion it initially

aroused, regardless of whether pleasant or unpleasant. Memories of particularly emotional

events are often more accurate and vivid than those lacking a strong emotional component

(Reisberg et al., 2003). Bower (1992 p.14) states that “[…] a strong affective reaction after

an event also causes the reactivation, rehearsal, or 'mulling over' in working memory of the

encoded version of that event.” Infrequent and unique events have a higher chance of

eliciting emotions, that then act as very useful retrieval cues. According to Bower (1992),

emotional events are prioritized in processing over neutral events, and remain longer in the

working memory. This can also become disadvantageous to an individual, as emotional

34

memories can dominate processing resources. For example, when students are particularly

anxious about writing an exam their working memory becomes occupied with their

emotions, which leaves less resources for concentration and activating retrieval cues. This

once again illustrates how strongly emotions impact learning processes.

3.2.6 Media It is challenging to provide a universal definition of the term media, since it has been subject

to many changes throughout history and can be applied to various concepts. Today, it is

most generally applied in terms of communication media and can refer to either the tools,

institutions or products involved. The main functions of media are storage, transmission,

and manipulation (processing) of information or data (Nolda, 2011 p.109). This illustrates

that even the human voice can be considered a medium, which was once the primary

means of communication. Media has evolved substantially since then and nowadays

multiple means for communication are provided by mass media, such as radio, television,

print media, advertising, publishing, cinema, and photography. Tools such as the printing

press and computers have enabled mass media, which is characterized by a wide-ranged

diffusion and accessibility of information, data or ideas. Direct communication between

individuals has been supplemented by a technologically enabled indirect communication

(Luhmann, 1996 p.11). Mass media has made information and knowledge accessible to a

large number of people throughout the world. The internet has added a much grander

dimension to this accessibility, and can be defined as “the collection of networks that link

computers and servers together” (Lister et al., 2009 p.164). The digitalization of information

and communication processes into computer-compatible codes has driven the development

of the internet and electronic mass media.

As a result of digitalization, information is increasingly stored in electronic instead of

physical print form. Bandura (1999 p.29) correctly predicted that “we are entering a new era

in which the construction of knowledge for decision making and problem solving relies

heavily on electronic inquiry.” He emphasizes that knowing how to search electronic mass

media for information, i.e. “electronic inquiry”, is a complex cognitive skill that is vital for

learning and effective functioning in society today. Another influence is that electronic media

greatly expands the range of models, from which people learn behavior through

observation, deliberately or implicitly. They have “become the dominant vehicle for

disseminating symbolic environments” and allow observers to “transcend the bounds of

their immediate environment” (Bandura, 1999 p.25). Today, individuals learn and develop

in a society that is shaped by an omnipresent mass media. This has a tremendous effect

35

on an individual's attention capacities, as well as on their social environments.

Communication and attaining a feeling of belongingness more frequently rely on our use of

media. This creates many challenges for individuals and for society in general, however

also results in new opportunities for learning.

3.3 Didactics

3.3.1 Introduction and Discussion A closer look at the variety of learning theories and the development of the learning

psychology shows that learning is a complex process with a multitude of important

influencing factors. The central challenge of these attempts to understand the learning

process is that it is not directly observable. Nonetheless, an impressive amount of empirical

research has been accumulated by the field, which provides a broad range of perspectives

on how learning takes place. Behaviorist, cognitive, constructivist, social-cognitivist, and

humanistic theories are not mutually exclusive and each provide valuable contributions to

the discussion. Motivation, attention, emotions, self-efficacy, memory and media are

interlinked factors that shape cognitive development and behavior within social contexts.

These elements are vital to the discussion of what learning is, how it takes place, and

ultimately how learning can be systematically initiated, guided or controlled.

Since learning can refer to a great number of different processes, it is clear that no single

theory can provide a complete overview. Learning can be defined as changes in behavior

or behavior potential, cognitive structures, or in social relationships depending on which

theoretical perspective is taken (Dinkelaker, 2011 p.134). Today individuals' learning

processes are often deeply embedded within institutionalized educational settings.

Education refers to human development, as individuals strive toward a satisfied and

meaningful life in this world as humans, and as members of their society. The role and

importance of education has been discussed for centuries, giving rise to a scientific

approach to the theory and practice of education, known as pedagogy.

During the Enlightenment Immanuel Kant introduced the notion that the role of education

was to achieve “Mündigkeit”, which can be understood as a self-determination and self-

reliance independent of others' guidance (Kant, 1784). This idea of education leading to

independent and autonomous individuals illustrates how important it is to see that life itself

educates us, and how crucial self-education is as a foundation for educational processes.

Perhaps one of the most valuable contributions to the discussion can be found in Wilhelm

36

von Humboldt's idealized view of education. According to him, education is a lifelong

process that never ends and takes place within the individual. It revolves around the

reciprocal relationship between the self and the world, which represents the totality of

objects outside the individual. He claimed that only a self-determined and autonomous

unfolding of individuals' strengths can lead to the development of culture and humanity

(Zirfas, 2011 p.17). Johann H. Pestalozzi also believed that education should develop the

“head, heart and hands” of individuals, giving them the opportunity to learn morality and

values, as well as to become responsible citizens (Brühlmeier, 2010). Humboldt referred to

this goal of education as enabling individuals to become citizens of the world. These views

on the role and importance of education set the foundation for our modern educational

institutions.

Pedagogy provides a basis for educational activities, as it addresses long term learning

processes involved in human development. Within pedagogy, didactics refers to the theory

and practice of teaching and learning processes. It can be seen as a craft, in addition to

being a thoroughly researched and empirically tested scientific field (Prange, 2011 p.183).

The distinction between the two arises in the fact that didactics deals with the more

pragmatic and subject-oriented planning, execution, and analysis of lessons, which often

take place within institutional settings, like schools or universities. Methodology is a part of

didactics that deals with the issue of how lessons are structured. It provides various forms

to realize the ideal learning processes formulated using didactics.

Didactics provides a structured approach to instructional design, i.e. to designing lessons

within an institutional context. This can perhaps be best exemplified by the didactic triangle

(see Figure 13). It introduces the main operators involved in the process, namely the

teacher, the student (or group of students), the topic and the (learning) environment.

Lessons in institutionalized settings are characterized by processes of mediating

knowledge, skills, and competences, and of the adoption or development of what is being

mediated. Both processes are non-linear, non-causal and non-predictable, and controlling

them is the main goal of didactics (Prange, 2011 p.184).

37

Figure 13: The didactic triangle provides a framework for instructional design. A focus is placed on the component found at the top of the triangle. Based on (Sünkel, 1996).

The components of the didactic triangle can be weighted differently, resulting in an array of

approaches to instructional design. All of the components stand in different relations to one

another, depending on which approach is chosen. Direct instruction places a strong focus

on the teachers and their ability to communicate the topic to students using lectures or

demonstrations. Focusing more on the students places greater importance on their

acquisition of the topic, and leads to lessons using more open learning methods, such as

problem-based and self-regulated learning. This distinction ultimately comes down to

whether the lessons should be more self- (student-centered) or externally-directed (teacher-

centered). Within institutions topics that are dealt with are often fixed within a stable

curriculum, however even these have to be updated and adjusted regularly. Whether a topic

is relevant or necessary to a lesson is perhaps most strongly influenced by the context that

culture, society, and the educational institutions set. Expectations of lessons are therefore

not entirely derived from the teacher, but rather are confined within societal boundaries and

openly negotiated in discussions on their role and importance. Therefore, these

expectations are subjected to the historical change processes that societies undergo.

Instructional design is an iterative process of planning, executing and analyzing lessons.

Planning a lesson can be seen as the organizational task of integrating the components of

the didactic triangle into a temporal and social framework (Prange, 2011 p.185). This part

of the process deals with what the purpose of the lesson is and what methods can be used,

while taking into account the target group and the boundary factors given by the

environmental context. Lessons are typically designed to most effectively mediate and

create a space for the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competences. These generally

revolve around a specific topic, which must regularly be examined for its relevance to the

38

students. Wolfgang Klafki's didactic analysis (1996) provides a simple method for this,

dealing with the topic's relevance for the students' present and future, as well as taking into

account prior knowledge and generalizations that can be subsequently made. There is no

guarantee that a lesson will proceed as planned, since unforeseen events, individual

learning habits, and unexpected social interactions naturally influence the process (Meseth

et al., 2011 p.103).

The operative basis for the execution of the lesson is a combination of the communication

form and the social dynamics. The simplest and most traditional form of lesson is the direct

instruction (e.g. lecture), which requires monologic communication and a strict social

distinction between teacher and student. An alternative is the more cooperative form of

lesson oriented around group work. Here communication is more dialogic and includes

interactions between the teacher and the students, in addition to among the students

themselves. Regardless of which form is chosen, there is a basic scheme to any lesson

(Prange, 2011 p.185). Initially, the priority is to awaken an interest in the topic among

students, allowing for motivation and attention to follow. As students begin to actively

engage with the topic, it becomes critical to continuously secure learning results and to

practice and apply these to new tasks. A crucial accompanying process is that of reflection,

since evaluating one's individual learning process leads to changes in cognitive

development. This development also strongly relies on social factors, so maintaining a

social order within the lesson stands out as an important prerequisite for learning to take

place at all. When teachers reflect on their lessons and analyze what worked well, what

could be improved, etc., they can use these insights for the planning process of their next

lesson.

There are primarily two models that teachers can use to guide and analyze the effectiveness

and quality of lessons. They each provide a framework that illustrates the reciprocal

relationships between the variables involved in learning processes. The process-product

model of learning centers around a direct correlation between the lesson attributes

(process) and the lesson results (product). Lesson attributes mainly refer to the teacher's

behavior and the interaction between the students and the teacher. These attributes directly

influence the lesson results, i.e. what the students have learned, usually measured using

exams. Using this model as a basis for instructional design requires the designation of a

desired final learning outcome. Analysis of the lesson then depends on whether or not this

product state is reached among students (Helmke et al., 2010). The mediation model of

learning claims that the learning process is not as trivial as the process-product model would

suggest. It places a much greater importance on the learning potentials and learning

activities of the students. Instead of determining the outcome of the lesson beforehand,

39

teachers offer input, tools and learning strategies, which the students can then use

autonomously during the lesson. This model focuses much more on the cognitive,

motivational and volitional aspects of the learning processes of students, and teachers

spend more time mediating rather than directly instructing (Helmke, 2003).

According to Klieme et al. (2006), there are three main dimensions of instructional quality:

classroom management, cognitive activation, and personal learning support. When looking

at these dimensions it becomes clear that there must be a focus on the individual students

and their ability to learn within didactically organized settings. The need to put the student

into the center of didactic efforts also becomes clear when looking at the development of

learning psychology, which is the basis for all didactic models. The cognitive shift and the

development of constructivism and humanism have led to the concept of life-long learning.

This concept acknowledges that humans learn throughout their entire life, within formal and

informal contexts, and must constantly adapt to their ever-changing environments. This shift

in the understanding of learning processes is naturally accompanied by a shift in the didactic

methods and models used by teachers. As a result, the more behavioristic approach of

direct instruction, which has traditionally been the preferred method within educational

institutions, is being replaced or enhanced with lesson formats using more open learning

methods, such as self-regulated and problem-based learning. There are many reasons for

this, but one that certainly stands out is that learning can no longer be seen as a mere

knowledge transfer. Learning is not the accumulation of knowledge, but rather the process

of continually constructing and reconstructing knowledge within real environmental and

social contexts (Overwien, 2003 p.46). Therefore, didactics now relies on the understanding

that learning knowledge, skills, and competences prepares students to deal with the world

around them, as well as with their own behavioral, cognitive, and social development. The

following chapters will dig deeper into this, by taking a closer look at the crucial elements

and methods involved, and at the changes it brings to the role of the teacher, student and

learning environment.

40

3.3.2 Knowledge One of the priorities of educational activities has always been to communicate knowledge.

There is no one optimal definition of knowledge, but it generally refers to an awareness or

understanding gained through experience, and there are multiple ways of categorizing it

into different types (de Jong et al., 1996). Common knowledge categories include:

conceptual (knowledge about facts, concepts, and principles; knowing what), procedural

(compilation of conceptual knowledge into specific strategies; knowing how), and

conditional (knowing when and where to access certain facts or employ distinct

procedures). It is not equivalent to information, which is a message that communicates data,

ideas or events for example. Knowledge is formed when information is incorporated into a

person's biographical context and connected to prior knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is

much more than the mere accumulation of information. Transforming information into

knowledge relies on processes of selection, comparison, evaluation, and making

connections. Thus, information can be seen as a raw material for the construction and

reconstruction of knowledge structures.

The quality of knowledge is dependent on properties such as level of depth, structure, and

modality. Knowledge is considered deep, instead of superficial, when it is “firmly anchored

in a person's knowledge base” and when domain specific knowledge has been abstracted

and generalized, making it applicable to other domains (de Jong et al., 1996). This enables

comprehension, critical judgment, evaluation, the ability to reason, and being able to adopt

multiple viewpoints of a problem. Surface-level knowledge is associated with reproduction

and trial and error processes. Structure and modality mainly depend on how knowledge is

stored in the memory. Knowledge can be stored hierarchically or by the chunking of

information into larger and more meaningful units. It can also be stored in verbal or pictorial

form. Diagrams are an example of how knowledge can be stored through images, as they

efficiently organize larger amounts of information. Often knowledge can be implicit (or tacit),

meaning it is not easily accessible or transferable, and cannot be communicated directly.

