Fourteen Competencies for Collaborative Engineering: A Pre-Post Course Assessment

Research Paper Recommended citation: Johannsen, T. (2025). Fourteen Competencies for Collaborative Engineering: A Pre-Post Course Assessment. 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.17631786. 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. FOURTEEN COMPETENCIES FOR COLLABORATIVE ENGINEERING: A PRE-POST COURSE ASSESSMENT T. Johannsen 1 Technische Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany 0000-0002-4290-7618 Conference Key Areas: Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills Keywords: Comparative evaluation; competencies; responsible engineering education; assessment; self-reported skill development 1 Corresponding Author T. Johannsen [email protected] ABSTRACT This study investigates the development of fourteen competencies critical for addressing complex challenges in engineering education. Adapting a validated questionnaire originally designed to assess industry competency needs, students in TU Berlin’s Engineering for Impact course self-assessed their competencies at the beginning and end of a semester. Results indicate an improvement in twelve competencies, with the exception of teamwork and handling diversity. There findings provide insights for engineering educators and curriculum developers aiming to enhance capacity building and competency development to enable engineers to collaborate transdisciplinarily 1 INTRODUCTION – TRANSFERABLE AND TRANSDISCIPLINARY COMPETENCIES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION What are the current challenges confronting engineering education as a whole, and what specific issues do we, as engineering educators, face across all disciplines? It is a matter of developing transferable and transdisciplinary competencies in academic education (Cooke at al., 2025), also known as professional skills (Gilbuena et al., 2015), transversal competencies (OECD, 2005), future skills (Ehlers, 2020), or key competencies (Weinert, 2001). In Research and Innovation (R&I), these are crucial for addressing the grand challenges of our time, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Overarching, collaborative, and transdisciplinary cooperation is needed to find innovative solutions and shape sustainable sociotechnical transformations (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Schütz et al., 2019). Only by involving multiple stakeholders can we solve complex societal challenges. Engineers must therefore develop transferable and transdisciplinary competencies - skills, abilities, and attitudes - encompassing knowledge, skills, and values applicable across contexts. To integrate these competencies, a competency profile was developed and operationalised, needs in industry surveyed (Johannsen, 2022), and teaching aligned accordingly. Its effectiveness was assessed by adapting industry research design for teaching and surveying eight cohorts using a quantitative approach, complemented by formative feedback (Johannsen & Meyer, 2023). Results indicate effectiveness of competency development among students. The innovation lies in comparing students' self-assessed competency development with industry needs, making competency elements tangible, promoting reflection, and emphasizes practical relevance for both students and educators. Notably, results are based on self-assessment and therefore descriptive. 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 A typology derived from the current state of research Various frameworks for transferable and transdisciplinary competencies in engineering education exist, notably the CDIO approach (Crawley et al., 2014; Yuan et al., 2024), transformative science (Schneidewind & Wissel, 2015; Schneidewind & Singer-Brodowski, 2013), key competences (Heyse, 2014; Weinert, 2001), transdisciplinarity (Philipp & Schmohl, 2023; Klein, 2023; Hadorn et al., 2008; Gibbs, 2017), future skills (Hoffmann et al., 2021; Ehlers, 2020; Davies et al., 2011), education for sustainable development (Rieckmann, 2012; Di Giulio et al., 2008) and transversal competencies (Scharnhorst, 2021). Fig. 1: Illustration of study design A literature review and qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2019; Kluge, 2000) identified fourteen competencies essential for cross-disciplinary higher education, particularly addressing transdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge transfer, and sustainable engineering (cf. Annex). Notably, these competencies combine previously isolated debates, are grounded in current industry needs, and adopt a transdisciplinary approach to ensure practical relevance. These competencies are internally consistent and externally distinct. Competencies refer to "specific performance dispositions" (Weinert, 2001, p. 58) and are understood as a combination of "stable cognition abilities and personal features, different learning outcomes, belief-value-systems, and changeable attitudes in a mixed relation" (Weinert, 2001, p. 62). They are a multidimensional concept. Results are illustrated as Wheel of Competence (Johannsen 2022). 