Leaving the Comfort Zone and Immersing Yourself in Your Studies - Experiences and Reflections on the Introductory Sustainability Science Course

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Berbuir, U., & Störmann, M. (2025). Leaving the Comfort Zone and Immersing Yourself in Your Studies - Experiences and Reflections on the Introductory Sustainability Science Course. 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.17631432. 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. LEAVING THE COMFORT ZONE AND IMMERSING IN YOUR STUDIES - EXPERIENCES AND REFLECTIONS ON THE INTRODUCTORY SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE COURSE U. Berbuir a, 1 , M. Störmann b a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany, 0000-0003-4451-0128 b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany, 0009-0009-5213-8419 Conference Key Areas: diversity, equity, and inclusion; sustainability Keywords: transversal skills, learning from failure, teachers as learning guides, reflection, onboarding ABSTRACT Within the framework of a compulsory course in the first year of an Environmental Engineering program, the following goal levels are addressed: teaching basics and orientation knowledge, enhancing professional competencies/future skills and onboarding. Methodologically, the course employs problem based learning, blended learning elements, peer reviews, group discussions, voting tools, role-plays, and a small project. Challenges include managing the heterogeneity of participants and ensuring adequate support and feedback processes in courses with more than 60 participants. A distinctive feature is the intensive involvement of student tutors in the conceptualization and implementation of the course. In this contribution, we focus on the challenges posed by unfamiliar methods, which can lead students to refuse to engage with them. We explore how an appropriate learning atmosphere can be created to ensure the intended effects of the formats are achieved. Based on evaluation results from three runs and personal experience, we describe and reflect on our efforts to create such a 'safe space' for students. We present two perspectives: that of the lecturer in charge and that of a student tutor. 1 U. Berbuir [email protected]b.de 1 INTRODUCTION The Environmental Engineering program at Ruhr-University Bochum is characterized by its focus on environmental engineering issues and the consideration of systemic interrelations, taking into account societal conditions. A fundamental goal is to prepare students for the pressing environmental challenges of our time and to impart current solutions and technologies. The course “Introduction to Sustainability Science” (ISS), presented here, was developed four years ago as part of a curriculum redesign and integrates the environmental and sustainability focus of the program from the outset into the compulsory curriculum. In this module for the first and second bachelor semesters, a transdisciplinary introduction to sustainability science is provided by conveying orientation knowledge and presenting societal contexts. An important aspect is to explicitly demonstrate the connection between technology and sustainability to the students and to have a meaningful impact. This content-based onboarding is combined with elements of academic propaedeutics. Furthermore, social onboarding is also a goal of the course. This personal arrival at the university, in the program, and within the respective student cohort is combined with the promotion of overarching personal and social competencies that are important in the study and aim at the development of future skills. The course systematically links various goal levels. An intended synergistic effect is that through the contextualization in this compulsory course, both the transdisciplinary content and the addressed personal and social competencies aimed at communication and collaboration are experienced as belonging to the engineering profession. In terms of content, the module introduces the development of the scientific field of Sustainability Science (Clark & Harley, 2020). Current topics of sustainability and societal responsibility are discussed. At the beginning of their studies, students are addressed as responsible citizens who work on sustainabilityrelated issues, recognize basic concepts, and the need for in-depth scientific knowledge. This approach is embedded in efforts to promote sustainability competencies and future skills, which are similar in many ways, particularly with regard to the importance of values-thinking (Bianchi, 2020; Ehlert, 2020; Redman & Wiek, 2021; Berbuir, 2024). The course introduces basic concepts of ethical argumentation and discusses various areas of ethics, including environmental ethics in particular. While discussions on definitions of future skills and research on the educational theoretical foundation are ongoing, there is broad consensus that such competencies can only be fostered with specific teaching-learning formats (Koch et al., 2024). In the design of teaching, there needs to be space and time for encounter and collaboration, as well as feedback and reflection, to systematically learn from experiences. In formats that focusses on learning from experience respectively learning from 'mistakes', it is particularly important to create a teaching-learning environment that is collaborative, focusses on positive relationships between teachers and learners and promotes personal development (Rawle et al., 2025). 