Making implicit knowledge explicit is a very important process in the construction of

knowledge, and relies on reflection and finding a way to communicate it. This illustrates the

fundamental nature of knowledge: “knowledge is communicated and at the same time

knowledge is formed in and through communication” (Arnold et al., 2003 p.115). The

dependency of knowledge on communication results in an important implication, namely

that knowledge can only be learned by an individual that takes part in that communication

process.

41

The emphasis on the communicative nature of knowledge has grown substantially in recent

years, mainly due to the development of electronic mass media and various major societal

changes. The internet has led to an “explosion of knowledge” (Arnold et al., 2003 p.113),

which means that now knowledge is omnipresent and always accessible. This not only

enhances the possibilities for the storage of knowledge, but also enables its continuous

revision, evaluation, construction and reconstruction (Kade, 2011 p.37). Societal and

economic developments, such as globalization and the shift to sustainability, have

simultaneously increased the complexity of what a member of society must know and have

accelerated how quickly knowledge changes. As a result, the knowledge that is socially

relevant is changing faster than generations are, once again underlining the importance of

life-long learning. It has become crucial for individuals of all ages to continuously develop

themselves and reconstruct their knowledge structures, as they adapt to rapidly changing

social and environmental conditions. Knowledge can no longer be seen as a static, time-

invariant product that an individual acquires and possesses, but instead must be understood

to have a dynamic nature that relies on active processes of engagement.

These major developmental changes in society are accompanied by much uncertainty and

risk for the future. Luhmann (2002) declares that preparing students for an uncertain future

should be the main priority of educational activities, placing a strong emphasis on how they

deal with the state of not knowing. Uncertainty can be seen as a valuable resource, since it

opens up the possibility for individuals to make new decisions and to shape the future.

Therefore, Luhmann (2002) argues that in today's educational institutions the learning of

knowledge should be secondary to the learning of how to make decisions, i.e. how to

effectively navigate the state of not knowing. Students should no longer be seen as

“receivers” of knowledge, but must rather be presented with opportunities to refine their

knowledge structures in a realistic context that is relevant to them. For example, in order for

students to be effective problem solvers they “must have rich knowledge structures with

many contextual links” (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.9). The more realistic contextual links a

student has, the higher the chance is that they will be able to apply knowledge to new

situations, and also to create new knowledge by generating new connections. These

contextual links also serve as retrieval cues for the memory system, and without them

knowledge remains inert, i.e. cannot be applied to real problems and situations. Realistic

learning contexts also have a vital social dimension. Students refine their knowledge in

social environments “through argumentation, structured controversy, and the sharing and

testing of ideas and perspectives” (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.25). Through the interaction

between an individual's cognitive ability (capacity to learn) and a particular situation

(opportunity to learn) knowledge is socially constructed (Winterton et al., 2006 p.7). The

42

process of negotiating meaning between members within social interactions leads to

common understandings and shared meanings, giving knowledge a cultural dimension.

3.3.3 Competences

The major challenges presented by a rapidly changing, globally-connected society cannot

be faced productively with knowledge alone. When confronted with an open and uncertain

future, individuals cannot simply rely on knowledge to provide them with everything they

need to make decisions, solve problems and actively shape their individual biographies.

Conceptual knowledge, and knowing how and when to make decisions, does not guarantee

that an individual is actually capable of making a certain decision in a new, uncertain

situation. Performing actions and making decisions additionally requires a multitude of skills,

which can be defined as goal-directed, well-organized activities that are acquired through

practice (Winterton et al., 2006 p.7). Developing skills relies on knowledge structures,

however goes beyond them by linking knowledge to concrete activities. It is crucial for an

individual to develop a variety of skills: affective (managing emotions), psychomotoric

(movement influenced by cognitive processes), cognitive (involving attention and memory),

metacognitive (thinking about thinking), social (interpersonal, cultural, etc.), and digital

(dealing with media effectively). Today's societal, vocational and personal challenges also

necessitate an increase in external and internal flexibility, a strong self-initiative and a

readiness to confront uncertain and risky situations with creativity. This places the focus for

educational activities on individuals’ entire human learning potential, while enabling them to

become producers of their own biographical development (Erpenbeck et al., 2007 p.29).

Developing knowledge structures and skills are relevant not only for an individual's personal

development, but also for their vocational development. The expectations of a student's

development within educational institutions have traditionally been referred to as

qualifications. A qualification is “a mastery of specific life-situations or occupational tasks”,

and is thereby application-oriented (Winterton et al., 2006 p.10). This concept has been

more or less replaced as the priority of educational activities in recent years with the subject-

oriented competence, referring to the capacity of a person to act. While qualifications can

be regarded in terms of objective performance parameters that can be measured,

competences are more subjective, holistic dispositions to perform or act in a specific way.

The pivotal difference between the two is that qualifications focus on specific activity-related

knowledge and skills, whereas competences emphasize the personality and biography of

individuals, incorporating all of their dispositions that enable their ability to act (Frank, 2003

p.179). The development of competences can therefore be seen as a mostly self-regulated

43

and self-organized learning and adoption process, that relies on iterative processes of

action and reflection. Knowledge and skills are the basis for competences to develop, but

can only be productive for an individual if they are transversely connected and incorporated

into an individual's biographical context.

Competences are determined by two main factors: the person and the situation. Therefore,

Wittwer et al. (2002 p.178) claim that there are two dimensions of competences. Core

competences entail the entire personal resources of an individual, i.e. what they are capable

of. They are developed throughout an individual's whole life, however are subject to specific

situational requirements. Therefore, they must be supplemented by change competence,

which refers to the disposition and ability to respond to diverse and changing situations, and

to personally develop oneself accordingly. Hence, developing competences must be seen

as embedded in a societal context, as individuals interact with social situations. In recent

years, developing action competence has become a major focus of educational activities,

which is comprised of professional, social and self-competences (Arnold et al., 2003 p.114).

It is regarded as the ability to critically select and then perform actions, while relying on a

network of other competences. Arnold et al. (2001 p.27) extended professional, social and

self-competences with communicative, emotional and methodological competences,

resulting in a holistic competence model with respect to learning (see Figure 14). The

importance of an individual to learn to learn, i.e. attaining meta-cognitive learning abilities,

is characterized by the self-learning competence (Arnold et al., 2003 p.110). Additionally,

the increased role of media in our learning processes necessitates the development of a

media competence (Baacke, 1997 p.98).

Figure 14: A holistic competence model with respect to learning. It provides a general framework, within which a further distinction among more detailed competences can be developed (Arnold et al., 2001 p.27).

44

Developing competences is a life-long and predominately self-organized process

(Erpenbeck et al., 2007 p.27). Central to this process is the individual as a designer of their

own unique life and career path. Competences must be incorporated into an individual's

biographical context, so that they can be applied to any, especially new, situations. Without

the active process of analyzing and reflecting what one has learned in a particular situation

it is not possible to develop competences, especially action competence (Kirchhof et al.,

2003 p.223). In general, there are retrospective, actual and prospective dimensions to

developing competences (Erpenbeck et al., 2007 p.24). Retrospectively, individuals can

identify foundations that already exist for specific competences, obtained in both formal and

informal contexts. The actual dimension relates to identifying moments within current task

procedures or within the current social environment, and using these productively.

Prospectively, it is crucial to anticipate future situations and to prepare to confront them in

a constructive manner, for example when planning one's career path. These dimensions

provide a framework for educational activities that aim to prepare students to productively

and creatively deal with an uncertain future. For this, individuals must also be able to

evaluate situations based on morals and take responsibility for their own actions.

Developing social and personal competences involves internalizing certain moral

dispositions that strongly influence decision making situations (Erpenbeck et al., 2007 p.32).

Rather than prioritizing “occupation-related knowledge and skills content” (input-oriented),

educational activities are moving toward specifying learning fields in which students can

develop competences (process-oriented) (Winterton et al., 2006 p.10).

3.3.4 Formal and Informal Learning The concept of life-long learning recognizes that learning takes place in different forms and

within a vast variety of contexts. Today, educational institutions are an integral part of

society and play a crucial role in the development of individuals. Learning that takes place

within these institutions is commonly referred to as formal learning, or rather it is known as

learning within a formal context (Wittwer, 2003 p.15). Within educational institutions learning

is an organized and goal-driven process, characterized by pedagogical objectives. Formal

contexts provide structured opportunities for individuals to develop knowledge, skills and

competences. However, it is important to understand that these are not the only

opportunities individuals have to develop themselves. In an individual's life learning takes

place all the time, for example in personal and family relationships, in recreational activities,

and in an enormous array of other moments in their personal life and social environment.

Learning in these informal contexts takes place under conditions that are not arranged

primarily according to any pedagogic objectives (Kirchhoff et al., 2003 p.216). Within

45

informal contexts learning can be consciously and intentionally initiated (e.g. when

researching something online), implicit or incidental (e.g. in a discussion among friends), or

based on reflecting one's own experiences (Frank, 2003 p.177). Therefore, it is a subject-

oriented and self-organized form of learning that takes place in natural everyday situations.

It is important to note that informal learning also takes place within formal contexts.

Formal and informal learning should be seen as complementary to one another. Formal

institutions provide individuals with important structured and systematic knowledge, as well

as with opportunities to develop skills and competences. Today, the importance of these

institutions to an individual's biographical and vocational life path has dramatically

increased, due to the importance of standardized and accredited certificates. At the same

time, they are also becoming more subject-oriented, as informal learning is increasingly

recognized as having a strong potential for the development of competences (Wittwer et

al., 2003 p.5). The internet and other mass media have given informal learning a new

dimension, for they now provide the resources for individuals to auto-didactically learn much

of what they could traditionally only learn in formal contexts. Since this self-organized

process depends very strongly on personal characteristics, such as motivation, cognitive

structures, and competence levels, it can often have an overstraining effect on an individual.

This is why it is critical that educational institutions adequately prepare individuals for

learning that extends beyond their organized formal contexts. An example of this is

developing the ability to reflect, as this is central to making implicit learning explicit and to

learning from one's own experiences. Informal learning can therefore be seen as a

prerequisite and as an extension of formal learning processes.

3.3.5 Self-Regulated Learning When looking at how individuals develop knowledge, skills and competences, as well as at

the importance of life-long and informal learning, it is clear that educational activities today

need to be student-centered in order to maximize each person's potential and to give them

space to embed learning processes into their own personal biographical and vocational

contexts. There are also increased demands in society today on a person's development to

be flexible, autonomous, self-organized, and able to coordinate and communicate

individually and within social contexts (Schiersmann, 2003 p.147). A closer look at learning

psychology indicates that although there are many factors that lie outside the individual that

can externally direct their learning processes, learning is fundamentally self-regulated. This

means that learning can only be achieved through the active participation of the students,

as initiators and organizers of their own learning process, which also gives them the

46

opportunity to take more responsibility for their own learning and actions (Deitering, 1995

p.11). Educational activities should therefore no longer center around merely

communicating topics effectively (product-oriented), but should instead focus on the

successful execution of learning within each individual (process-oriented), who each have

unique biographies, interests, learning styles and paces. Learning situations require

conscious deliberation and different forms of control, such as of attention, motivation,

emotion, action and volition (Boekaerts, 2000 p.440). Self-regulated students are “meta-

cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active in their own learning processes and in

achieving their own goals” (Eccles et al., 2002 p.124). Therefore, self-regulated learning

(SRL) can perhaps be best defined as “students' self-generated thoughts, feelings, and

actions, which are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals” (Boekaerts,

2000 p. 418).

In general, SRL is a non-linear process that consists of three phases10: planning (especially

of the learning goals), engagement in learning activities (use of strategies and methods),

and monitoring (evaluation and reflection of the learning process) (Greene et al., 2009).

Prior to planning specific learning goals, students must define the task. “A clear and

accurate task definition enables students to choose appropriate learning strategies,

formulate standards against which to monitor execution of strategies, and to make effective

meta-cognitive judgments regarding future performance” (Greene et al., 2012 p.310). Any

learning situation may be interpreted in a variety of ways by different students, leading to a

diversity of possible action patterns. Goals are linked to actions by the procedures of goal

setting, choice of a goal among alternatives, and goal striving (Eccles et al., 2002). Students

must make decisions on which goal to adopt (motivation), and then initiate and execute the

actions that lead to attainment of that goal (volition). Learning goals define desired

outcomes and serve as the foundation for the development of appropriate strategies, which

students can use to attain their goals. When students have decided on which goal to pursue

and which strategies to use, they initiate the action patterns and observe the action

outcomes (Boekaerts, 2000 p.432).

Once self-regulated learners are engaged in a task they must constantly monitor and

evaluate their activities, mainly using three processes: self-observation, self-judgment, and

self-reactions (Eccles et al., 2002 p.124). These processes are necessary to achieve a

balance between maintaining and adjusting goals, strategies and methods, based on

constant monitoring of the current situation with respect to prior reference values, i.e.

10 These phases consist of many micro-level processes, that make up students’ regulatory behavior. For a complete overview of all macro- and micro-level processes involved in SRL see Appendix A in (Greene et al., 2009).

47

outcome expectations formulated during goal setting (Boekaerts, 2000 p.441). Students

“monitor their behavior, judge its outcomes and react to those outcomes in order to regulate

what they do” (Eccles et al., 2002 p.125). Therefore, SRL is very strongly influenced by a

student's causal attributions of their learning outcomes. The appraisals that students make

of a learning situation affect both their goal setting and goal striving (Boekaerts, 2000

p.433). How they deal with meta-cognitive experiences of difficulty or strategy failure

depends on how well they can control aspects of their learning, such as attention,

motivation, and emotions. Here, it becomes clear that effective self-regulation is not

achieved simply by an act of will, it requires self-motivation and self-guidance. It also

requires a strong sense of self-efficacy, since knowing what is needed to attain a goal is

always complemented by the belief of whether one is able to attain the goal under certain

conditions. Self-efficacy beliefs even influence the strategies and methods chosen by

students. Dealing effectively with emotions, managing attention, motivating oneself, and

developing personally suited learning strategies and methods are among the many

requirements and abilities that an individual must master to be an effective self-regulated

learner, which can all be summarized under a self-learning competence (Arnold et al., 2003

p.110).