2.2 Operationalisation of the results for quantitative social research The fourteen competencies were translated into questionnaire items. Each competency is surveyed by two items derived from literature to ensure objectivity, reliability and validity (Moosbrugger & Kelava, 2020). Wording was adapted as needed. The survey included 28 questions regarding the fourteen competencies as well as socio-demographic information. A personalised code ensured a pre-post-course match of data, anonymity, and a withdrawal of personal data. 2.3 Data collection in the course Students in the course Engineering for Impact were surveyed during the first session and at the end of the semester. In the course, students develop technology-based solution for social challenges. As a transdisciplinary element, external experts organise workshops with students (Gibbons et al., 1994; Vilsmaier & Lang 2014). These cover various topics (cf. Fig. 2.) and are complemented with a learning journal (Johannsen & Meyer 2023). Results were submitted as an application concept (Johannsen 2021). Tr ns r i e ien e e e en ies Tr ns is i lin ri re ills i n r s in le e el en Tr ns ers l ills T re rse s rse Fig. 2: Syllabus of Engineering for Impact with intended learning outcomes (ILO) Data collection was anonymised, voluntary, and provided with informed consent. Students were informed about purpose, procedure, and the option to withdraw via anonymised personal code. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Socio-demographic data The sample is heterogeneous due to the course’s in er is i lin r esign. 93 students participated both at the start end of the semester. Only those submitting both surveys were included (cf. Table 2), although students from other study programmes participated. Table 2. Sample size of students surveyed before and after the taking the course (B. Sc. = Bachelor of Science, M. Sc. = Master of Science, M. Ed. = Master of Education, N.N. = Nomen Nescio) Study Program Degree Sample tbefore Chemical Engineering B. Sc. 1 Engineering Science B. Sc. 3 Engineering Science M. Sc. 1 Environmental Science and Technology B. Sc. 1 Geotechnology B. Sc. 1 Industrial Engineering and Management B. Sc. 29 Industrial Engineering and Management M. Sc. 17 Innovation Management, Entrepreneurship, and Sustainability M. Sc. 1 Mechanical Engineering B. Sc. 2 Mechanical Engineering M. Sc. 2 Natural Sciences in the Information Society B. Sc. 1 Sustainable Management B. Sc. 33 N.N. M. Sc. 1 93 ngineering in s ie els inn i n ll r i n r el l i n i r s ssess en r s r i i i n r s eg l i ns n r e r r s es nsi le ese r n nn i n er n resen i n r e res l s 86% studied at least partly in an economics, 64,5% in programmes with engineering elements, and 12,9% in pure engineering degree programmes. 37,6% were women and 62,4% men. 76.3% of the participants were undergraduates and 23.7% were postgraduates (cf. Table 3). Table 3. Demographics of sample according to degree and gender ♀ ♂ Undergraduate 28 43 Postgraduate 7 15 35 58 Doctoral students were not considered. Gender ratio and disciplinary affiliation are consistent with the overall university profile. 3.2 Competency profiles before and after the course To assess competency development, preand post-course profiles were compared using the Wheel of Competence. Students' self-reports show increased competencies after the course with the exception of teamwork and handling diversity. Fig. 4: Self-assessed competency profiles before (blue) and after (green) the course, measured on a condensed 3-point scale (1 = highly developed, 2 = moderately developed, 3 = somewhat developed) Illustrated in Figure 4, the competency profile after the course (green) shows an increase in competence compared to the start (blue) with two exceptions. Teamwork has decreased by 0,2 and handling of diversity by 0,01 on a 5-point Likert scale. Table 4. Results of the survey for individual competencies at the before and after the course with standard deviation (SD) and sample size (N), value 1 equals max. competent, value 5 equals least competent Competency Value tpre SD Value tpost SD Agility 2,21 0,52 2,09 0,59 Handling complexity 2,12 0,61 2,02 0,63 Agency in systems 2,01 0,54 1,79 0,57 Acting according to ethical principals 1,85 0,86 1,65 0,62 Critical thinking 2,24 0,82 1,94 0,63 gili i i n le rn ri i l in ing i e r s llenges gen in s s e sTe r r ess n l sis n esign e le i n n i ns n ling le i n l ng i ersi e gnising e i ns n ing er ers e i es re i i ing r ing e i l rin i les gen es i e n er in ies n n r i i ns Competency Value tpre SD Value tpost SD Recognising emotions and taking other perspectives 1,95 0,71 1,79 0,67 Process analysis and design 2,09 0,63 1,94 0,66 Reflection of own actions 1,63 0,58 1,51 0,46 Creativity 2,49 0,64 2,23 0,60 Attitude towards challenges 2,27 0,71 2,19 0,79 Agency despite uncertainties and contradictions 2,43 0,57 2,15 0,68 Teamwork 1,86 0,74 2,06 0,88 Handling diversity 1,90 0,73 1,91 0,71 Motivation to learn 1,63 0,56 1,59 0,56 Standard deviation was low for agility, motivation to learn, and reflection of own action, but high for acting according to ethical principles (pre-course) and teamwork (post-course). This indicates consistency for most competencies but requires interpretation of the latter 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Interpretation of results Survey results suggest that participation in the Engineering for Impact course develops competences relevant for transdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge transfer, and sustainable engineering, thus enabling students to solve complex societal challenges. Findings show improved agency and systemic understanding (KMK, 2021) as well as enhanced social responsibility, aligning with responsible research requirements (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Schomberg, 2019). Students also report an improved ability to handle complex and ambiguous situations, as posed by volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environments (Cooke et al., 2025). 