Spheres of Agency: How Engineering Educators Approach Professional Development in Educating for Sustainability

Research Paper Recommended citation: Vonk, C., Sundman, J., Aarnio, H., Taka, M., & Ventura-Medina, E. (2025). Spheres of Agency: How Engineering Educators Approach Professional Development in Educating for Sustainability. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631463. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. Spheres of agency: How engineering educators approach professional development in educating for sustainability C. Vonk a,*, 1 , J. Sundman b,*, H. Aarnio c, M.Taka d, E. Ventura-Medina e a Technical University Eindhoven, the Netherlands, ORCID 0009-0009-6641-1551 b Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0003-2590-632X c Technical University Eindhoven, the Netherlands, ORCID 0000-0002-6177-2253 d Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0002-6147-9137 e Technical University Eindhoven, the Netherlands, ORCID 0000-0002-1041-945X * Authors Vonk and Sundman contributed equally to this study Conference Key Areas: Sustainability and society in engineering, Building the capacity and strengthening the educational competences of engineering educators Keywords: sustainability education, professional development, agency, teacher development ABSTRACT Sustainability is increasingly recognized as a key driver in engineering education, which calls for a shift not only in education but also in educators’ professional development. While research on sustainability in engineering education has mainly focused on institutional strategies and student learning, less is known about how educators approach their professional development in educating for sustainability. This study explores the experiences and strategies of eight educators active in sustainability education across two European universities. Using a qualitative research design, our study explored how these educators navigate their professional learning in this evolving field. Our findings revealed that professional development is shaped by an interplay between intrinsic motivation and external structures. The educators exercise agency across five nested spheres: individual, practice-based, departmental, institutional, and external. These spheres form a multi-layered learning ecosystem that reflects both self-directed and contextually enabled forms of professional development. 1 Corresponding Author C.A. Vonk [email protected] Our study contributes to engineering education research by foregrounding educators’ professional development, an underrepresented but critical dimension of sustainability education. It introduces a novel framework that contextualizes professional agency across five nested spheres which offers both a theoretical lens and a practical tool to inform educator support and institutional change. Furthermore, by focusing on educators already active in this area, we highlight practices that can guide professional development and institutional strategies to engage a broader educator base in sustainability transitions. Ultimately, our study offers a starting point for fostering transformative capacity within engineering education by illustrating how educators’ agency can be understood and supported across individual and systemic levels. 1 INTRODUCTION Educators play a central role in shaping student learning outcomes, and improvements in education depend heavily on their professional growth (Guskey, 2002). This is particularly relevant in sustainability education, which aims to prepare learners to address urgent societal challenges. In engineering education, sustainability is increasingly seen as a key driver of responsible engineering practice (Beagon et al., 2022), which calls for a shift in both the mindset and pedagogy of educators (Holmberg et al., 2008). This shift requires engaging students in real-world problem-solving and promoting competencies such as critical thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and systems thinking (Guerra, 2017; Sandri, 2022). For educators, it demands both commitment and the ability to design and support transformative learning environments (Barth & Rieckmann, 2012; Bürgener & Barth, 2018; Michel et al., 2020). In practice, however, sustainability integration is often driven by educators’ personal motivation and values rather than external mandates (Leifler & Dahlin, 2020). Furthermore, many engineering educators lack formal training in these areas (Carracedo et al., 2018). This points to a need for a more in-depth understanding of how educators themselves approach professional development, as existing research on sustainability in engineering education has largely focused on institutional strategies, student learning, and classroom practices (Mulder et al., 2012; Thürer et al., 2018). 1.1 Educators’ professional development for sustainability education Educating for sustainability requires educators to develop a wide range of competencies, such as critical thinking, community participation, and emotion management (Corres et al., 2020). Developing such competencies through professional development (PD) activities in the workplace context can be formal and informal and initiated individually or in communities or networks (Kyndt et al., 2016; Tynjälä, 2008). Just as students are expected to engage in lifelong learning to navigate sustainability challenges, educators too should approach PD as a continuous and lifelong journey (Bürgener & Barth, 2018; Cebrián & Junyent, 2015). Although it is unclear to what extent and how the development of educators’ sustainability competencies can be effectively integrated into PD activities (Imara & Altinay, 2021), it is known that PD activities are most efficient when bound to educators’ daily work practices and collegial collaboration (e.g., Desimone, 2011). In university-based PD programs, professional learning is constituted simultaneously in the individual actions and practices of agentic university educators, the collective interactions and interrelations of the PD program, and the broader subsystems with multiple units of the institution (Chaaban et al., 2023). These interacting and interrelating systems of influence construct university educators’ PD opportunities and approaches to leverage them through professional agency (Chaaban et al., 2023). 