2 CONTEXT AND PRACTICAL WORK 2.1 Learning objectives and organizational structure of the module The module “Introduction to Sustainability Science” (ISS) has the following learning objectives, which are at different levels: ▪ Basics and orientation knowledge: Understanding the interplay between technology, society, and sustainable development. ▪ Professional competencies / Future Skills: Promotion of personal and social competences, such as communication and collaboration skills, which are both fundamental in terms of future skills and essential as ‘professional competences’ for the promotion of sustainable development. ▪ Onboarding: Facilitating the integration of new students into the academic and social environment. The module consists of two courses that span two semesters. In course 1 during the winter semester, the thematic focus is on the relationship between technology and society, while course 2 in the summer semester explicitly addresses the theme of sustainability. Both courses are organized as weekly in-person class sessions of 90 minutes each. Successful completion requires active participation, completion of 80% of the weekly assignments, participation in a role-play in the first part of the course, and presentation of a semester-long group project in the second part. Minimum standards must be met in the assignments, but there are no grades awarded. The module is credited with 5 CP. In addition to the responsible lecturer, the module is supported by two or three tutors. The tutors’ tasks include assisting with the organization and administration of the course, supporting participants during in-person class sessions, and contributing to the ongoing refinement of the course. The module is compulsory, and it is recommended that it be taken at the beginning of the program, but it is not mandatory. As a result, the course is attended by a diverse group of students, including both those in their first semester and others who are already in more advanced stages of their studies. This heterogeneity is reflected in the different prior knowledge, experiences, and expectations that the students bring to the course. The number of participants in the course ranges from 60 to a maximum of 100. The weekly class sessions focus on group collaboration. The target group size is six persons, but group sizes can range from a minimum of four to a maximum of eight persons, depending on the cohort size and fluctuations during the semester. Group work is conducted in three to four adjacent seminar rooms, depending on the number of students. Each room is supervised by a tutor or the lecturer, ensuring that there is always a point of contact on-site. Knowledge is transferred through digital learning units (slide presentations with tests on the Moodle learning platform) in a blended learning setting. For each week, there is a specific task that must be completed in self-study. We alternate between working on the digital learning units, research-questions, feedback or reflection tasks. 2.2 Methods and didactical structure The didactical structure of the course (class sessions and assignments) repeatedly passes through phases that could be adequately described using the framework of “Practice, Anticipation, Inclusion, and Reflexivity” (Johri & Hingle, 2024). In the weekly lectures, we work either with case studies or with specific discussion questions. The case studies are worked on by the students using the 7-step method of Problem Based Learning (PBL). This requires students to independently deduce the problem, derive research questions, and research information until the next time. The students then give each other criteria-based feedback on their research results in the peer review tool (in Moodle). In addition to the case studies, which are worked on over at least 2 course sessions, we also use specific discussion questions that can be carried out in one session and encourage a more specific thematic discussion. Here, too, the questions are first worked on or discussed in student working groups and the results are then collected, discussed, and reflected on in the plenary session. These methods are embedded as regular components of the course and the structure of the class sessions follows a standardized pattern: The respective schedule is presented at the beginning, followed by a short input or recapitulation of the content, before quickly moving on to the group work. The group task is briefly explained in the plenary session and the groups receive a folder with the task and the necessary materials. To support collaboration, students work with simple moderation materials such as sticky notes and pens, enabling everyone to contribute. Tasks are also accompanied by templates that combine guidance and documentation, allowing results to be recorded directly. After the group work phase, we return to the plenary to discuss the results. Sometimes, digital voting tools or working with metaplan boards help to structure the exchange. By establishing these kinds of routines and working with consistent materials we try to reduce the uncertainty associated with this unfamiliar teaching methods. This enables us to implement these methods with a cohort of up to 100 students. Additionally, there is a ‘methodological highlight’ every semester. In the winter semester this is a role play and in the summer semester it is a poster presentation. For the students, it is a kind of stage where they can try out and present what they have learnt. The role-plays and poster presentations are not carried out with everyone at the same time, nor are they part of the usual weekly appointments. These special methods put students in situations that many of them find 'outside their comfort zone'. To help students engage with this, we provide a safe space where they can embrace a certain degree of uncertainty and learn from 'mistakes'. 3 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS 3.1 Excerpts from the Evaluation Results The module has been running in this structure for nearly 3 years. The majority of participants engage with the methods, systematically complete the weekly assignments, actively participate in the groups, and thus successfully complete the module. Against the backdrop of a high number of dropouts in the study program, this course is also affected by participants who drop out or do not submit the required assignments and consequently do not pass the course. The overall evaluation of the event in the faculty-wide teaching evaluation is consistently between good and very good. Compared to the overall average of the faculty’s courses, the courses perform slightly better. In our perception, the course generally has a pleasant atmosphere. This is also evident in individual conversations. To verify whether we succeed in creating a good working atmosphere and the necessary 'safe space' for the methods, we analyzed the free-text field responses to the questions “What is particularly good about the event?” and “Concrete suggestions for improvement and further