Although SRL demands a great deal from students, it also provides them with the

opportunities to develop themselves in numerous important ways. Self-organized thought

and action require constant decision-making under (often massive) cognitive uncertainty

(Erpenbeck et al., 2007 p.32). This has the potential to lead to cognitive overload, however

also has a strong potential for learning how to make new decisions and to base decision-

making on personal morals. Often the prior knowledge that students bring to a learning

situation is not suitable to build upon, thereby necessitating relearning and unlearning. This

engages students in change processes that will help develop their ability to be flexible and

to adjust their personal resources. Communication and social skills are very pivotal to a

student's development, and can be incorporated into the SRL process by allowing students

to work in groups, as opposed to working independently. Co-operative learning enables

students to learn to collaborate, to make valuable contributions to the learning of others, to

collectively take on more risk, to learn from the mistakes and successes of others, and to

develop a sense of social and cultural awareness. Individual learning goals are embedded

in and harmonize with group learning goals, thereby connecting self-efficacy with the

group's collective efficacy. Finally, effective self-regulated learners are able to effectively

manage the use of learning tools, such as the internet and mass media.

48

3.3.6 Problem-Based Learning In today's complex world individuals must be creative and flexible problem solvers (Lynton,

1989). In order to apply experience and knowledge to solving new and unfamiliar problems

individuals must be able to think critically and independently, to analyze and synthesize

information, and to work productively in groups (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.6). Complex

problems are particularly difficult to deal with, since they are multi-layered, contain intricate

relationships, are often counter-intuitive, and not always readily available to view and

manipulate in their entirety (Greene et al., 2010 p.1028). Problem-based learning (PBL) is

a didactic approach that integrates all of the attributes described above and can be defined

as “the learning that results from the process of working toward the understanding or

resolution of a problem” (Barrows et al., 1980 p.18). It relies on a methodology that situates

learning in complex and meaningful problems that are framed in authentic contexts, such

as with real-world problems (Hmelo, 1998). Barrows (1996) classifies six main

characteristics of PBL:

• Learning is student-centered.

• Learning occurs in small student groups.

• Teachers are facilitators or guides.

• Problems form the original focus and stimulus for learning.

• Problems are a vehicle for the development of problem-solving skills. These

problems should be open and ill-defined.

• New information is acquired through self-directed learning.

PBL begins with the presentation of a problem to the students. It should be presented in a

realistic way that encourages them to adopt and take ownership of the problem and their

own learning (Barrows et al., 1980). It is crucial that the problems be authentic, since it is

difficult to generate artificial problems that maintain the dimensions and complexity of real-

world problems. Authentic problems therefore reflect the true nature of problems in the real

world and also have a strong motivational effect, as they are more relevant to the students'

needs and experiences (Grabinger et al., 1995 pp.20-21). The problem should also be ill-

defined and open-ended, thereby giving students the opportunity to develop their own

solutions; in PBL there is no single correct solution. Students begin working on the problem

by activating prior knowledge, asking themselves what they already know about the subject

before creating their learning plans. The problem-solving process then roughly follows the

following procedure: problem definition; breaking the problem into more manageable parts;

generating sub-goals; identifying relevant information and resources; generating and testing

hypotheses; evaluation and adjustment of hypotheses, while exploring alternative solutions.

49

PBL is an active process where students become “investigators, seekers and problem

solvers” (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.19). It is in accord with discovery learning, which “includes

all forms of obtaining knowledge for oneself by the use of one's own mind” and “has the

effect of making material more readily accessible in memory” (Bruner, 1961 p.21 & p.29).

Inquiry-based learning is an effective didactic strategy that helps students approach

problems in a systematic manner and engages them in an authentic scientific discovery

process (Pedaste et al., 2015). It is a process that gives students the opportunity to develop

higher-order questioning skills, self-reflection and meta-cognitive skills including: taking

conscious control of learning; planning and selecting strategies; monitoring the progress of

learning; correcting errors; analyzing the effectiveness of learning strategies; and changing

learning behaviors and strategies when necessary (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.17). The

inquiry-based learning process consists of five phases: orientation; conceptualization;

investigation; conclusion; discussion (see Figure 15). Within this framework multiple

implementation cycles are possible, shown by the arrows in the figure below.

Communication and reflection are continuous, accompanying processes that help students

receive feedback about their progress. For a more detailed discussion on the possibilities

that this framework enables see Pedaste et al. (2015 pp.55-57).

Figure 15: The inquiry-based learning framework, consisting of general phases, sub-phases, and their relations (Pedaste et al., 2015 p.56).

50

The action-oriented nature of PBL can perhaps be best understood in terms of learning-by

doing, or experiential learning. John Dewey (2007 p.104) states that “when we experience

something we act upon it, we do something; then we suffer or undergo the consequences.”

What Dewey highlights here is that action alone does not constitute experience. Learning

from experiences resulting directly from one's actions always involves an element of

feedback and reflection. A simplified version of this process can be represented by the

Lewinian experiential learning model (see Figure 16)11. The problem-solving process can

thereby be conceived as a “continuous process of goal-directed action and evaluation of

the consequences of that action” (Kolb, 1984 p.22). It is important to note that reflection is

possible during the course of an action, after the action has taken place, and in preparation

for action. Feedback and reflection rely on communication processes, so it is crucial to place

PBL in a social context, by having students work in peer groups. Collaborative interactions

allow students to test the viability of their understandings and hypotheses, as well as helping

them refine their knowledge through argumentation, negotiation and structured controversy.

With the support of a co-operative group students are more willing to take on the higher risk

involved in dealing with complex, authentic, and ill structured problems. Group work also

develops teamwork and social skills, gives rise to synergistic insights and solutions that

would not emerge individually, helps students understand and take up the different roles in

group participation, gives them an opportunity to take responsibility for their own and each

other's learning, and has a strong motivational effect (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.25).

Figure 16: The Lewinian model illustrates that experiential learning is a cyclical process, with an emphasis on “here-and-now” concrete experiences and on feedback processes (Kolb, 1984 p.21).

11 This model is often erroneously referred to as the Kolb Learning Cycle, since he popularized it in (Kolb, 1984).

51

Students from PBL curriculums have been shown to have better knowledge retention, and

it generally seems that PBL provides a more engaging and challenging educational

environment. Although PBL offers many advantages over traditional learning and teaching

methods, it also has several disadvantages and challenges that must be overcome for an

efficient implementation (Wood, 2003):

Advantages:

• develops deeper and richer (indexicalized and conditioned) knowledge structures,

leading to a higher likelihood of transfer to novel situations (Grabinger et al., 1995

p.21).

• student-centered approach fosters active learning, improved understanding and

retention, and development of life-long learning skills.

• students develop a whole range of generic skills and competences, especially action

competence.

• increased motivation: PBL is fun for students and teachers, and the process requires

all students to be engaged in the learning process.

Disadvantages:

• more staff (human resources) required due to smaller class sizes.

• possibility for cognitive or information overload: students may be overwhelmed with

SRL processes and may have trouble deciding on what information is relevant and

useful.

• may require additional training of teachers, since many don’t have sufficient

experiences in facilitating learning processes, especially with respect to SRL.

3.3.7 Role of the Teacher With student-centered lesson formats teaching should be considered primarily in terms of

its impact on the students' learning (Hattie, 2012). The open learning arrangements that

these formats are based on present teachers with many uncertainties and challenges, but

are ultimately effective in providing the conditions in which students can engage in self-

regulated learning (SRL). The responsibility for learning is shared by the students and the

teachers, who act as guides and facilitators (Deitering, 1995 p.26). With SRL students are

responsible for initiating and organizing their own learning process, while the teacher

provides them with learning tools and methodical support. Teachers work together with the

students as learning partners, as they strive toward achieving their self-determined goals.

52

Students develop into their own teachers through self-regulation, while teachers become

learners of their own teaching. This means they are constantly evaluating the effects that

they have on students and adjusting their support methods accordingly. A teacher's main

goal should be to have a positive impact on student learning through their actions and

interventions (Hattie, 2012). A basic requirement of student-centered lessons is a trusting

and open communication between the teacher and the students, as well as between

students in group settings (Deitering, 1995 p.107). By having to spend less time directly

communicating knowledge, teachers have more capacity to support the students' individual

learning processes.

When the students' learning is the focal point of instructional design, a crucial task of

teachers is to ensure that they are motivated to learn. The ARCS model classifies

motivational concepts and theories into four categories: attention, relevance, confidence,

and satisfaction (Keller, 2008). The model serves as a good framework for teaching efforts

to enhance students' motivation, and was extended to include volition (Kuhl, 1987) and self-

regulation (Zimmerman, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is promoted by gaining the students'

attention and maintaining their active engagement in the learning activity. Curiosity can be

a motivating factor and is aroused when students perceive a gap in their current knowledge.

SRL requires a strong connection between the instructional environment (i.e. content,

teaching strategies, social organization) and the students' learning goals, learning styles,

prior knowledge, and past experiences. Learning goals can also be extrinsic, but students

are more motivated to learn when what they are learning is perceived as relevant to their

personal learning goals. Helping students to build positive outcome expectations, and giving

them an opportunity to experience success in a situation where they are able to attribute it

to their own abilities and efforts have strong motivational effects (Keller, 2008). The most

effective learning takes place when students are oriented toward mastering a learning task

(here teachers praise effort), as opposed to oriented toward performance of certain

externally-directed learning outcomes (here teachers praise ability/intelligence) (Dweck et

al., 2008). In order to maintain motivation throughout the learning process, it is crucial that

students experience satisfaction, i.e. positive emotions, related to their learning

experiences. This can be achieved by providing students with opportunities to apply what

they have learned, and by providing a consistency between their learning objectives and

the content of the lesson. Motivation to achieve a goal is complemented by volition, i.e. the

necessity of persisting in one's efforts to achieve it. Volitional strategies of self-control

(attention, motivation, emotion, action control) are self-regulatory strategies that enable

students to overcome obstacles in their learning and to help them stay focused on the task

(Keller, 2008).

53

When learning is self-regulated, learning strategies and methods become part of a lesson's

curriculum. Teachers must consider that when students enter a new learning situation they

arrive with prior knowledge and their own individual skill and competence levels. Each

individual also has different learning preferences, which teachers can take into

consideration by providing them personal learning support. Self-regulated learners rely on

sources of information and learning tools, which teachers should incorporate into the

lessons in a way that students are able to use them in an individualized manner. Mass

media and the internet can be regarded as valuable resources for students to use

autonomously, without intervention or direct action of the teacher (Deitering, 1995 p.97).

The actions and interventions of teachers that can have a major impact on the students'

learning are based on communication processes. When it is clear to everyone what

teachers are teaching and what students are learning, student achievement increases

(Hattie, 2012). Through communication, teaching and learning processes can be made

visible. This is particularly crucial for cognitive and meta-cognitive learning activities: e.g.

cognitive apprenticeships, where the teacher makes the thinking processes involved in

performing a cognitive task visible through dialogue (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.19). Self-

reflection skills can be developed by not only giving students feedback on their task

progression and outcomes, but more importantly by receiving feedback from the students

on their perspective. It allows teachers to assess their impact on the students' learning and

to develop an understanding of the students' cognitive and social-cognitive processes. This

diagnostic function of teaching is pivotal for identifying the need for cognitive activation

strategies, which can be regarded as cognitive training for students (Deitering, 1995 p.38).

Group discussions are a proven format for the teacher's function of classroom management.

Maintaining a social order is made easier when communication is enabled and encouraged,

thereby also making social learning processes visible.

Facilitating SRL is a complex process that demands a great deal of competence from

teachers. As moderators of learning groups, they are expected to not only engage the

students in knowledge communication, but must also maintain social order through

classroom management. Instructional strategies are needed to motivate students, as well

as to effectively use interventions to help guide students toward attainment of their learning

goals, especially in problem-oriented learning contexts. Teachers provide students with a

zone of proximal development that is placed in an authentic context, which enables students

to take on greater responsibility for their own learning activities (see chapter 3.1.3).

Scaffolding is a didactic strategy for teachers to follow when guiding students, as they

actively and autonomously solve problems (Deitering, 1995 pp.32-33). It involves initially

providing students with more external direction, i.e. supporting them with learning tools and

information resources, externally-directed learning goals and strategies, and guidance

54

during the development of cognitive, meta-cognitive and social skills. Over time teachers

gradually decrease their support, as students become better self-regulated learners. “The

teacher and student share a problem context while the teacher models expert strategies

that the students learn to use independently” (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.18). Effective self-

regulated students learn in a mastery mindset, thereby perceiving teachers as experts in

their communities of practice12. Expert teachers are masters in many strategies and

techniques, which places a great emphasis on the training of teachers. They constantly

gather feedback about their impact on students' learning, and base assessment processes

on more authentic and holistic evaluations of students' progression (e.g. projects, portfolios,

presentations). Teachers can be considered successful when they have created conditions

in which students want to learn, giving them the best opportunity to attain their individual

learning goals. Their role is to challenge students and help them reflect on what they are

learning (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.27).