1.2 Professional agency for leveraging PD opportunities Transforming educational practices for sustainability requires agency from engineering educators (Mulà et al., 2017). PD opportunities alone are not sufficient: the extent to which educators can engage with and benefit from them depends on their ability to purposefully navigate institutional structures, collegial networks, and their own motivations. For this reason, we use the lens of professional agency theory to address how engineering educators can leverage PD opportunities in sustainability. The concept of agency highlights that actors always act employing their environment rather than simply in their environment (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Promoting educator agency both relies on the beliefs that individual educators bring to their practice and requires collective development and consideration (Biesta et al., 2015). Therefore, to understand the conditions for professional agency, it is essential to define individual efforts, the needed resources, and an outline of contextual and structural settings (Biesta et al., 2015). While the value of PD in sustainability in higher education has been widely acknowledged (e.g., Fischer et al., 2022; Mulà et al., 2017), there is a gap in understanding educators' perceptions of PD in educating for sustainability within engineering education institutions. Understanding how professional agency can be leveraged in promoting PD for in-service engineering educators remains limited since most literature on educators’ views focuses on the initial teacher education (e.g., Brandt et al., 2019; Cebrián & Junyent, 2015). This work explores the contextual and relational dimensions of engineering educators’ approaches to PD activities to inform future PD initiatives in educating for sustainability. To explore the PD experiences of practicing engineering educators at two European universities, the following research question is addressed: How do engineering educators approach their professional development regarding sustainability in their teaching practice? 2 METHODOLOGY We employed a qualitative research design to explore engineering educators’ approaches to PD in educating for sustainability. A qualitative research design was suitable for our study because it allowed for an in-depth exploration (Creswell, 2014) of how educators make sense of their PD in sustainability education within their unique teaching contexts. Ethical approval was sought and granted by both institutions prior to data collection. 2.1 Research context and participants We interviewed eight engineering educators from two European institutions (referred to as UA and UB), which are known for their strong engineering education, emphasis on interdisciplinary and challenge-based learning, and their commitment to sustainability-driven innovation. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure they had direct experience with integrating sustainability into their teaching practices. Four educators were interviewed from each institution. The sample included a mix of educators from engineering, business, and architecture, with teaching experience ranging from 5 to 30 years. All interviews were conducted by two of the authors in person except for one, which was conducted online via Microsoft Teams. 2.2 Data collection and analysis Participants were recruited through email invitations that included a privacy notice, participant information sheet, and consent form. We conducted semi-structured interviews (ca. 60 mins) to allow for in-depth exploration while maintaining flexibility for new topics to emerge. The interviews focused on educators' PD in sustainability education, covering themes such as their competence in sustainability teaching, learning pathways, and future developmental needs. Example interview questions, guided by our research questions, include: “How did you develop your knowledge and skills for educating for sustainability?” and “What professional opportunities or resources have been helpful to you in growing as an educator in this area?”. Interviews were transcribed verbatim using transcription software provided by the Aalto University Science-IT project. We employed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) with an inductive approach to identify patterns in educators' conceptualizations and experiences of PD. All analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti (web version). To ensure rigor, coding was conducted collaboratively, with two researchers engaging in an iterative process of reviewing and refining themes to enhance analytical depth and reflexivity. Then, a peer debriefing process was conducted with all authors to discuss interpretations and challenge assumptions to address analytical reliability (Spall, 1998). 2.3 Limitations By employing purposeful sampling, our study focused on educators already integrating sustainability into their teaching practice. This may introduce a risk of selection bias (Patton, 2002), as their perspectives may not fully reflect those less familiar with or resistant to sustainability integration, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings. However, our study offers insights into how educators already active in this area exercise agency in developing their competencies, and therefore provides universities and PD initiatives with a better understanding of how to support and scale sustainability education more effectively. Simultaneously, our findings lay the groundwork for future research to study a more diverse sample of educators. 