comments.” The statements were categorized into thematic clusters, and the number of mentions per cluster is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The data is based on 197 evaluations from the last 5 semesters, with a response rate of around 66%. By analyzing the evaluation results, we aim to gain insights into the effectiveness of our methods and the overall student experience, ensuring that we continue to create a supportive and engaging learning environment. It can be seen, that significantly more positive feedback is provided than criticism. Although the second question or prompt encourages students to offer concrete suggestions for improvement and additional comments, this free-text field is normally also used by students to express clear criticism when necessary. In our course, there are occasional instances of very critical feedback (this occurred in 2 out of 197 evaluation forms). Overall, however, the feedback is positive, particularly regarding the aspects of “group work and collaboration” and “atmosphere and interaction,” which were mentioned as particularly positive by 50 out of 86 respondents. In the feedback on specific suggestions for improvement only 7 mentions were related to the area of “group work and interaction.” None of the feedback reported such significant problems with the groups or in the course that would have prevented engagement with the methods. Additionally, reflections on the project work and block seminars indicate that it was often possible for students who typically have difficulties with open formats and/or speaking in front of groups to engage with the methods due to the constructive atmosphere. Naturally, these reflections also mention challenges in the group work phases, but these are part of the process and do not question the approach or culture of the event. Fig. 1. Visualization of the evaluation results by grouping and displaying the number of responses in the free text field “What is particularly good about the course?” Fig. 2. Visualization of the evaluation results by grouping and displaying the number of responses in the free text field “Concrete suggestions für improvement and further comments” 3.2 Ongoing Challenges and Development The module is continuously developed both in terms of content and methodology. As a team of lecturer and tutors, we adapt work assignments, experiment with different approaches and regularly reflect on how students receive and complete the tasks and content. We strive to provide space in each iteration to address current topics and offer a degree of freedom of choice. This is particularly relevant for research tasks in the PBL cases and the project assignment completed in the second course. From the outset, we communicate to the students that there is a certain degree of content and methodological freedom that all participants can and should shape together. In this sense, everyone involved is also a learner. Tension Between Guidance and Freedom In the team of lecturer and tutor, we have in the past iterations intensively discussed the following challenges and experimented with various approaches, including: ▪ How do we handle group division? (Assigned by us, self-selected, higher semesters and lower semesters together or separate.) ▪ How much didactic explanation is necessary? When is it useful to explain the background of a method in detail, and when is it better to dive directly into action? ▪ How do we create an appropriate balance between clear task assignments and freedom for self-design? ▪ How strict or lenient should we be in our guidance? ▪ What can or should we do if we observe that some students are not cooperating adequately or are having difficulties participating actively? These considerations highlight the complexities of balancing structure and flexibility in educational settings, ensuring that students are both guided and empowered to take ownership of their learning process. Challenge of Heterogeneity and Creating a 'Safe Space' As already mentioned, the course is a compulsory course that is recommended for the first year of study but does not have to be attended then. Therefore, in addition to heterogeneity in terms of socio-demographic criteria like age, gender and nationality, we also have heterogeneity in terms of previous experience. On the one hand, this diversity is a great enrichment for the course; on the other hand, it presents a challenge. Despite this breadth of previous experience, the participants mostly have no experience with 'open' learning methods, such as problembased learning or peer feedback and reflection tasks. An example of the heterogeneity in the course and how we deal with it is shown in the following figure and the corresponding explanations. Figure 3 visualizes the range of attitudes and experiences with group discussions and role-plays. The x-axis represents whether participants have experience with such formats, ranging from “no experience at all” to “a lot of experience”. The y-axis represents the attitude towards these formats, with the positive attitude “I like this” and the negative attitude “I find it rather awful!” Fig. 3. Enquiry about personal attitudes and experiences with group discussions/role plays (in the course in 2023/24) Personal attitudes and experiences with group discussions/role plays “I like this” “a lot of experience” “no experience at all” “I find it rather awful” This survey was conducted before the first role-play, which each group performs in a separate session. After an introduction round, the question about the attitude towards such formats was asked, and the placement of the dots was done anonymously. Only the distribution of attitudes and experiences within the group became apparent. It became very clear that for some participants, such a role-play is far outside their comfort zone, while others enjoy these formats. In the introduction to the role-play, reference was made to the distribution, and it was explained that one could decide how far to engage with the format. For example, one could choose a “larger” role or not. It was emphasized again that this is an experiential space and not a test situation where something is being evaluated or performance measured. Instead, the group creates an experimental space through their