Live blogging: Incorporating SD in engineering courses at Lund

Included learning outcome on SD for degrees in (starting July 1, 2007):
- Engineering
- Architecture
- Fire Protection Engineering

"learning outcome" is what students must be able to do / know in order to pass the course.

At the same time - increased from 270 to 300 hp. 60 hp = 1 year of full time studies.

Decision on local interpretation
- 6 hp on SD
- 6 hp economics
- Visible in learning outcomes
- no further restriction

One coordinator
- meetings with program directors
- meetings with other faculties
- meetings with other swedish universities
- acted as a facilitator with on authority

separate course or integrated in all courses?
"minimal resistance" vs. "focal point"?

- minimal resistance: physics and other eng. subjects are central for SD
(we can debate and change social structures; can not change natural laws)
So re-wrote LOs to make SD visible

- focal point: e.g. environmental engineering -- SD was driving the start of this, so SD was quite well incorporated anyway!
- physical, chemical, and biological foundation already integral part of education
- but societal insights required to fully grasp SD
- new extended course needed

The focus:
- How or Why?
- Lund Eng. Faculty asked "how?" (unique to engineering?)

Defining the foundation
- "About SD" vs "Relevance structure"
- e.g. about history of SD (more liberal arts-like)
- engineering thought more about what is relevant to e.g. a computer engineering student for performance post-graduation (more technical based)

(Sometimes it seems like we treat students too much like robots that we as educators are "training" to do certain jobs for the rest of their lives. where is the opportunity for teaching and learning instead of training!?)

Choosing coordinator
- formal or informal power?

Was fairly easy here - the "why" was that companies wanted it
Were in a situation where things were changing anyway (270 --> 300 credits, adding LOs)


Chalmers:
- every program says it should have 7.5 credits in SD
- left up to teacher to define what that is
- currently working to define the "common core" of SD

When we talk about incorporating courses in SD or describing how things are relevant with regard to SD -- what is the distinction between SD and simply explaining the way the course relates to the larger world?

Re: adding SD... if teachers don't have time to read, they don't have time to think... and if they don't have time to think, how can we add new things? Very confident in learning their own subject, but not so confident in learning other subjects.

Short-term vs. long-term strategy for this (teaching now vs preparing teachers)

Values. Where / how brought in, challenging because it's not "academic". Engineers love structure; ethics & morals not always structured

Idea of "trans-disciplinary" is threatening: forces change, challenges status, requires people to become 'role models'

How to help teachers be comfortable with not being the experts in everything?


Fundamentally questioning the role of universities: is it to be the ivory tower that provides a viewpoint, OR is it time to job in and act when the time is dire in order to influence the direction of society


We're talking too much about incremental changes - adding a lecture, or adding an exercise that helps people connect with nature.

Clear need for a SD course for teacher education at the level of university teachers!