Sustainable engineering at UTS is approached as more than a curriculum – it’s treated as a mindset. Students arrive from varied disciplinary backgrounds and cultural contexts, with different levels of industry exposure.
When learning is intentionally designed for inclusion, every student is enabled to contribute meaningfully; when it is designed for active learning, knowledge is applied to real problems. Together, these practices create learning environments where sustainability education lasts, and translates into action.
Inclusive teaching
As sustainability is global and interdisciplinary, reliance on a single mode of engagement can unintentionally narrow participation. Inclusive teaching is therefore supported through choice and representation in learning materials and multiple pathways for participation.
Widening access, not lowering standards
In a second‑year Ethics for Engineers context at UTS, NSW infrastructure projects are used as locally grounded catalysts for discussion. Projects such as transport corridors, renewable‑energy zones and urban precinct redevelopments are introduced through short, neutral briefs. Students work in small groups to identify ethical challenges, including stakeholder equity, community displacement, cultural heritage, biodiversity impacts, embodied carbon and intergenerational trade‑offs, and to propose practical mitigation strategies such as transparent consultation, design alternatives or lifecycle carbon reduction.
Initial ideas are shared via Padlet, enabling written and visual contributions before any verbal discussion takes place. These posts are then used for structured small‑group dialogue and short share‑outs in tutorials. By anchoring ethical principles in recognisable NSW contexts, participation barriers are lowered while abstract concepts are made tangible. A broad range of voices – local and international, confident and hesitant – are brought into the conversation.
Allowing space for all voices
In a postgraduate Economics classroom, participation is similarly diversified. Students are invited to contribute verbally, through small‑group breakouts, or via short written reflections in Canvas submitted ahead of class. This flexibility allows confidence and clarity to develop before whole‑class discussion.
This approach has been particularly effective in tutorials with a large cohort of international students, where hesitation to speak has often stemmed from language‑related confidence rather than lack of understanding. Abstract concepts are therefore reframed using locally grounded prompts. When introducing nudge theory, for example, students are asked to consider how public campaigns encourage electricity savings in their home countries, through energy‑use alerts, pricing signals or culturally familiar messaging. These concrete examples act as catalysts for dialogue, enabling quieter students to contribute confidently and enriching discussion through cross‑cultural comparison. Inclusive design, in this sense, does not dilute rigour; it removes unnecessary barriers so students can reach it.
Active learning
In sustainable engineering, students are expected to analyse systems, weigh trade‑offs and design interventions. For this reason, hands‑on, data‑informed and collaborative activities are prioritised.
Pre-class activities to link theory to problem-solving
Within project‑based subjects, tools such as Mentimeter are used synchronously to assess pre‑class understanding through short quizzes and open‑ended questions. Each prompt is followed by a brief class‑wide debrief, where misconceptions are clarified and peer responses are invited. This creates a consistent rhythm of question → reflection → discussion, linking theory to emerging professional judgement. Because contributions can be written, visual or verbal, participation is balanced across the cohort, and students report valuing the low‑pressure, inclusive format.
Digging deeper with role-play
Role‑play is used to surface stakeholder perspectives and ethical trade‑offs. One example activity focuses on assessing the social and environmental implications of retrofitting flood‑resilience measures along an urban river corridor in NSW. Students alternate between the roles of a project engineering team and diverse community stakeholders, including local business owners, long‑term residents, Indigenous representatives, environmental advocates and council officers. An empathy‑mapping framework guides preparation, prompting students to consider each stakeholder’s concerns, values, and constraints.
During the discussion, issues such as construction disruption, cultural recognition, public safety, habitat restoration and long‑term community benefit are debated alongside engineering considerations of cost, constructability and climate resilience. Insights from the role‑play feed directly into subsequent assessment tasks, reinforcing that engineering feasibility must be integrated with social licence, cultural values, and equity.
Across these activities, students develop career‑relevant capabilities: cross‑disciplinary collaboration, systems thinking, data literacy, ethical reasoning and clear technical communication, while assessment remains aligned with authentic decision‑making under uncertainty.
Accessible learning environments for real-world change
When inclusive teaching is paired with active learning, sustainable engineering becomes an arena for agency. Students do not simply learn about climate or infrastructure – they practise making judgements, negotiating constraints and designing solutions. The result is a learning environment where diverse perspectives strengthen ideas and education becomes a tool for real‑world change.