3 RESULTS Our findings revealed that the studied educators engaged in sustainability education viewed their PD as driven by an interplay between intrinsic motivation and external influences. Nearly all interviewees described themselves as inherently curious about both teaching and learning, as well as the sustainability imperative, and therefore naturally inclined to learn and grow in educating for it. Many also mentioned that positive experiences during their own studies set a benchmark for their own pedagogical practice. While individual strategies varied, we identified recurring themes in how educators expanded their competencies in educating for sustainability, which ranged from self-directed efforts to engagement with institutional and external support structures. When analysing the nature of the identified themes, we inductively categorized them based on where PD took place, and the enabling conditions involved. This led to a framework of five nested spheres, which represent a contextual and relational dimension of professional growth: individual, practice-based, departmental, institutional, and external (Figure 1). The inner spheres, individual and practice-based, reflect more self-directed forms of learning and development, whereas the outer spheres emphasize collaborative, institutional, and network-based support structures that shape educators' PD. Figure 1. Spheres of educators' approaches to professional development in sustainability education The innermost sphere, the individual sphere, reflects the role of reflective and selfdirected learning in shaping PD. Interviewees describing their approach in this sphere explained how they engaged in self-study, sought out materials online, read academic and practical literature, and actively participated in opportunities such as workshops to enhance their competencies. One interviewee exemplified this in the following way: “It really helps to be curious. I’m always looking for more resources and other courses that I can take inspiration from or cheat so to speak because there are so many good materials and toolkits available.” Interviewee UA-4 The practice-based sphere reflects how educators develop their expertise through their own research and teaching. Interviewees who adopted this approach described their PD as a hands-on, iterative process, where they deepened their understanding by identifying gaps and trends in their teaching and engaging in continual reflection. Some also noted that because the subject areas they teach or research, particularly those related to sustainability, are continually evolving, they feel a need to regularly revisit and adapt their teaching practices. Many interviewees also highlighted the role of students as sources of learning and described how interactions with students and student feedback contributed to their professional growth. Several interviewees also recognized gaps in their own knowledge and noted that students bring new insights through their studies. One educator described how, after noticing students' ecoanxiety when engaging with sustainability topics, they collaborated with the study psychologist team to refine their teaching approach. In the departmental sphere, educators leveraged the support structures enabled by their immediate working environment. Over half of the interviewees acknowledged their supervisor, research group or master’s programme in creating enabling conditions for them to develop professionally in educating for sustainability. For example, one interviewee mentioned that their supervisor “constantly supported and guided them”, while another said that “the department has been amazingly supportive” in giving them freedom to test ideas and participate in pedagogical training. One interviewee elaborated the impact of this sphere in the following way: “This community and my supervisor have been really crucial. This whole research group is very teaching development positive. All the staff members are always ready to help. You can ask anything and learn from others, so that’s been a strong driver for my development.” Interviewee UA-2 Within this sphere, the interviewees also highlighted the role of collaborating with colleagues on sustainability-oriented courses. For example, two interviewees emphasized that working with like-minded educators and educators researching sustainability education helps them to develop professionally. Furthermore, some interviewees also noted that diversity in educators’ backgrounds can support their competence development. For instance, three interviewees specifically mentioned that by working and observing other educators, they gained insight into different tools and methods that can be used when educating for sustainability. The institutional sphere captures how educators engage with university structures to support their PD. Within this sphere, interviewees described leveraging targeted funding opportunities for sustainability education projects, existing support structures such as internal networks, and pedagogical training to enhance their sustainability teaching competencies and practice. Furthermore, interviewees from University A noted that their university’s strategic commitment to sustainability-oriented education created an enabling environment for professional growth by legitimizing sustainability as a priority in both teaching and research. Despite this, nearly all