interaction. By acknowledging and addressing the diversity of attitudes and experiences, the course aims to create an inclusive and supportive learning environment where all students feel comfortable and engaged. To engage constructively, students need certain “safeguards” or a kind of protected space where mistakes can be made, acknowledged, and turned into learning opportunities without being “punished” with a bad grade or leading to a loss of face in front of instructors or peers. Formally, this security is provided by the fact that we do not give grades. In addition to this formal framework, the informal level, i.e., the social fabric and the interaction among students, plays a very significant role. Therefore, a central question for this course is: How can we create a 'safe space'? Through the following approaches, we aim to cultivate an open atmosphere and a respectful interaction, thereby building a comprehensive 'safe space': ▪ Making methods and competency goals transparent to reduce uncertainty and make it as understandable as possible why we choose certain methods. ▪ Explicitly asking for friendly and respectful interaction and practicing an open and respectful communication: Lecturer and tutors demonstrate this both among themselves and in their interactions with students, modelling communication at eye level. ▪ Using first names and wearing name badges to create a more personal environment. ▪ Talking about emotions: Discussing both positive and negative emotions and practicing constructive ways of dealing with them, such as exploring attitudes and experiences with role-plays. ▪ Being accessible for individual challenges: e.g. for students who have significant difficulties with certain situations, such as participating in a roleplay or presenting in front of the entire cohort, finding face-saving alternatives. ▪ Embracing heterogeneity as an opportunity for enrichment: Avoiding stigmatizing differences as problems. This is particularly relevant for the PBL tasks, which benefit enormously from diverse prior knowledge. ▪ Avoiding competitive elements: Allowing for diversity in task completion and focus on the process rather than the outcome. ▪ Providing individualized feedback: Seeing and addressing the individual, providing feedback tailored to each student, and being mindful of the level at which feedback is given (open feedback rounds, anonymized but reviewed by the teacher and/or tutors peer review, and bilateral feedback). By implementing these strategies, we aim to create an inclusive and supportive learning environment where students feel safe to explore, learn, and grow. 3.3 Reflections from the Perspective of the Lecturer and Tutors As previously explained, the interaction between the lecturer and the student tutors is significant on multiple levels. The tutors offer a low-threshold access point for questions and serve as role models. Tutor’s perspective and co-author of this contribution: I am studying Environmental Engineering at the master’s level and have been working as a tutor for the “ISS” module for two and a half years. I took the module myself in the academic year 2021/2022. What I particularly appreciate about my work as a tutor is the close collaboration within the team and the continuous development of the course. I bring both my own experiences as a former participant and a systematic student perspective to the table. My goal is to make the module as interesting and accessible as possible for the students. The joy of working and the collegial atmosphere between the lecturer and us tutors make the flat hierarchy evident and contribute significantly to a positive atmosphere in the course. The appreciative atmosphere is also reflected in the evaluation, which highlights the “interaction on an equal footing between the lecturer, tutors, and students.” The participants come to me not only with organizational questions about the course but also with general concerns about their studies and individual worries and concerns related to their studies. This allows me to take on a consulting and empowering role, which underscores the special significance of this course. The tasks in the course correspond well with my engagement in the student council for Environmental Engineering, where I advocate for the interests of the students. This means that I am in contact with many participants outside of the module, which can sometimes lead to role conflicts but overall has very positive effects because it grants a trust bonus from the students and promotes onboarding. Lecturer’s perspective: In addition to the positive aspects of tutor support already described, I would like to add a personal reflection. The conception and continuous development of this module in a collegial team, consisting of student tutors and myself as the lecturer, is a great enrichment. New ideas and approaches for improvements are always discussed and reflected upon within the team. After each in-person session, we have a short reflection round and are thus in a continuous improvement process. This approach is now well-established, allowing us to make fine adjustments to methods and other aspects quite seamlessly. I am continually impressed by the engagement and ideas the tutors bring and how they succeed in fulfilling a highly constructive mediating function in the event. Last but not least, I really enjoy working in and with such a team, which is also transferred to the collaboration with the students in the course. This is important because the attitude, emotions and manner of the teachers can have a profound effect on the emotions experienced by the students (Pekrun, 2014). Academic emotions, in turn, are closely related to students' self-assessment of their competence and control in academia, as well as the values and goals they associate with learning and achievement (Pekrun et al., (2002); Rawle et al., 2025). 4 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS CREATING A STRUCTURED AND SUPPORTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT The ‘Introduction to Sustainability Science’ module integrates different teaching methods to promote a holistic understanding of the subject matter while supporting the development of personal and social skills. Particular emphasis is placed on