3.3.8 Learning Environment Lessons in formal settings always need a space where learning takes place, is fostered,

and supported. With self-regulated learning students require room and flexibility to explore,

make choices, and determine their own goals and learning activities. That is why a learning

environment is perhaps best defined as: “a place where learners may work together and

support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their guided

pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities” (Wilson, 1996 p.5). Since learning

can be seen as a social and relational phenomenon, which locates knowledge construction

and learning in the interactions between students, teachers and resources, learning

environments should foster co-operative learning and open communication. The learning

group formed by the students and the teacher can be best understood as a community of

practice. When learning is situated in authentic and meaningful problem-solving

environments, and learning activities are action-oriented, students are able to make

valuable contextualized experiences that improve their ability to transfer what is learned to

new situations (Lave et al., 1991). Thus, a learning environment can be considered an

experiential space, that is didactically and methodically designed to enable the construction

of knowledge and the development of skills and competences (Wittwer, 2003 p.34).

12 A community of practice is a group of people who learn a specific craft or profession with and from each other. Members share information and experiences, thereby creating opportunities to develop professionally and personally (Lave et al., 1991).

55

A learning environment should not be thought of only as a physical space, but also as a

system in which self-regulated learning can take place productively. This can perhaps be

best demonstrated by taking a look at an example. Rich environments for active learning

(REALs) are holistic instructional systems that “provide learning activities that engage

students in a continuous collaborative process of building and reshaping understanding as

a natural consequence of their experiences and interactions with learning environments that

authentically reflect the world around them” (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.5). REALs include

strategies that facilitate collaboration, personal autonomy, reflectivity, active engagement,

personal relevance, and pluralism (Lebow, 1993 p.5). In REALs, students and teachers form

a learning community that organizes knowledge communication, didactical methods,

sequencing of learning activities, and the sociology of learning (Collins et al., 1991 p.6).

They provide learning environments that are designed to teach people to think and solve

problems (Grabinger et al., 1995 p.12). Although teachers determine most of the attributes

and organizational components, students must be able to interact with and shape their

learning environment. This will especially develop their action and change competences

and prepare them to act in actual problem-solving situations.

56

4. State of the Art: Engineering Education

4.1 Introduction In general, engineering can be characterized as the utilization of potentials for useful

applications, and it is oriented towards finding solutions for problems within a framework of

limited resources (Seliger et al., 2011 p.3). Engineers play a crucial role in society not only

by finding technological solutions, but also as civil servants who design and create goods,

infrastructure, and vital processes for the needs of humanity, thereby striving to protect

public health, welfare, and the environment (Litchfield et al., 2016 p.70). Universities provide

research for organizations and society, and educational services for students who are

looking to gain knowledge, skills and competences to offer on the job market (see Figure

17). The requirements of an engineering curriculum should be based on the needs of the

education and the job market, as well as on global trends (Fernandes et al., 2011 p.37). In

order to constructively approach the continuous challenge of aligning qualification demand

and supply, it is critical that universities closely collaborate with the business community

and the public sector. This is particularly pivotal today, since organizations worldwide are in

the process of adjusting to globalization, the pace of technological advancements, and to

various important social, environmental and economic challenges. Organizations now seek

engineers who are technically experienced, culturally aware and broadly knowledgeable, in

addition to being innovative and life-long learners, who understand world markets and have

an entrepreneurial spirit (Seliger et al., 2011 p.5). It is the role of universities to adequately

prepare future engineers for a work environment in which they are expected to contribute

to business decisions and to the creation of technical solutions that positively impact all

three dimensions of the sustainable bottom line (Weilerstein et al., 2016 p.2).

Figure 17: An integrative competence management model that illustrates the various participants who meet in the research, educational, and job markets. These markets and their participants make up a part of the global society (Meyer, 2005).

57

Educational programs always provide a more idealized context than the complex reality of

industrial practice (Luttikhuis et al., 2015 p.550). Under an increasing pressure to adapt to

the global mega-trend of sustainability, organizations are undergoing a shift in thinking

towards assuming social responsibility13 and designing more sustainable products,

services, processes and systems. Although market competitiveness is becoming more

dependent on understanding and creating value through innovative product-service

systems and sustainable business models, major economic challenges restrict many

organizations from making this fundamental shift. Naturally, this influences the job demands

for future engineers, as they are increasingly expected to understand sustainable methods

and tools, and be able to apply them in real-life industry and research projects (Riel et al.,

2015). Engineering education therefore plays an extremely pivotal role in enabling young

engineers to act as “change agents” in both industry and society (Seliger et al., 2011 p.3).

Future engineering employees should be able to assume key positions in implementing and

fostering a sustainable mindset in organizations (Riel et al., 2015). This means that they

must acquire essential new skills including: envisioning, critical thinking, reflection,

systemic/holistic thinking, dialogue, negotiation, collaboration and building of partnerships

(Tilbury et al., 2004). Hence, engineering education is transitioning from a focus on technical

issues to a focus on sustainability problems, which necessitates a more adaptive,

integrated, and participatory approach. Integration of human factors (e.g. empathy),

promoting global awareness, and the systematic study of socio-technical problems are

important curriculum goals, as are fostering creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, and the

adoption of sustainable behavior. In order to prepare students for an innovation-driven

economy, universities must also provide opportunities to learn and practice entrepreneurial

skills, such as: effectively working in interdisciplinary teams, communicating ideas,

developing networks, understanding business basics, and being comfortable with solving

open-ended problems (Weilerstein et al., 2016 p.2). Making contextual awareness, i.e. “the

ability to view actions, problems, solutions and consequences in a broader context

comprising scientific, technical, economic, legal, social or cultural aspects”, a main issue in

engineering education contributes to preparing students for being sustainability leaders in

the future (Staniskis et al., 2016 p.13).

In addition to many technical challenges, the National Academy of Engineering has

identified advancing personalized learning as one of the “Grand Challenges for Engineering

in the 21st Century” (NAE, 2018). This illustrates the critical role of engineering education

institutions in educating creative and innovative engineers, who are able to solve the current

13 Organizations are increasingly engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to assess and take responsibility for their effects on social wellbeing and on the environment.

58

and future challenges facing society (Kellam et al., 2013). It also shows that engineering

education is currently undergoing an “era of intense re-evaluation” (Abd-Elall et al., 2011

p.51), as institutions worldwide are realizing the need for an increase in productivity of

learning and teaching, through a new curriculum including innovative forms and methods

(Seliger et al., 2011 p.3). There is an ongoing process of transforming the traditional

paradigm (teacher and lecture-centered; and based on basic and applied technical

knowledge) to a new paradigm, which is student-centered, contextualized, interdisciplinary,

and based on a complex understanding of technical knowledge (Lehmann et al., 2008

p.284). This new student-centered approach is particularly important for educating young

engineers “towards the idea of life-long learning, in order to be later on able to continuously

maintain their competences and master new technologies, as a fundamental requirement

to contribute to sustainable engineering” (Weckenmann et al., 2011 p.23). Problem-based

learning (PBL) is emerging as an innovative and promising framework for providing students

valuable opportunities to develop their ability to solve complex problems, while also giving

space for personalized learning and non-technical aspects of problems (Lehmann et al.,

2008 p.281). Social competences and communication skills can be specifically addressed

by a project-oriented approach to PBL, where students work together in interdisciplinary

groups. Incorporating life cycle engineering and sustainable value creation into engineering

education is also an important priority, and requires new learning approaches that allow

students to train and gain experiences in realistic manufacturing and product development

environments, taking into account both a theoretical and a practical approach (Luttikhuis et

al., 2015 p.550). The long-term success of engineering education programs can be judged

by the ability of future engineering employees to transfer achieved competences to their

work, and by their ability to manage their own competence portfolios as self-regulated and

life-long learners (Weckenmann et al., 2011 pp.17-18).

4.2 Case Studies

4.2.1 Introduction Technical universities worldwide started introducing courses on sustainable development

in the 1990's (Segalas et al., 2008). In 2000, a major breakthrough was reached with the

formation of the Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP), which

represents over 1000 universities globally that have made sustainability a central focus of

their teaching and practice (Corcoran et al., 2002). Since then the implementation of

sustainability aspects into the engineering curriculum has become an even greater priority

for universities. This integration can be realized on many levels, which differ in duration and

59

include single lectures/seminars, projects, complete courses, and entire bachelor or master

programs.

The following case studies give a general idea of the possibilities for the implementation of

sustainability topics into engineering education, with a special focus on sustainable value

creation. The Institute for Material Science of the University of Bremen introduced a course

on energy and resource efficiency in metal processing, thereby orienting materials science,

process engineering, and manufacturing technologies toward the sustainable triple bottom

line. The Technical University (TU) Braunschweig offers a course on sustainability in

production and logistics, that focuses on the management of resources, material flows,

supply chains and spare parts. In addition to these single courses, many German

universities also provide bachelor or master programs dedicated to environmental and

resource management, as well as to sustainable development in general (Herrmann et al.,

2011). The University of Twente effectively integrates life cycle engineering into mechanical

and industrial design engineering programs through a project-oriented education approach.

It also recognizes the need to connect academia and industry, by offering a nine month long

graduate project, in which students solve realistic engineering problems provided directly

by industrial organizations (Luttikhuis, 2015). Engineers Without Borders USA is a non-

profit organization that connects students at universities with communities in over 45

different countries that need fundamental problems solved, such as clean water, sanitation,

irrigation, energy and basic structures (Wittig, 2013). The concept of a learning factory is

gaining attention in recent years, as it effectively integrates a competency-oriented didactic

approach into a realistic, close-to-industry manufacturing environment, in which students

can develop technical and problem-solving skills, creativity and collaboration (Abele et al.,

2015). In the following chapters three exemplary case studies will be presented in more

depth.

4.2.2 Problem-Based Learning at Aalborg University At Aalborg University in Denmark two-thirds of all teaching is organized around problem-

based project work (Lehmann et al., 2008). In the two-year master program in

environmental management, Danish and foreign students from all over the world come

together from a diverse background of various engineering and science degrees. The

courses of the curriculum follow an interdisciplinary approach, combining theories,

concepts, and methods from natural, technical, human, and social sciences. A main priority

is placed on how companies, governments, and other organizations can implement

sustainability in a socially acceptable and economically efficient manner. The university

60

partners with a wide range of local and international organizations to offer students an

introduction into environmental management practice through hands-on projects dealing

with real-life industry problems. Students receive practical experience in many areas, such

as environmental planning, environmental policy, environmental management and life cycle

assessment. The program also provides an understanding of the relationships between

companies and stakeholders, and the environmental challenges faced by businesses

operating on international markets. Problem-based project work, in close collaboration with

industry partners and universities, begins during the first semester and continues

throughout the entire degree. Courses and facilitated group discussions are provided by

university staff as support for the project work. Overall, the program is also very research-

based, and offers “opportunities for an increased outreach of education i.e. learning to the

benefit of communities, university faculty, and students” (Lehmann et al., 2008 p.291). The

innovative PBL approach at Aalborg University helps learners gain interdisciplinary

knowledge through collaboration with a mix of partners, and helps them develop a range of

skills and competences needed to confront sustainability challenges. Thereby, knowledge

for sustainable development is actively shared and developed among multiple members of

society (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Exchange of knowledge as a learning strategy that benefits communities, university faculty, and students. Partners, like local businesses, university lecturers or civil servants, provide students with access to knowledge and learning opportunities, that help them develop integrated solutions to real-world sustainability problems (Lehmann et al., 2008 p.291).

61

4.2.3 Blue Engineering at TU Berlin Blue Engineering is an interdisciplinary seminar at the TU Berlin14, that deals with the social

and ecological aspects of the engineering profession. It is oriented around the everyday life

of engineers in research and in organizations, thereby sensitizing students toward

sustainability, ethical, and historical aspects of engineering. Roughly 100 students come

together from a wide range of disciplines each semester for weekly seminars, which they

can get accredited in mechanical, electrical, and industrial engineering degrees. The

didactic concept centers around individual modules structured as 30 – 90 minute learning

units15, that shift most of the learning and teaching processes to the students. This modular

approach creates a balance between factual knowledge and orientation/reflection

processes through innovative methods like, role playing, simulated court cases, fishbowl

discussions, or various multimedia concepts. The seminar provides a space for students to

come together and discuss, argue, and learn from and with each other in group settings.

Facilitators initially guide students through prepared modules, while promoting a critical

perspective of the role of technology in society. In order to gain full credits, students must

develop their own module on a new topic within the scope of the seminar, thereby actively

contributing to the establishment of new didactic content for future Blue Engineering

seminars. Through surveys of former participants, it has been shown that the seminar's

student-centered approach contributes to developing self-regulated learners, who are able

to make critical decisions and assume responsibility for their actions. The seminar has five

fundamental learning goals for students:

• analyze and evaluate the interdependency of individuals, society, technology and

nature.

• develop a personal perspective and responsibility in relation to this

interdependency, and act accordingly as engineers.

• work democratically in interdisciplinary groups to develop a common perspective

of the interdependency.

• develop 12 sustainability-oriented competences16, such as co-operative decision-

making, motivating oneself and others to act, empathy toward others, and using

moral dispositions as a basis for decisions and actions.

• develop own module, thereby individually shaping the entire seminar.

14 See (http://www.blue-engineering.org). 15 Topics include: cradle to cradle, bio-plastics, fracking, planned obsolescence, smart grid, mobility without oil, recycling, sharing economy, etc. All modules can be downloaded from their website (in German). For a complete overview see (http://www.blue-engineering.org/wiki/Baukasten:Startseite). 16 For the complete list (in German) of all 12 competences see (http://www.institutfutur.de/transfer-21/index.php?p=222).