interviewees noted that while the institutional sphere may provide a favourable environment for professional growth, leveraging its opportunities often depends on an individual’s time, availability, and commitment. It is worth noting that while pedagogical training is voluntary at University UA, it is obligatory for all educators at University UB. The outermost sphere, the external sphere, highlights the role of external collaborations and professional networks in shaping educators’ teaching practices. Interviewees emphasized the importance of long-term partnerships with external organizations, ranging from academia to industry, noting that working with the same collaborators over time allowed them to refine their teaching approaches, test new methods, and make iterative improvements. Some educators engaged in national networks for sustainability education, where they can gain insight into emerging challenges and trends in the field. Others emphasized the value of international collaborations, which provided exposure to diverse perspectives on sustainability education across different cultural and institutional contexts. Although the five spheres are presented as distinct for analytical clarity, our findings suggest that educators leverage multiple spheres simultaneously in response to emerging PD needs. For example, several educators described noticing gaps or needs in their teaching practice (practice-based sphere), which prompted them to engage in self-directed learning (individual sphere) or to seek influence through departmental structures, such as joining program committees to shape PD opportunities (departmental sphere). One interviewee described how, through engaging with and reflecting on their own research (practice-based sphere) and identifying gaps in existing PD support, they initiated a pedagogical training course focused on sustainability education (institutional sphere). These patterns thus suggest a mutually reinforcing relationship between the spheres. 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Through interviews with eight engineering educators, we found that approaching PD for sustainability education is not a linear or isolated process. It is shaped by an interplay between individual initiative and structural support, where educators exercise agency within, and in response to, the conditions provided by their teaching and institutional contexts as highlighted by Biesta et al. (2015) and Eteläpelto et al. (2013). Educators drew on a range of strategies across five interrelated spheres, which together form a multi-layered learning ecosystem: individual, practice-based, departmental, institutional, and external. This aligns with the idea that multiple systems of influence shape educators’ professional learning (Chaaban et al., 2023). The importance of educators’ autonomy and perceived agency was also evident in our findings, which supports the idea that agency can both enable and hinder PD depending on the surrounding conditions (Roumbanis Viberg et al., 2023). Consistent with previous findings that engineering educators’ personal convictions often drive sustainability integration in curricula (Leifler & Dahlin, 2020), we also observed that PD in this area is strongly shaped by educators’ intrinsic motivation and proactive engagement. Our findings thus reinforce the need to consider not only the provision of PD opportunities, but also educators’ capacity and positioning to act upon them. The contributions and implications of our findings are threefold. Firstly, it advances engineering education research in the context of sustainability by bringing in educators’ perspectives on PD – a research area that has previously received limited attention. Understanding how educators learn and grow in this space is essential, as they play a central role in translating sustainability goals into meaningful learning experiences (Bürgener & Barth, 2018; Ferguson et al., 2021). Secondly, the study makes a theoretical contribution by contextualizing professional agency within sustainability education. We introduced a five-sphere framework that illustrates the situated and relational nature of professional learning. This framework can inform future research on how agency is exercised or constrained within varying institutional contexts. Our findings also indicate that the spheres are not strictly bounded; educators often engage across multiple spheres as part of their PD. This calls for further exploration of how formal, informal, individual, and institutional learning opportunities interact and reinforce each other and how they can be intentionally supported to strengthen educators’ professional growth in sustainability education. Finally, by focusing on educators already active in sustainability education, our study illustrates agency-driven practices that initiate and sustain professional learning even in the absence of formal structures (see also Kyndt et al., 2016). This provides a valuable starting point for developing strategies to lower the threshold for broader participation and PD in sustainability-oriented learning – for example, by supporting peer learning through informal exchanges and more structured mentoring and rolemodelling. Future research could extend this work by including a broader and more diverse sample (e.g., with less engaged educators) to inform inclusive strategies for building transformative capacity in engineering education. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is financially supported by Maaja vesitekniikan tuki ry and 4TU.CEE. We acknowledge the computational resources provided by the Aalto University ScienceIT project in transcribing the interviews of this study. We thank the participants of the study for their time and contributions.