1 Agility 2 Handling complexity 3 Agency in systems 4 Acting according to ethical principles 5 Critical thinking 6 Recognizing emotions and taking other perspectives 7 Process analysis and design 8 Reflection of own actions 9 Creativity 10 Attitude towards challenges 11 Agency despite uncertainties and contradictions 12 Teamwork 13 Handling diversity 14 Motivation to learn 0,11 0,10 0,21 0,19 0,30 0,17 0,15 0,12 0,26 0,09 0,28 -0,20 -0,01 0,04 -0,30 -0,20 -0,10 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fig. 1: Comparison of values before and after participating in the course Overall, competencies improved over the period surveyed, but teamwork notably declined and less so handling diversity. This may result from the didactic concept and learning setting. Students worked in fixed, interdisciplinary groups, directly challenging their teamwork and diversity skills and putting their self-perception to the test. Accordingly, SD values can be interpreted. High post-course values for teamwork reflect varying team success as some teams collaborated well while others faced challenges. In contrast, reduced spread in addressing ethical questions suggest increased orientation and familiarity with established methodologies. 4.2 Implications The course essentially achieved its objective of developing competencies for transdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge transfer, and sustainable engineering. Results support competence-oriented teaching and learning approaches in engineering education. Arguably, practical experience in workshops and guidance from experts ensure practical and applied as well as experience-based learning (Kolb, 2015). With suitable methods and didactics, students develop relevant transferable and transdisciplinary competencies. The competence profile assists in illustrating competency development within and across programmes. In addition, it supports reflection for both students and educators, and promotes employability and citizenship (Schaper & Szcyrba, 2021; Wildt, 2023). 4.3 Limitations The main limitation is reliance on student self-assessment, which may not reflect actual competency development as a person's competence cannot be measured directly, but must always be demonstrated in actions and require complementary qualitative assessment (Johannsen & Meyer, 2023). In addition, causality cannot be established, as other influences and lack of a control group (due to number of participants) limit the robustness of these findings. Results and statements of the study remain strictly descriptive. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been possible without the participants of the course Engineering for Impact to whom I would like to express my gratitude and colleagues and reviewers for their critical suggestions and valuable feedback. This work was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Research, Technology, and Space (BMFTR) and Project Management Jülich (PTJ) under Grant No. 01IO2301B. 6 REFERENCES Bennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., & Marchand, C. (2019). Collaboration & team science: A field guide. National Institutes of Health. Bormann, I., & de Haan, G. (2008). Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Brückner, F., & von Ameln, F. (2016). Agilität. GR Interakt Org, 47(4), 383–386. Cooke, N., Winkens, A.-K., Kovacs, H., Van den Broeck, L., Milosevic, T., & Johannsen, T. (2025). Complementing the conventional: Engineering competencies and skills for an uncertain future European society for engineering education. SEFI position paper. SEFI. https://www.sefi.be/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/SEFI-Skillsposition-paper-2025-1.pdf Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach (2nd ed.). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9 Cruz, M. L., Saunders-Smits, G. N., & Groen, P. (2020). Evaluation of competency methods in engineering education: A systematic review. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(5), 729–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1671810 Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Institute for the Future. https://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR1382A_UPRI_future_work_skills_sm.pdf Di Giulio, A., Künzli David, C., & Defila, R. (2008). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung und interdisziplinäre Kompetenzen – Zum Profil von Lehrkräften. In I. Bormann & G. de Haan (Eds.), Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (pp. 179– 197). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ehlers, U.-D. (2020). Future skills. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Fernández-Pérez, V., Montes-Merino, A., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Alonso Galicia, P. E. (2019). Emotional competencies n gni i e n e e en s in s ing s en ’s entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of entrepreneurship education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(1), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0438-7 Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications. Gibbs, P. (2017). Transdisciplinary higher education: A theoretical basis revealed in practice. Springer International Publishing. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=4865042 e n, G 2006 T e B ‘21’ r gr e in Ger n ‘Ges l ngs e enz’‐ based model for education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 19–32. de Haan, G. (2008). Gestaltungskompetenz als Kompetenzkonzept für Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In I. Bormann & G. de Haan (Eds.), Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (pp. 23–43). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hadorn, G. H., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer Netherlands. Heyse, V. (2014). Entwicklung von Schlüsselkompetenzen in deutschen Hochschulen. Bilden deutsche Hochschulen wirklich kompetente Fachleute aus? In V. Heyse (Ed.), Aufbruch in die Zukunft: Erfolgreiche Entwicklungen von Schlüsselkompetenzen in Schulen und Hochschulen (pp. 201–212). Waxmann. Perceived Competencies I To what extent do the following statements apply to you personally? Does not apply Slightly applies Partially applies Mostly applies Applies No response When working with others, I find it easy to adapt flexibly to their respective needs. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I can accurately assess the course of dynamic processes with uncertain outcomes. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I can easily spot the crucial elements that drive a process. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ When I am overwhelmed with information on a topic, I can focus on the essential aspects. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I understand the impact that processes beyond my control have on my activities. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I am able to contextualize my tasks and activities within the bigger picture. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I can trace my behavior back to underlying values. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Values and norms play an important role in my behavior. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ It is second nature for me to critically question data and arguments. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ It is easy for me to evaluate individual aspects of a matter independently of each other. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Perceived Competencies II To what extent do the following statements apply to you personally? Does not apply Slightly applies Partially applies Mostly applies Applies No response I find it easy to perceive and interpret the emotions of others. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I am able to see things from other people's point of view. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I know which steps will lead me to achieve my goals. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ When something needs to be done, I take the initiative. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I can realistically assess my resources, such as personal and economic resources. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I find it important to question and review my actions. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I can develop tailor-made ideas and solutions. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I solve extraordinary problems with creative, unconventional ideas. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Perceived Competencies III To what extent do the following statements apply to you personally? Does not apply Slightly applies Partially applies Mostly applies Applies No response I have a mindset that turns challenges into opportunities. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I enjoy engaging with challenging tasks and problems. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I remain capable of acting even in overwhelming situations. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I am able to make sound decisions even when faced with incomplete or conflicting information. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I prefer working with others rather than working alone on a task. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I have no trouble working with peers from other degree programs or disciplines. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ In interdisciplinary groups, I help to set a shared goal. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I find it easy to explain to my family or friends what I do in my studies. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I find it easy to independently familiarize myself with new topics. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ I am curious. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