62

4.2.4 The Invention Studio at the Georgia Institute of Technology The Invention Studio is a gradually expanding “student-run design-build-play space” at the

Georgia Institute of Technology, first introduced in 2009 (Forest et al., 2014). Currently, it is

a 4500 square foot state-of-the-art prototype fabrication facility, used by 1000 students per

month to tinker freely, for personal projects, or in the scope of university classes. It is

managed by a group of undergraduate students, with support from university staff and

courses. The equipment is valued at one million dollars and includes 3-D printers, laser

cutters, waterjet cutters, injection molding, thermoforming, milling, in addition to lounge,

meeting, assembly and testing spaces. Compared with traditional machine shops, it

provides student design teams a space to meet and use integrated standard machine shop

tools, extended with a wide variety of digital fabrication technology. The Invention Studio

has been funded by partners from industry since its origins, and is utilized by students from

engineering, architecture, and an array of scientific fields, who form interdisciplinary

communities of practice with shared beliefs, values, methods and goals. Through this open

maker space, the university aims to make design, prototyping, innovation and

entrepreneurship more central elements in engineering education. The Invention Studio:

“seeks to (1) provide students with free access to hands-on, state-of-the-

art prototyping technologies; (2) serve as a cultural hub and meeting

ground; (3) bolster design within curricula and (4) as an extra-curricular

activity; (5) encourage collaboration between diverse teams of students

from all years and majors, (6) welcome all types of projects, personal and

professional; (7) excite students for careers involving creativity, design,

innovation, and invention; (8) enable students to tackle open-ended, real-

world challenges; and (9) to serve as an exhibit and tour space to

enhance the university’s ability to recruit top students and showcase

student work through local, national, and international news outlets”

(Forest et al., 2014 p.18).

63

Figure 19: (above) A view into the entrance area of the Invention Studio, a 4500 square foot state-of-the-art prototype fabrication facility (Forest et al., 2014 p.8). (below) A layout plan of the facility, made up of individual machine rooms (http://inventionstudio.gatech.edu/our-space/).

64

5. Gaps Sustainability is a tremendously difficult concept to integrate into society, especially due to

the considerable gap between increasing public awareness about environmental, social,

and economical challenges and the actual implementation of sustainability into

organizations and people's daily habits (Abd-Elall et al., 2011 p.52). This illustrates that it is

not sufficient to create awareness about sustainable consumption and production, if this

does not transfer into peoples' actual behaviors. This is often referred to as the “behavior-

attitude gap”, and is a major barrier for sustainable development (Kohtala et al., 2015

p.338). As key engineering education institutions, universities must adjust their curricula to

address this gap, and ultimately prepare young engineers to not only be aware of

sustainability issues, but also be able to implement sustainable solutions in their regular

practice as engineers, decision makers, leaders, and change agents. Young engineering

prospects currently seek university programs that will provide them with opportunities to

develop into adaptable life-long learners, who are fully equipped to deal with the

complexities related to sustainability issues. At the same time, organizations worldwide are

demanding exactly the same qualities in their engineering employees. This puts engineering

education institutions worldwide under pressure to react, especially considering the current

noticeable deficit of socio-technical issues in most engineering curricula (El Maraghy, 2011

p.13). If universities fail to adapt to these challenges, then the already existing gap between

provided and required competences of engineering students will continue to grow

(Weckenmann et al., 2011 p.18).

Using maker spaces in engineering education seems to be a promising strategy to filling

some of these gaps, particularly in combination with a problem-oriented and student-

centered didactic approach. Worldwide, universities are beginning to introduce maker

spaces into their technology and community infrastructure, but it appears that these

programs still lack academic research (Forest et al., 2014 p.23). This must be addressed,

since maker activities have the potential to provide a leverage point for more sustainable

practices (e.g. more repair/maintenance, eco-design). However, environmental

sustainability cannot currently be considered a major priority in most maker spaces (Kohtala

et al., 2015). As learning environments, they provide students with valuable opportunities

to gain hands-on technical experience, engage in social learning and group projects, and

to learn to design sustainable products, services, processes, and systems. The lack of

research of these spaces results in an incomplete understanding of the necessary didactic

framework for integrating them effectively into engineering education (Assaf, 2014 p.18).

Here, universities also face another much greater and more general dilemma, namely that

65

there is a major gap between the state of the art learning research and its implementation

into actual didactic practice in educational institutions (Prange, 2011 p.188; Hattie, 2012

p.2). The increasing emphasis on self-regulated and life-long learning necessitates a shift

in the engineering education paradigm toward a student-centered structure. The aim of this

paper is to attempt to fill some of the gaps presented in this chapter, in order to enable

concrete steps toward making this shift a reality.

66

6. Didactic Concept

6.1 Introduction and Framework The mediation of sustainable value creation in engineering education, using maker spaces

as a learning environment, requires the planning and development of a clear didactic

concept. The concept presented in this chapter is strongly based on the state of the art of

learning research and engineering education (see chapters 3 and 4). The overall framework

is given by the different dimensions of the didactic triangle, oriented towards a student-

centered concept (see Figure 20). Within this chapter, a priority is placed on the student

and teacher perspectives, i.e. on the learning and teaching processes. Maker spaces

provide a production-oriented learning environment, that is well suited for a hands-on

mediation of sustainable value creation. Problem-based learning (PBL) provides a

structured didactic approach to lessons, that promotes both self-regulated and life-long

learning. Students work together in interdisciplinary groups, while being supported by their

teachers, thereby creating a social framework. The temporal framework of the didactic

concept is dependent on the level of its implementation. Here, a focus will be placed on the

various opportunities of implementation that universities generally provide: single

lecture/seminar, single project, course, curriculum. “The development of a new course

program or the innovation of an existing curriculum can also be seen as a design task”

(Rompelman et al., 2006 p.215). This means that engineering design methodology can also

be applied to the development of a didactic concept, e.g. the morphological box presented

in Figure 21. It breaks down the didactic concept into individual parts, thereby showing the

possibilities and enabling various forms of implementation. These forms range from short

to long term options, creating a spectrum of implementation possibilities that is used as a

general framework for the learning and teaching processes described in chapters 6.2 and

6.3.

67

Figure 20: A student-centered didactic triangle that illustrates the framework of the didactic concept, with sustainable value creation as the topic and the maker space as the learning environment (author’s own representation).

It is crucial that the didactic concept is flexible, adaptable, and most importantly modular. A

major reason for this is that it is difficult and capacity-consuming to introduce a new

program, or even to redevelop an existing one, so it must be made as simple as possible to

implement this new concept. Also, courses and curricula must constantly be re-adjusted to

student's needs and to changing demands of the job market and society. With regard to

learning, modularity enables the use of more open methods, in particular problem-based

and self-regulated learning, and the possibility for teachers to adapt to different levels of

prior knowledge of the students and their specific needs. This also applies to

technologically-oriented learning environments, since the state of the art of universities'

infrastructures greatly vary and new technological advancements can be gradually

introduced. The need for students to obtain experience in realistic product development

environments has long been established, which can be demonstrated by the recent

emergence of learning factories (Abele et al., 2015).

“Learning Factories pursue an action-oriented approach with participants

acquiring competences through structured self-learning processes in a

production-technological learning environment. Learning Factories

thereby integrate different teaching methods with the objective of moving

the teaching and learning processes closer to real industrial problems”

(Tisch et al., 2013 p.580).

68

The didactic structure described above is adopted to maker spaces as learning

environments within this didactic concept. Students are able to acquire hands-on

experiences with technology, while also training their collaboration and decision-making

abilities. The technological and procedural components of learning factories are generally

“industry-driven” and result in a more “top-down” approach (Forest et al., 2014 p.4). In

comparison to maker spaces, the technological investments needed to implement and run

learning factories are generally much larger, more specified, and less adaptable. Maker

spaces can be equipped in a modular manner, by simply adding machines or other elements

over time. A space equipped with a single 3-D printer can already be considered a maker

space, and is sufficient for simple design projects (Forest et al., 2014 p.24). Typically, the

technology found in maker spaces is inexpensive and constantly being improved, therefore

also presenting a much smaller financial risk than with learning factories. In general, maker

spaces “provide a flexible, creative environment to aid innovation and provide support as

members transform products from idea to reality” (Van Holm, 2015 p.28). The didactic

concept presented throughout this chapter can therefore be categorized as “bottom-up” and

“student-driven” (Forest et al., 2014 p.4).

The main goal of the concept is to create a socio-constructivist learning environment, where

students can integrate sustainable value creation into their engineering education. Maker

spaces are not only suited for this due to the reasons mentioned above, but also since they

are ideal spaces for problem-based design projects. Eco-design principles and the

product/service design process (see Figure 6 in chapter 2.3) provide the guidelines for the

mediation of sustainable value creation, including process and system design activities. A

theoretical background is combined with a practical hands-on approach. As a didactic

framework, PBL “provides students with a possibility of achieving sustainable and

transferable skills, while exposing them to complexities of global and cultural issues”

(Lehmann et al., 2008 p.282). The students will gain technological experience within the

maker space, in addition to practical ability, strong interpersonal skills, and an awareness

for sustainable development issues. The strength of this concept lies in going beyond simply

creating this awareness, by also enabling the students to actively develop into change

agents and future sustainability leaders in business and society. Since this represents a

substantial shift for the educational practices of most university institutions, it is

recommended that small steps be taken to implement this didactic concept, in a manner

that is adjusted to the specific local conditions and with a long-term focus. The options

presented in Figure 21 provide a basis for making concrete initial choices with regard to

implementation. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the didactic concept, it is

necessary to take a closer look at the learning and teaching processes involved.

69

Figure 21: A morphological box that enables concrete initial choices among a spectrum of implementation possibilities, ranging from short to long term options. The service design process can generally be applied to process and system design (author’s own representation).

6.2 Learning Concept When developing a student-driven didactic concept, one must first analyze the intended

target group. Within the scope of university engineering education, the case studies

presented in chapter 4.2 demonstrate that general principles of the mediation of sustainable

value creation can be applied in various engineering disciplines. With PBL as a didactic

framework, it is encouraged to attract an interdisciplinary group of students. The learning

concept described in this chapter is based on the state of the art of learning research,

therefore it can be applied to any target group of engineering students17. Learning is

organized around understanding and solving complex problems in interdisciplinary groups.

The overall structure of the learning concept is displayed in Figure 22.

17 Depending on where the concept is implemented, different social and cultural influences and specifics must be considered. However, a discussion on this goes beyond the scope of this work.

70

Figure 22: A student-centered learning concept that integrates a theoretical background and a practical application. Students receive teacher support and gain feedback in group discussions. Author’s own representation based on (Riel et al., 2015 p.33).

Each of the three sections is made up of individual modules, that can be adjusted to different

temporal frameworks, depending on the level of implementation. A theoretical background

is complemented with a practical application within a maker space, while students receive

feedback and guidance in group discussions and through teacher support. Students learn

through interacting with the content (topic in the didactic triangle), the learning environment,

the teacher and their peers. This facilitates an active knowledge exchange among all of the

members, which is enhanced by the learning by doing approach used within maker spaces.

Students participate in communities of practice, in which their teachers are seen more as

facilitators and sustainable engineering experts. An overall objective of the concept is to

enable engineering students to develop into sustainability leaders and change agents. Here,

PBL provides “opportunities for an increased outreach of education, i.e. learning to the

benefit of communities, university faculty, and students” (see Figure 18 in chapter 4.2.2)

(Lehmann et al., 2008 p.291). This results in a concept that relies much on self-regulated

and collaborative learning, with an additional emphasis on communication processes, e.g.

within group discussions.

The entire learning concept centers around design activities, organized as project work, that

result from the general product/service design process. Sustainable value creation requires

an orientation of these activities toward eco-design principles, thereby placing a general

focus on a life cycle approach, which aims to maximize value creation through integrated

solutions. Students should understand sustainability “as an advantage rather than an

addition burden” and as an “engine of innovation of products, services and processes” (Riel

et al., 2015 p.33). Product-service-systems (PSS) are not only an important lever for

71

sustainable value creation through innovation, but they also enable the integration of

business model design and eco-design within this concept. Students are given opportunities

to deal with complex problems related to the real world, which require them to develop

interdisciplinary skills, an array of competences, and contextual knowledge, in order to

develop multi-dimensional design solutions. An overview of technical and professional

learning outcomes needed for sustainable value creation in a real-world context is shown

in Figure 23. These outcomes serve as a guideline for the didactic concept and all learning

processes.

Figure 23: A list of technical and professional learning outcomes that enable students to become sustainability leaders in industry and society (Litchfield et al., 2016 p.73).

The learning concept in Figure 22 reveals an educational structure that is meant to develop

the “head, heart and hands” of the students (Brühlmeier, 2010). Learning is personalized

by engaging the students in self-regulated learning processes, as much of the actual

content is acquired individually through self-study modules. The knowledge acquired

through self-study is then shared in group sessions, organized as seminars, where students

and the teacher give feedback and are able to clarify any questions. The practical

application of this knowledge in maker spaces creates opportunities for tactical engagement

with technology, as students collaborate on problem-oriented design projects. They set their

own goals and physically create objects using the technology and tools available within the

maker space. This creates a learning environment where students interact with technology

within “social labs where people learn and share knowledge and skills” (Schrock, 2014 p.4).

72

Digital media and the internet are regarded as valuable tools for self-study and for the

acquisition and sharing of knowledge. This is enhanced due to the fact that digital fabrication

technology and the maker movement are closely linked with online open-source platforms

and communities, giving students a unique opportunity to learn informally and to access a

wide range of openly available resources18. Online communication tools (e.g. website,

mailing lists, wikis) can be used to share knowledge and information between students and

with university faculty. Students should be encouraged to take ownership of the maker

space environment (i.e. be able to make changes, maintenance, financing, etc.), turning it

into an experiential space for them to develop flexibility, innovative ideas, and creativity

when dealing with technology. All of the project work done within the maker space is

oriented toward eco-design principles and the sustainable triple bottom line. Theoretical

inputs from the teacher and group discussions are intended to supplement this process,

providing a greater awareness and understanding of sustainability issues and their effect

on decision-making. Students are then immediately able to actively develop their

sustainable decision-making abilities in hands-on, open-ended design-build projects.

