Rewiring from Within: Exploring how Participation in Curriculum Development Impacts Engineering Academics Professional and Personal Well-being

Lelanie Smith; Janine Hechter; Liesel Ebersöhn; Bronwyn Swartz; Inês Direito

doi:10.54337/irspbl-11107

Authors

Lelanie Smith University of Pretoria
Janine Hechter University of Pretoria
Liesel Ebersöhn University of Pretoria
Bronwyn Swartz Cape Peninsula University of Technology
Inês Direito Universidade de Aveiro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54337/irspbl-11107

Keywords:

Engineering educators, Innovative engineering curricula, Transformation, Well-being

Abstract

Addressing complex global challenges requires more than technical solutions; it demands an integrated approach involving economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Engineering education is a driver for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but transformative engineering education requires a ‘shift of consciousness’ and focus on socio-emotional development. Our project developed a process called 'Clear,' rooted in Theory U for systemic transformation in engineering education and applying meta-patterns to support shifts in personal perspectives. The process enables engineering educators to slow down and explore fundamental questions about identity, purpose, and response-ability, which are essential precursors to effective engagement with complexities of developing an engineering curriculum. This approach is particularly relevant for developing innovative engineering curricula in South Africa and in comparable low- and middle income settings transforming away from inequality to justice. The study aims to explore how focusing on intrapersonal transformation, through the 'Clear' process, can facilitate systemic change in engineering higher education. Specifically, it explores personal awareness and development as foundational intrapersonal capacities to enable broader curriculum shifts. Research assistants conducted online interviews with 34 engineering educators engaged in the 'Clear' process. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis to understand the participants' experience during and after the ‘Clear’ process. The analysis revealed themes such as the importance of community, the need for balanced reflective practice, and the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for change. Participants highlighted the role of networking and the complexities of building learning communities, with their narratives showing evidence of both professional and personal well-being as a result of participating in the curriculum intervention. These insights suggest that individual transformation is crucial before addressing larger institutional goals, aligning with the principles of the Inner Development Goals (IDGs) framework. This work-in-progress suggests that integrating IDGs, such as “Being” into academic development can create a foundation for innovative, student-centred curricula. Future research will explore how individual attributes - such as career phase, personality, and socio-cultural values - shape engagement with systemic transformation efforts.

References

Ankrah, D., Bristow, J., Hires, D., & Henriksson, J. A. (2023). Inner Development Goals: From inner growth to outer change. Field Actions Science Reports, Special Issue 25, 82–87. http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/7326

Anwar, A. A., & Richards, D. J. (2015). The Washington Accord and US licensing boards. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 141(4), 04015001.

Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40, 409–422.

Besterfield-Sacre, M., Cox, M. F., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Changing engineering education: Views of US faculty, chairs, and deans. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 193–219.

Case, J. M., Fraser, D. M., Kumar, A., & Itika, A. (2016). The significance of context for curriculum development in engineering education: A case study across three African countries. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 279–292.

Coso Strong, A., Faber, C. J., Lee, W. C., Bodnar, C. A., Smith-Orr, C., & McCave, E. (2023). In pursuit of impact: Toward a contextualized theory of professional agency of engineering education scholars. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(1), 195–220.

Felder, R.M., Brent, R. and Prince, M.J. (2011), Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 100: 89-122.

Graham, R. (2025). Rewarding teaching in academic careers: Mapping the global movement for change. Advancing Teaching.

Hall, L.M., Bodenhamer, B.G., Bolstad, R., & Hamblett, M. (2001). Structure of Personality. Crown house publishing.

Ives, C. D., Freeth, R., & Fischer, J. (2020). Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio, 49, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w

Kasuba, R., & Ziliukas, P. (2004). A comparative review of two major international accrediting consortia for engineering education: The Washington Accord and the Bologna Process. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 3(1), 71–74.

Kolmos, A., Hadgraft, R. G., & Holgaard, J. E. (2016). Response strategies for curriculum change in engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 391–411.

Leibowitz, B., Bozalek, V., Van Schalkwyk, S., & Winberg, C. (2015). Institutional context matters: The professional development of academics as teachers in South African higher education. Higher Education, 69, 315–330.

Linder-Pelz, S., & Hall, M. (2008). Meta-coaching: a methodology grounded in psychological theory. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 6(1).

Mason, M. (2008). What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 35–49.

Mitchell, J. E., Nyamapfene, A., Roach, K., & Tilley, E. (2021). Faculty-wide curriculum reform: The integrated engineering programme. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 48–66.

Morrison, K. (2008). Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34.

Nodine, T. R. (2016). How did we get here? A brief history of competency-based higher education in the United States. The Journal of Competency-Based Education, 1(1), 5–11.

Nordin, A., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Exploring curriculum change using discursive institutionalism–a conceptual framework. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 820–835.

Ogude, N., Nel, H., & Oosthuizen, M. (2005). The challenge of curriculum responsiveness in South African higher education. Council on Higher Education.

Scharmer, C. O. (2016). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Walkington, J. (2002). A process for curriculum change in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(2), 133–148.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Woiwode, C. (2020). Inner transformation for 21st-century futures: The missing dimension in higher education. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 62(4), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2020.1764299