Formal and informal learning processes are united, enabling the students to be well

prepared to transfer the knowledge, skills and competences they acquire to real-world

problems.

The modularity of the learning concept makes different levels of implementation possible.

Single lectures or seminars offer a short temporal framework, which leads to the need for a

stronger reliance on external direction of the learning processes. With projects, courses and

entire curricula, the longer time frame can be used to give students more space for self-

regulated learning processes. The degree of self-direction within the concept is therefore

dependent on the depth of its implementation. Self-study periods and some of the group

discussions are based on individual learning modules, which the students work through

autonomously and then share their results with the other members. The actual content of

these modules can be adjusted to tailor specific needs. This provides a flexibility and

adaptability of the theoretical component of the didactic concept. There are many open-

source resources available online that can be used to develop these individual modules,

e.g. Blue Engineering modules (see chapter 4.2.3). The practical application in the maker

space is also dependent on the length of the temporal framework. If students are expected

to go through the entire design process in their project work, then single lectures or seminars

simply do not provide a sufficient time frame. Therefore, within this concept the design

18 Online platforms, such as Thingiverse, give an open access to shared 3-D digital design files. Here, a vast variety of hardware designs are available directly for download. For alternative platforms to Thingiverse, see (https://www.printspace3d.com/10-alternative-websites-to-thingiverse-com/).

73

process is split into separate stages (see Figure 21), allowing for a focus on an individual

stage within a shorter time period (e.g. only dealing with preliminary design, or prototyping

and redesign). If more time is available, then multiple stages or the whole design process

can be included. It should be noted that even within projects or courses, lectures and

seminars should be included, since students always rely on a certain degree of external

direction.

Design education offers a large variety of learning activities, since products can be

redesigned, developed, or merely assessed (Luttikhuis, 2015). With eco-design this can

also be applied to services, processes and systems, or even to integrated solutions, such

as PSS. Recycling and other 6R activities (see chapter 2.3) can also be incorporated, as

well as rapid prototyping using digital fabrication technology. To gain a better idea of what

an actual implementation could look like, concrete examples will now be presented, ranging

from short to long term implementations. Digital fabrication technology is closely linked to

computer-aided design (CAD) software, and there exists a global and extensive online

network of open-source CAD models. Within a short temporal framework, it is therefore

possible to simply download one of these open-source models and print it using a 3-D

printer. Here, students could focus more on the materials used, or on analyzing the use and

disposal/recovery phase of the product's life cycle. With more time, students can actually

apply deeper engineering skills and design their own products and 3-D CAD models. Here

students can gain a deeper understanding of the importance of design prototyping, while

also considering scalability and taking the sustainable triple bottom line into account during

their decision-making processes. When only little time is available, didactically prepared

problems and design solutions can be used. Whereas, with more time, students are able to

collaboratively develop their own innovative solutions to complex, real-world problems. The

more time students spend together working in groups, the greater the opportunities for

developing their social and collaborative competences. This also gives them more time to

interact with the maker space as a learning environment. The didactic concept must be

implemented in projects, courses or curricula, in order to allow students to establish

sustainable habits as engineers. Therefore, since the concept aims to go beyond simply

raising awareness for sustainability issues and sustainable value creation, it should be

oriented toward a long temporal framework. This is also encouraged with respect to

increasing the degree of self-direction, thereby enabling students to develop as self-

regulated and life-long learners, and ensuring that they will be able to apply what they have

learned outside of the university environment.

74

6.3 Teaching Concept This student-driven didactic concept requires a shift from the traditional teaching paradigm

in engineering education, which is lecture-based and structured around basic technical

knowledge, to a new paradigm that is “interdisciplinary, contextualized, student-centered,

and based on a complex understanding of technical knowledge” (Lehmann et al., 2008

p.283). The main task of teachers is therefore no longer transferring knowledge, but rather

to facilitate the learning processes of the students. As future engineering professionals,

students are expected to learn how to act self-determined in unknown situations and to find

new and creative solutions to problems. Traditional lecture-based teaching methods have

shown limited effectiveness in developing the competences students need to develop into

future sustainability leaders and creative problem solvers (Abele et al., 2015 p.1).

Sustainable value creation should therefore be mediated as a “fully integrated design

objective”, that is aimed towards “capturing the added value of acting environmentally

responsible in heavily competitive economic environments” (Riel et al., 2015 p.34). Overall,

it is the responsibility of teachers to facilitate the following didactic goals and allow their

engineering students to (based on Fernandes et al., 2011 p.38):

• train in realistic manufacturing environments (maker space).

• modernize and personalize their learning processes.

• adopt sustainable consumption and production awareness and habits.

• develop new ideas through innovation and entrepreneurship.

• gain skills concerning divergent thought (e.g. creativity techniques) and viability

evaluation.

• gain awareness for technical careers.

• gain awareness of manufacturing processes and their links to everyday life.

• develop into self-regulated and life-long learners.

These goals are pursued within the didactic structure of the learning concept (Figure 22).

The temporal framework can once again vary depending on the concept's level of

implementation. When a short time frame is available it is necessary that teachers provide

students with more external direction, both theoretically (e.g. lectures/seminars) and

practically (e.g. technical exercises/tutorials). With more time available, teachers take up

more of a facilitating role, as students are enabled to engage in collaborative, problem-

oriented project work as self-regulated learners. It is crucial to acknowledge that students

do not always discover complex ideas by themselves, and they are not always already

capable of learning through self-direction. Therefore, within this concept a scaffolding

approach is suggested, where teachers initially provide a larger degree of external direction

75

and then gradually assist the students in shifting towards more self-regulated learning

processes. This should be applied to all three sections of the learning concept. Before the

students fully engage in their self-study periods and collaborative project work, teachers

provide some initial content and context through lectures and seminars. This is then

reflected in early group discussions, and applied in technical exercises and tutorials in the

maker space environment. The goal of this initial phase is to situate the students within a

real-world context, and to prepare them to use the maker space learning environment as a

technical experiential space. In order for teachers to personalize learning, they must realize

their diagnostic function and assess the student's prior knowledge, skills and competencies,

as well as their developments throughout the program. In general, teaching activities should

center around facilitating communication processes and maintaining social order.

By integrating a theoretical background and a practical application, teachers enable their

students to engage in complementary periods of thought/reflection and action. Much of the

content of the didactic concept is research-based19, so initially teachers must show their

students where to find current state of the art research (e.g. online platforms like

ScienceDirect). They can then interact with this research autonomously during their self-

study modules. Teachers bring all of the students together in group discussions in regular

intervals, so that they can facilitate an active communication about the content. Students

are then able to practically apply what they have learned throughout their group work within

the maker space, as they collaborate on problem-based design tasks. This process is

accompanied by further group discussions, where teachers provide feedback and

consultation to the students. These group sessions are also used by teachers to clarify any

arising social conflicts, thereby helping to maintain a social order. Students will have many

issues to discuss, since working on open-ended design problems is complex and feedback

is a vital component of the design process. Learning is organized within an engineering

community of practice, where teachers are seen by the students as experts, especially with

regard to sustainable value creation. It is therefore crucial that teachers model learning

strategies and technical skills, while making a continuous effort to make the learning and

teaching processes visible through communication. This also allows teachers to engage

students in communication about their learning progress, meanwhile assessing their own

impact on the student's learning. Teachers are expected to constantly make adjustments to

their teaching strategies, which requires them to be flexible and adaptable with their

approach.

19 For a more in-depth description of research-based learning, in this case within the scope of sustainable production engineering in learning factories, see (Blume et al., 2015).

76

The role of teachers in facilitating self-regulated learning processes has been thoroughly

discussed in chapter 3.3.7. Within this concept, students are recognized as life-long

learners that have to deal with motivation, attention, emotions, self-efficacy beliefs, memory

and media during their learning processes. Therefore, it is critical that teachers can

complement their engineering knowledge with an understanding of the state of the art

learning research. Chapter 3 offers a basic overview of this research and can be used as a

starting point for the training of teachers to acquire this knowledge. As experts in the

community of practice, teachers should model behavior and strategies, which the students

can then emulate. Through didactic methods, such as cognitive apprenticeships, teachers

can make cognitive and meta-cognitive processes visible. It is recommended to

communicate about these issues with students within group sessions, and also in more

personal consultation hours. Additionally, mediating a theoretical input of learning theories

and state of the art research in lectures or seminars is encouraged. Providing cognitive

activation, personal learning support, and classroom management will ensure a high quality

didactic program. It is pivotal for teachers to awaken an interest in sustainable value

creation, and to then engage students in an active dialogue around it. Students should be

expected to continuously secure their learning results and to practically apply them to new

tasks. Teachers should use inquiry-based learning, as a means of engaging the students in

critical thought, and helping them to use questions as guides to their problem-solving

activities. The students must be given sufficient time in the maker space to collaboratively

work on their design projects, which will ensure that they develop deep knowledge, skills

and competences, that can then be applied beyond the scope of the program. Overall, the

new teaching approach results in more interaction and communication between the teacher

and students, enabling a more holistic and authentic assessment approach, based on

presentations, portfolios, reports and project results (e.g. product prototype). Integrating

various forms of media and digital fabrication technology in the maker space, as well as

traditional manufacturing technology, allows for innovation and entrepreneurship to become

central elements of the didactic concept. Teachers must develop a framework for these

practical activities, and must also ensure that the sustainable triple bottom line is

incorporated into students' decision-making processes (e.g. through guidelines and

checklists). The entire concept is designed according to these demands, and can be

implemented successfully if teachers are able to facilitate learning among the students,

using the concepts presented throughout this chapter.

77

6.4 Outlook An ideal implementation of this didactic concept results in a higher likelihood that students

are able to develop a deep awareness for sustainability issues, and to establish sustainable

habits when dealing with value creation processes as engineers. As mentioned in the

previous chapters, this full potential can only be realized with a long-term implementation

approach. The goal here should be to establish this concept at a departmental/institutional

level (Riel et al., 2015 p.33). However, this process takes time and requires individual steps

of implementation, that are initially oriented toward short-term programs and gradually

extended to entire courses or curricula. At this point, it is highly recommended to use the

best practice case study examples from chapter 4.2 as guidance. The PBL approach at

Aalborg University impressively shows how to establish entire bachelor and master

programs around problem-based project work. A very important feature of this approach is

the close collaboration with partners from industry and society. This should be viewed as a

best practice example of how to collaborate and share knowledge between various

stakeholders in society. The student-centered nature of the Blue Engineering seminar is an

ideal model for how to engage students in self-regulated learning processes, that also make

sure to include regular periods of feedback and reflection. The strength of the seminar lies

in its modularity and adaptability, as well as in the fact that the course is enhanced and

developed by the students themselves. This not only engages students in meaningful life-

long learning processes, but also relieves teachers from being solely responsible for the

further development of the program. The Invention Studio is a strong best practice example

for how to run a student-led maker space, that fosters open-ended design-build projects. It

represents an ideal of the maker space as a learning environment, since it is fully equipped

and regularly used within the framework of the university curriculum, individual student

projects, and in collaboration with partners from industry and society. The Invention Studio

demonstrates that it is possible to have students take control of all aspects of the maker

space, including financially and technically, as well as enabling them to take responsibility

and be leaders of their communities of practice.

By taking a closer look at these case studies, various idealized goals can be defined for the

didactic concept presented throughout this chapter. Individual lectures, seminars and

tutorials can succeed in mediating basic aspects of sustainable value creation, however

longer time frames are needed to truly develop young engineering students into future

sustainability leaders. It is essential to provide a real-world context for the problems that

students strive to solve in their collaborative project work, which can be achieved through

co-operations with partners from industry and society. Actually working on real-world

78

problems, will motivate students and expose them to the complexity of the multiple

dimensions involved in solving them, e.g. economical, environmental, social, cultural, etc.

Within the didactic concept, teachers must assume more of a facilitator role, which may be

a major readjustment for many of them, having to shift from a more lecture-based approach

to a more student-centered learning concept. A major aspect of this new role is trusting and

empowering students to take more responsibility for their learning and for the development

of the program. An initially small-scale implementation can be scaled up over time through

student participation. For example, students who have already completed the initial

programs designed around this didactic concept, can then be utilized as tutors and trainers

for students of future programs. This is particularly beneficial within the maker space

environment, since new students will always require a degree of external direction,

especially with respect to technical issues. By engaging more experienced students to

assume the role of tutors/mentors in the maker space, teachers have more capacity to focus

on facilitating learning and engaging students in vital communication processes. Overall,

the mediation of sustainable value creation is most successful when the didactic concept is

student-centered and problem-oriented. This must not be achieved all at once, but rather

can be approached gradually through a well-thought out implementation scheme that has

a long-term focus, while taking small steps to achieve tangible progress. The initial phase

is perhaps the most difficult, since from then on the program can be steadily developed

through a continuous improvement cycle, i.e. PDCA cycle (see Figure 24).

Figure 24: The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle enables a continuous improvement of processes. Firstly, the current process is assessed and changes to bring about improvements are planned. Then small-scale changes are implemented in the do-phase as a trial and to gather initial feedback. In the check-phase the results from the do-phase are evaluated to see if the changes are working to improve the process. Finally, if the changes are viable and successful, they are standardized and integrated into further training procedures. The cycle is continued iteratively, thereby ensuring that the process is always improved over time (Sandrino-Arndt, 2012

p.443).

79

7. Conclusion and Outlook The didactic concept presented in this paper aims to enable the mediation of sustainable

value creation in maker spaces, using a problem-oriented and self-regulated approach to

learning. It provides methods and strategies that can be used in engineering education, as

it shifts from a teacher-centered paradigm to one that is student-centered. This shift is

currently in progress, and there are a growing number of universities that are adjusting their

programs to better incorporate sustainability issues. There is a well-established need to

develop young engineers into change agents and sustainability leaders in industry and

society. However, a closer look at state of the art engineering education research shows

that, universities must do a better job of integrating innovative learning approaches into their

structures. Here, the developed didactic concept can serve as a basis for different

implementation schemes, ranging from short to long-term. The concept’s adaptability and

modularity ensure that it can be implemented in a wide range of scenarios, although

adjustments to specific conditions must always be accounted for. Its full potential can only

be achieved with a long-term implementation, nonetheless it is recommended to start with

short-term, small-scale initiatives. Over time, this base program can then be continuously

developed and scaled up, e.g. through student participation and interdisciplinary

partnerships. In some cases, readjusting already established programs toward sustainable

value creation is preferred to the introduction of completely new programs.

A further challenge is the integration of maker spaces as learning environments. As

production-oriented experiential spaces, they are well suited to host problem-oriented and

self-regulated learning processes. Therefore, the didactic concept is oriented around these

processes and aims to actively engage students in a hands-on approach to sustainable

value creation. Within its framework, students can develop technical skills, sustainable

development knowledge, and life-long learning competences. The technological framework

is also approached in an adaptable and modular manner, since it is possible to start with

few machines and tools, and to then scale up over time. Digital fabrication technology and

small-scale machines are inexpensive, and represent a minimalized risk for students, when

dealing with them in their various design activities. State of the art learning research shows

that maker spaces have an incredible potential to connect formal and informal learning, and

can be designed to facilitate collaborative communities of practice. Eco-design, product-

service systems, and other sustainable value creation methods can be explored within the

maker space environment. Although maker spaces aren’t automatically oriented toward

sustainability, a clear didactic concept that centers around developing young engineers into

sustainability experts can be realized within them. Due to a lack of research, it is still unclear

80

exactly what an ideal concept looks like. This work does not claim to offer an ideal solution,

but instead aims to serve as a starting point for committed efforts at establishing innovative

programs. It also addresses many of the specifics involved in using maker spaces as

learning environments, especially in combination with problem-based learning and teaching

methods. Its strength lies in the possibility to engage students in an active discussion around

sustainable value creation, as they develop a deep awareness for sustainability issues, and

can ultimately learn to integrate these considerations into their decision-making and habits

as engineers.

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this work, it was possible to approach the didactic

concept from multiple dimensions and to gain a more complete understanding of learning

and teaching processes. Nonetheless, much can be done to enhance and build upon the

presented concept. Firstly, as learning environments maker spaces can be equipped in a

great variety of ways. Although this provides many opportunities for implementing them into

engineering education, there needs to be an examination of the ideal maker space setting

and technological set-up. It should be analyzed, whether certain technological standards

can be set to ensure a high-quality mediation of sustainable value creation, and how

sustainable design processes can best be incorporated. A further challenge is adjusting the

mediation methods in university programs toward a student-centered paradigm. There is

much research about the need for this shift, however not enough concepts are actively

implemented into standard practices. It is up to university faculty to enable this transition,

and to provide students with opportunities to take more responsibility for their learning. The

potential of scaling up basic programs through student participation should also be further

examined. This could be a promising approach to increasing the rate of transition to this

new paradigm, while helping students develop a whole range of skills and competences

needed as sustainability leaders and change agents. Overall, it is encouraged to

supplement further theoretical research into these challenges, with an increased effort to

actively implement and practically test new and innovative didactic concepts in engineering

education, such as the one presented within this work. Finally, since sustainable

development is a global issue, the cultural and societal specifications of implementations in

various countries worldwide should be further considered. Surely, there are standards in

didactic approaches based on state of the art learning research, but different cultures

always require slightly different learning and teaching conditions. Engineering education

institutions worldwide must collaborate and collectively strive to create better conditions,

where students are adequately prepared for the uncertainties and the complexities involved

in the transition toward sustainable development.

81

8. Bibliography Abd-Elall, S.; Reise, C.; Seliger, G. (2011): A dynamic model for matching job market qualifications demand and educational market qualifications supply. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 51–56.

Abele, E.; Metternich, J.; Tisch, M.; Chryssolouris, G.; Sihn, W.; ElMaraghy, H. et al. (2015): Learning factories for research, education, and training. In Procedia CIRP (32), pp. 1–6.

Adair, J. G.; Belanger, D.; Dion, K. L. (Eds.) (1998): Advances in psychological science: personal, social and cultural aspects. 1st ed. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Anderson, C. (2012): Makers: The new industrial revolution: Crown Business.

Arnold, R.; Gómez Tutor, C.; Kammerer, J. (2001): Selbstlernkompetenzen: Arbeitspapier 1 des Forschungsprojekts „Selbstlernfähigkeit, pädagogische Professionalität und Lernkulturwandel“. Kaiserslautern. Available online at http://www.die-bonn.de/id/8504.

Arnold, R.; Pätzold, H. (2003): Lernen ohne Lehren. In W. Wittwer, S. Kirchhof (Eds.): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand, pp. 107–126.

Ashby, M. F. (2016): Materials and Sustainable Development. Cambridge: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Aspin, D. N.; Chapman, J. D.; Hatton, M. J.; Sawano, Y. (Eds.) (2001): International Handbook of Lifelong Learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Assaf, D. (2014): Maker Spaces in Schulen: Ein Raum für Innovation (Hands-on Session). In K. Rummler (Ed.): Lernräume gestalten: Bildungskontexte vielfältig denken. Münster: Waxmann, pp. 141–149.

Atkinson, J. W.; Shiffrin, R. M. (1968): Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence, J. T. Spence (Eds.): The psychology of learning and motivation. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press, pp. 89–195.

Baacke, D. (1997): Medienpädagogik: Grundlagen der Medienkommunikation. 1st ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000): Short-term and working memory. In E. Tulving, F.I. M. Craik (Eds.): The Oxford handbook of memory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–92.

Bandura, A. (1977): Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993): Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. In Educational Psychologist (28), pp. 117–148.

Bandura, A. (1997): Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1998): Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In J. G. Adair, D. Belanger, K. L. Dion (Eds.): Advances in psychological science: personal, social and cultural aspects. 1st ed. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 51–71.

Bandura, A. (1999): Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. In Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2), pp. 21–41.

Barrows, H. S. (1996): Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. In New Directions for Teaching & Learning (68), pp. 3–12.

Barrows, H. S.; Tamblyn, R. M. (1980): Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Blume, S.; Madanchi, N.; Böhme, S.; Posselt, G.; Thiede, S.; Herrmann, C. (2015): Die Lernfabrik: research-based learning for sustainable production engineering. In Procedia CIRP (32), pp. 126–131.

Boekaerts, M.; Niemivirta, M. (2000): Self-Regulated Learning: finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.): Handbook of Self-Regulation: Academic Press, pp. 417–450.

82

Boekaerts, M.; Pintrich, P. R.; Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000): Handbook of Self-Regulation: Academic Press.

Bower, G. H. (1992): How might emotions affect learning? In S. Christianson (Ed.): The Handbook of Emotion and Memory: research and theory. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 3–31.

Brehm, J. W.; Self, E. A. (1989): The intensity of motivation. In Annual Review of Psychology (40), pp. 109–131.

Brewster Smith, M. (1974): Humanizing social psychology: Jossey Bass.

Brühlmeier, A. (2010): Head, Heart and Hand: education in the spirit of Pestalozzi. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

Bruner, J. S. (1961): The Act of Discovery. In Harvard Educational Review (31), pp. 21–32.

Bruner, J. S. (1990): Acts of Meaning: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1997): Will cognitive revolutions ever stop? In D. M. Johnson, C. E. Erneling (Eds.): The future of the cognitive revolution: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–292.

Bruner, J. S.; Goodnow, J. J.; Austin, G. A. (1956): A Study of Thinking. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Buchanan, T. W. (2007): Retrieval of emotional memories. In Psychological Bulletin (133/5), pp. 761–779.

Christianson, S. (Ed.) (1992): The Handbook of Emotion and Memory: research and theory. New York: Psychology Press.

Clement, U.; Arnold, R. (Eds.) (2002): Kompetenzentwicklung in der beruflichen Bildung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

Collins, A.; Brown, J. S.; Holum, A. (1991): Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. In American Educator (6/11), pp. 38–46.

Corcoran, P. B.; Calder, W.; Clugston, R. M. (2002): Introduction: higher education for sustainable development. In Higher Education Policy (15), pp. 99–103.

Corno, L. (1993): The best-laid plans: modern conceptions of volition and educational research. In Educational Research (22), pp. 14–22.

de Jong, A. J. M.; Ferguson-Hessler, M. G.M. (1996): Types and qualities of knowledge. In Educational Psychologist (31/2), pp. 105–113.

Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2008): Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. In Canadian Psychology (49/1), pp. 14–23.

Deitering, F. G. (1995): Selbstgesteuertes Lernen. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.

Dewey, J. (2007): Democracy and Education: Echo Library.

Diamond, D. M.; Campbell, A. M.; Park, C. R.; Halonen, J.; Zoladz, P. R. (2007): The Temporal Dynamics Model of Emotional Memory Processing: a synthesis on the neurobiological basis of stress-induced amnesia, flashbulb and traumatic memories, and the Yerkes-Dodson Law. In Neural Plasticity.

Dinkelaker, J. (2011): Aufmerksamkeit. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 175–182.

Dinkelaker, J. (2011): Lernen. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 133–139.

Dombrowski, U.; Schulze, S.; Weckenborg, S. (2011): Evaluation of post-series supply strategies in regard of sustainability. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 337–341.

Dougherty, D. (2016): Free to Make: How the maker movement is changing our schools, our jobs, and our minds. With assistance of A. Conrad. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.

83

Dweck, C. S.; Master, A. (2008): Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk, B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.): Motivation and Self-Regualted Learning: theory, research, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 31–51.

Eccles, J. S.; Wigfield, A. (2002): Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. In Annual Review of Psychology (53), pp. 109–132.

El Maraghy, W. H. (2011): Future trends in engineering education and research. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 11–16.

Elkington, J. (1999): Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2017): Circular Economy System Diagram. Available online at https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/interactive-diagram.

Emmons, R. A. (2003): Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: wellsprings of a positive life. In C. L. M. Keyes, J. Haidt (Eds.): Flourishing: positive psychology and the life well-lived. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 105–128.

Erpenbeck, J.; Heyse, V. (2007): Die Kompetenzbiographie: Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. 2nd ed. Münster: Waxmann.

Fernandes, C.; Rocha, L. (2011): Manufacturing Sustainability: aligning youth mindsets. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 37–42.

Forest, C. R.; Moore, R. A.; Jariwala, A. S.; Fasse, B. B.; Linsey, J.; Newstetter, W. et al. (2014): The Invention Studio: a university maker space and culture. In Advances in Engineering Education (Summer).

Frank, I. (2003): Erfassung und Anerkennung informell erworbener Kompetenzen: Entwicklung und Perspektiven in Deutschland und in ausgewählten europäischen Ländern. In W. Wittwer, S. Kirchhof (Eds.): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand, pp. 168–209.

Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A. A.; Figueroa, A.; Lenny Koh, S.C. (2017): Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. In Omega (66), pp. 344–357.

Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. (2016): A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. In Journal of Cleaner Production (114), pp. 11–32.

Goldblum, N. (2001): The Brain-Shaped Mind: what the brain can tell us about the mind. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goleman, D. (1995): Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Grabinger, R. S.; Dunlap, J. C. (1995): Rich environments for active learning: a definition. In Association for Learning Technology Journal (3/2), pp. 5–34.

Gray, P. O. (2014): Psychology. 7th ed.: Worth Publishers.

Greene, J. A.; Azevedo, R. (2009): A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. In Contemporary Educational Psychology (34), pp. 18–29.

Greene, J. A.; Costa, L.; Robertson, J.; Pan, Y.; Deekens, V. M. (2010): Exploring relations among college students’ prior knowledge, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning in a hypermedia environment. In Computers & Education (55), pp. 1027–1043.

Greene, J. A.; Hutchison, L. A.; Costa, L.; Crompton, H. (2012): Investigating how college students’ task definitions and plans relate to self-regulated learning processing and understanding of a complex science topic. In Contemporary Educational Psychology (37), pp. 307–320.

Halisch, F.; Kuhl, J. (Eds.) (1987): Motivation, Intention, and Volition. Berlin: Springer.

Hattie, J. (2012): Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.

84

Hebb, D. O. (1958): A textbook of psychology: W.B. Saunders Company.

Helmke, A. (2003): Unterrichtsqualität: erfassen, bewerten, verbessern. Seelze: Kallmeyer.

Helmke, A.; Helmke, T.; Lenske, G.; Pham, G.; Praetorius, A. K.; Schrader, F. W.; Ade-Thurrow, M. (2010): Studienbrief Unterrichtsdiagnostik. Edited by Kultusministerkonferenz. Available online at http://www.zfsl-dortmund.nrw.de/Lehrerausbildung_auf_dem_Weg_zur_inklusiven_Schule/Handreichungen/UDiKom-studienbrief_2_unterrichtsdiagnostik.pdf.

Herkommer, E.; Bartol, A. (2004): Der Aktuelle Begriff - Nachhaltigkeit. In Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages (06/2004).

Herrmann, C.; Bogdanski, G.; Winter, M.; Heinemann, T.; Thiede, S.; Zein, A. (2011): Sustainability in Production Engineering: holistic thinking in education. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 25–30.

Hmelo, C. E. (1998): Problem-based learning: effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. In Journal of the Learning Sciences (7/2), pp. 173–208.

Humboldt, W. von (1851): Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen. 1st ed. Breslau: Trewendt.

Jawahir, I.S.; Jayal, A.D. (2011): Product and process innovation for modeling of sustainable machining processes. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 299–305.

Johnson, D. M.; Erneling, C. E. (Eds.) (1997): The future of the cognitive revolution: Oxford University Press.

Kade, J. (2011): Wissenskommunikation. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 36–43.

Kade, J.; Helsper, W.; Lüders, C.; Egloff, B.; Radtke, F. O.; Thole, W. (Eds.) (2011): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.

Kant, I. (1784): Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? In Berlinische Monatsschrift (12), pp. 481–494.

Kellam, N.; Walther, J.; Constantino, T.; Cramond, B. (2013): Integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio. In Advances in Engineering Education (Winter).

Keller, J. M. (2008): First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. In Distance Education (29/2), pp. 175–185.

Keyes, C. L. M.; Haidt, J. (Eds.) (2003): Flourishing: positive psychology and the life well-lived. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Kirchhof, S.; Kreimeyer, J. (2003): Informelles Lernen im sozialen Umfeld: Lernende im Spannungsfeld zwischen individueller Kompetenzentwicklung und gesellschaftlicher Vereinnahmung. In W. Wittwer, S. Kirchhof (Eds.): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand, pp. 213–240.

Klafki, W. (1996): Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. 5th ed. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

Klieme, E.; Lipowsky, F.; Rakoczy, K. (2006): Qualitätsdimensionen und Wirksamkeit von Mathematikunterricht: Theoretische Grundlagen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projekts "Pythagoras". In M. Prenzel, L. Allolio-Näcke (Eds.): Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule. Münster: Waxmann, pp. 127–146.

Koho, M.; Nylund, H.; Arha, T.; Torvinen, S. (2011): Towards manufacturing system sustainability assessment: an initial tool and development plans. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 307–312.

Kohtala, C.; Hyysalo, S. (2015): Anticipated environmental sustainability of personal fabrication. In Journal of Cleaner Production (99), pp. 333–344.

85

Kolb, D. A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kuhl, J. (1987): Action control: the maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch, J. Kuhl (Eds.): Motivation, Intention, and Volition. Berlin: Springer, pp. 279–307.

Lave, J.; Wenger, E. (1991): Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lebow, D. (1993): Constructivist values for instructional systems design: five principles toward a new mindset. In Educational Technology Research and Development (41/3), pp. 4–16.

Lefrançois, G. R. (2015): Psychologie des Lernens. 5th ed. Heidelberg: Springer.

Lehmann, M.; Christensen, P.; Du, X; Thrane, M. (2008): Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. In European Journal of Engineering Education (33/3), pp. 281–293.

Linderholm, T. (2006): Reading with purpose. In Journal of College Reading and Learning (36/2), pp. 70–80.

Lister, M.; Dovey, J.; Giddings, S.; Grant, I.; Kelly, K. (2009): New Media: a critical introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Litchfield, K.; Javernick-Will, A.; Maul, A. (2016): Technical and professional skills of engineers involved and not involved in engineering service. In Journal of Engineering Education (105/1), pp. 70–92.

Luhmann, N. (1996): Die Realität der Massenmedien. 2.th ed. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Luhmann, N. (2002): Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. 1st ed. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Luttikhuis, E.J. O.; Toxopeus, M.E.; Lutters, E. (2015): Effective integration of life cycle engineering in education. In Procedia CIRP (29), pp. 550–555.

Lynton, E. A. (1989): Higher Education and American Competitiveness. Edited by National Center on Education and the Economy.

Maslow, A. H. (1943): A theory of human motivation. In Psychological Review (50), pp. 370–396.

Maslow, A. H. (1970): Motivation and personality. 2nd ed.: Harper & Row.

Meadows, D. H.; Meadows, D. L.; Randers, J.; Behrens III, W. W. (1972): The Limits to Growth: a report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

Meseth, W.; Proske, M. (2011): Unterricht. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 102–108.

Meyer, M. P. (2005): Management von Ingenieurkompetenzen im Spannungsfeld beruflicher Arbeitsteilung. Berlin: Franhofer IRB Verlag.

Miller, G. A. (1956): The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. In Psychological Review (63/2), pp. 81–97.

Mrozewski, M.; Fajga, K.; von Matuschka, A. (2011): The impact of technology-oriented university start-ups on regional development: the case of the Technical University Berlin. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 63–68.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (Ed.): NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. Available online at http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/, checked on 1/2/2018.

Nolda, S. (2011): Medien. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 109–115.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012): Sustainable Materials Management: Making better use of resources. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/sustainablematerialsmanagementmakingbetteruseofresources.htm.

86

Overwien, B. (2003): Das lernende Subjekt als Ausgangspunkt: Befreiungspädagogik und informelles Lernen. In W. Wittwer, S. Kirchhof (Eds.): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand, pp. 43–70.

Pedaste, M.; Mäeots, M.; Siiman, L. A.; de Jong, T.; van Riesen, S. A.N.; Kamp, E. T. et al. (2015): Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle. In Educational Research Review (14), pp. 47–61.

Pekrun, R.; Goetz, T.; Titz, W.; Perry, R. P. (2002): Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. In Educational Psychologist (37), pp. 91–106.

Pelletier, N.; Maas, R.; Goralczyk, M.; Wolf, M. (2012): Towards a life-cycle based European sustainability footprint framework: theory, concepts, applications. In European Commission Joint Research Centre Scientific and Policy Reports.

Piaget, J. (1997): The moral judgement of the child: Free Press Paperbacks.

Pigosso, D.C.A.; Rozenfeld, H.; Seliger, G. (2011): Ecodesign maturity model: criteria for methods and tools classification. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 239–243.

Prange, K. (2011): Didaktik und Methodik. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 183–188.

Prenzel, M.; Allolio-Näcke, L. (Eds.) (2006): Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule. Münster: Waxmann.

Reisberg, D.; Hertel, P. (Eds.) (2003): Memory and Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Riel, A.; Lelah, A.; Mandil, G.; Rio, M.; Tichkiewitch, S.; Zhang, F.; Zwolinski, P. (2015): An innovative approach to teaching sustainable design and management. In Procedia CIRP (36), pp. 29–34.

Rompelman, O.; de Graaff, E. (2006): The engineering of engineering education: curriculum development from a designer’s point of view. In European Journal of Engineering Education (31/2), pp. 215–226.

Rothermund, K.; Eder, A. (2011): Allgemeine Psychologie: Motivation und Emotion. 1st ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Rowan, J. (1998): Maslow ammended. In Journal of Humanistic Psychology (38), pp. 81–92.

Rummler, K. (Ed.) (2014): Lernräume gestalten: Bildungskontexte vielfältig denken. Münster: Waxmann.

Salkind, N. J. (Ed.) (2008): Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Sandrino-Arndt, B.; Thomas, R. L.; Becker, L. (Eds.) (2012): Handbuch Project Management Office: mit PMO zum strategischen Management der Projektlandschaft. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf: Symposium.

Sarkis, J. (2003): A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. In Journal of Cleaner Production (11/4), pp. 397–409.

Schacter, D. L.; Gilbert, D. T.; Wegner, D. M. (2010): Psychology. 2nd ed.: Worth Publishers.

Schacter, D. L.; Norman, K. A.; Koutstaal, W. (1998): The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. In Annual Review of Psychology (49), pp. 289–318.

Schiersmann, C.; Strauß, H. C. (2003): Informelles Lernen: der Königsweg zum lebenslangen Lernen? In W. Wittwer, S. Kirchhof (Eds.): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand, pp. 145–167.

Schrock, A. R. (2014): Education in Disguise: culture of a hacker and maker space. In InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies (10/1). Available online at http://eprints.cdlib.org/uc/item/0js1n1qg.

87

Schuh, G.; Novoszel, T.; Maas, M. (2011): Rebound logistics: an integrative reverse supply chain for multiple usage products. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 399–406.

Schunk, D. H. (1984): Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. In Educational Psychologist (19), pp. 48–58.

Schunk, D. H.; Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (2008): Motivation and Self-Regualted Learning: theory, research, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Segalas, J.; Ferrer-Balas, D.; Mulder, K. F. (2008): Conceptual maps: measuring learning processes of engineering students concerning sustainable development. In European Journal of Engineering Education (33/3), pp. 297–306.

Seliger, G.; Khraisheh, M. K.; Jawahir, I. S. (Eds.) (2011): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. CIRP. Heidelberg: Springer.

Seliger, G.; Reise, C.; Bilge, P. (2011): Curriculum design for sustainable engineering - experiences from the international master program "Global Production Engineering". In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 3–10.

Singh, J.; Ordonez, I. (2016): Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. In Journal of Cleaner Production (134/A), pp. 342–353.

Spence, K. W.; Spence, J. T. (Eds.) (1968): The psychology of learning and motivation. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.

Staniskis, J. K.; Katiliute, E. (2016): Complex evaluation of sustainability in engineering education: case & analysis. In Journal of Cleaner Production (120), pp. 13–20.

Steingrimsson, J.G.; Bilge, P.; Heyer, S.; Seliger, G. (2011): Business strategies for competition and collaboration for remanufacturing of production equipment. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 91–97.

Sünkel, W. (1996): Phänomenologie des Unterrichts: Grundriß der theoretischen Didaktik. Weinheim: Juventa Verlag.

Theileis, J.; Kopp, O.; Stache, M.; Rechenberg, I. (2011): Development of a bionic pump based on the sap-rising principle of trees. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 279–283.

Tilbury, D.; Wortman, D. (2004): Engaging people in sustainability. Edited by IUCN Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN-the World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland.

Tisch, M.; Hertle, C.; Cachay, J.; Abele, E.; Metternich, J.; Tenberg, R. (2013): A systematic approach on developing action-oriented, competency based learning factories. In Procedia CIRP (7), pp. 580–585.

Tolman, E. C. (1932): Purposive behavior in animals and men: University of California Press.

Tulving, E. (2002): Episodic memory: from mind to brain. In Annual Review of Psychology (53), pp. 1–25.

Tulving, E.; Craik, F.I. M. (Eds.) (2000): The Oxford handbook of memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Turner, J.; Goodin, J. (2008): Motivation and Emotion. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 693–697.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2013): International Energy Outlook 2013. Available online at www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/ieo13/.

UC Berkeley Teaching & Resource Center (Ed.): Learning: Theory and Research - Behaviorism. Available online at http://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/learning-theory-research/behaviorism/, checked on 12/30/2017.

Ueda, K.; Takenaka, T.; Vancza, J.; Monostori, L. (2009): Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society. In CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology (58), pp. 681–700.

88

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED) (1987): Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Holm, E. J. (2015): Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (195), pp. 24–31.

Visser, J. (2001): Integrity, completeness and comprehensiveness of the learning environment: meeting the basic learning needs of all throughout life. In D. N. Aspin, J. D. Chapman, M. J. Hatton, Y. Sawano (Eds.): International Handbook of Lifelong Learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 447–472.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978): Mind in society: Harvard University Press.

Walker, H.; Klassen, R.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. (2013): Sustainable operations management. Available online at http://orca.cf.ac.uk/61301/1/WALKER%20IJOPM%20Sustainable%20Operations%20Management%20Introduction%2010%20Dec%202013.pdf.

Watson, J. B. (1919): Psychology: from the standpoint of a behaviorist. 1st ed.: Lippincott.

Watson, J. B. (1930): Behaviorism. 2nd ed.: University of Chicago Press.

Weckenmann, A.; Werner, T. (2011): Sustainability in Education. In G. Seliger, M. K. Khraisheh, I. S. Jawahir (Eds.): Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 17–24.

Weilerstein, P.; Byers, T. (2016): Guest Editorial: Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Engineering Education. In Advances in Engineering Education (Winter).

Weiner, B. (1980): Human motivation. New York: Holt Rinehart.

Weiner, B. (1985): An attributional theory of achievement: motivation and emotion. In Psychological Review (92/4), pp. 548–573.

Whyte, G.; Saks, A. M.; Hook, S. (1997): When success breeds failure: the role of self-efficacy in escalating commitment to a losing course of action. In Journal of Organizational Behavior (18), pp. 415–432.

Wilson, B. G. (Ed.) (1996): Constructivist Learning Environments: case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Winterton, J.; Delamare, F.; Stringfellow, E. (2006): Typology of knowledge, skills and competences: clarification of the concept and prototype. Edited by European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.

Wittig, A. (2013): Implementing problem based learning through engineers without borders student projects. In Advances in Engineering Education (Summer).

Wittwer, W. (2003): "Lern für die Zeit, werd tüchtig fürs Haus. Gewappnet ins Leben trittst du hinaus": Förderung der Nachhaltigkeit informellen Lernens durch individuelle Kompetenzentwicklung. In W. Wittwer, S. Kirchhof (Eds.): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand, pp. 13–41.

Wittwer, W.; Kirchhof, S. (Eds.) (2003): Informelles Lernen und Weiterbildung: Neue Wege zur Kompetenzentwicklung. München: Luchterhand.

Wittwer, W.; Reimer, R. (2002): Biografie und Beruf zur Neubestimmung eines tradierten Verhältnisses. In U. Clement, R. Arnold (Eds.): Kompetenzentwicklung in der beruflichen Bildung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 169–188.

Wood, D. F. (2003): ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: problem based learning. In BMJ (326), pp. 328–330.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000): Attaining self-regulation: a social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.): Handbook of Self-Regulation: Academic Press, pp. 13–39.

Zirfas, J. (2011): Bildung. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F. O. Radtke, W. Thole (Eds.): Pädagogisches Wissen: Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, pp. 13–19.