Teaching The Loop: Co-Designing Constructively Aligned Circular Economy Courses for Engineering Students

Workshop Recommended citation: Peña-Torres, D., Baldasso, V., Sundman, J., Taka, M., & Mikola, A. (2025). Teaching The Loop: Co-Designing Constructively Aligned Circular Economy Courses for Engineering Students. 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.17631623. 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. TEACHING THE LOOP: CO-DESIGNING CONSTRUCTIVELY ALIGNED CIRCULAR ECONOMY COURSES FOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS D. Peña-Torresa, 1 , V. Baldassob, J. Sundmanc, M. Taikad, A. Mikolae a Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0002-1705-0018 b Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0003-4107-1078 c Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0003-2590-632X d Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0002-6147-9137 e Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, ORCID 0000-0002-1629-9276 Conference Key Areas: Sustainability and society in engineering, and Engineering skills, professional skills and transversal skills. Keywords: Education in engineering, education for circular economy, course design. ABSTRACT The role of education in the transition towards circular production systems is crucial, with future engineers playing a key role for enabling a sustainable future. However, the integration of CE into higher education curricula remains fragmented, and literature is limited on the connection between CE competencies and teaching and learning approaches. To address this, this workshop introduces a set of CE-specific competencies relevant to engineering education, which serve as a foundation for participants to co-design a course using constructive alignment principles. The proposed workshop offers a space for collaborative course development across diverse engineering contexts, supporting participants in translating CE principles into pedagogically sound and context-sensitive course structures. The significance of this workshop lies in its contribution to developing more targeted approaches to CE education, resulting in insights that can serve as a foundation for refining CE teaching practices and informing the development of adaptable course design tools or guidelines. 1 Corresponding Author D. Peña-Torres [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Numerous environmental and economic pressures force our current production system to change, transitioning from linear to circular organisational structures. This shift prompts the exploration of interconnected and complex production systems, where waste streams are redefined as valuable feedstocks and materials (Viles et al., 2020). Circular economy (CE) lays at the centre of this paradigm shift and has thus gained attention in the last decade. The basis of this concept lies on the three principles: (1) eliminate waste and pollution, (2) (re)circulate products and materials, and (3) regenerate nature (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2024). The critical role of education in the transition towards circular production systems has been highlighted across various contexts in the literature for several decades (Anderberg et al., 2009; Broecks et al., 2016; Palmer, 1992). Higher education has begun to recognise that educating individuals is the most effective way to achieve this transition (Renfors, 2024; Tiippana-Usvasalo et al., 2023). In this sense, engineers play a key role as proactive future builders, designing systems and technologies that enable sustainable solutions (Giannoccaro et al., 2021; OECD, 2019; SanchezRomaguera et al., 2016; World Economic Forum, 2025). Given its critical role, Education for the Circular Economy (ECE) has emerged as a new field of study. ECE describes the pedagogical approaches that lecturers can employ to accelerate this transition. Despite its well-documented need in higher education, the number of papers addressing teaching in the field of circular economy remains limited (D'Amato et al., 2017; Kirchherr & Piscicelli, 2019; Whalen et al., 2018). The integration of CE in engineering education is also at an early stage, with limited literature on pedagogical approaches and experiences (Mesa & Esparragoza, 2021; Sanchez-Romaguera et al., 2016). 1.1 Integrating CE competencies in engineering education Within the ECE literature, several studies have synthesized the competencies and skills taught to future professionals, and specifically to engineering students, highlighting that most of them have focused on skills based on knowledge of sustainability and CE principles (Burger et al., 2019; Giannoccaro et al., 2021; Janssens et al., 2021; Sumter et al., 2021). However, professionals, and in particular engineers, require CE competencies beyond these for developing a full transition to circular production systems. Renfors (2024) conducted a comprehensive study with valuable insights into how CE is currently being taught, highlighting different key competencies and how different teaching and learning approaches address some of them in better ways than others. Similarly, Mesa and Esparragoza (2021) conducted a systematic review of the implementation of CE in learning activities, with the difference that their study focused specifically on initiatives for engineering students. Both studies highlighted the impact of project-based approaches and how they developed not only technical competencies, but also transversal skills (leadership, teamwork and creativity), which are highly needed for future CE professionals. Preliminary findings from Baldasso et al., (2025) suggest that water and environmental engineering professionals consider all the listed CE competencies to be important, including knowledge-based skills (Figure 1). The top three competencies considered more important by professionals working with CE were problem solving, critical thinking and subject-specific knowledge. In addition, Renfors (2024) found that all the reviewed courses had team-based approaches, emphasising that learning takes place in students when they are given the opportunity to discuss how to solve problems with their peers. However, the same study was not able to fully link teaching and learning approaches to the CE competencies. Therefore, further studies should focus on these issues. Educators also need to identify how to integrate circular economy principles into the curriculum, incorporate key competencies for engineers and identify the most appropriate teaching and learning approaches to train future CE professionals. Collaboration with external partners is crucial as well, as they provide real-world CE problems for the classroom (Mesa & Esparragoza, 2021). Therefore, the needs of stakeholders should be carefully considered in course planning. Figure 1: Key circular economy (CE) competencies identified and considered important by water and environmental engineering professionals. Average scores (range from 1 not important to 5 very important) for the importance of CE competencies. Knowledge-based competencies are indicated by (K). 2 RATIONALE FOR COURSE DESIGN WORKSHOP While CE is increasingly supported by global policy agendas (e.g., European Commission, 2020), its integration into higher education curricula remains fragmented, and lacks pedagogical coherence and alignment (Mesa & Esparragoza, 2021; Renfors, 2024). These challenges can be attributed to the conceptual ambiguity of CE, an imbalance between its social, environmental, and economic dimensions, its implementation as isolated electives rather than as embedded curricular content, the lack of pedagogical guidance for teaching, and the difficulty of assessing CE-related competencies (Kirchherr & Piscicelli, 2019). Furthermore, although emerging studies have explored the use of active, interdisciplinary, and student-centric pedagogies to support ECE in engineering education such as project-, problem-, and challengedbased learning and flipped classroom (e.g., El Gamal et al., 2024; Erol & Hörbe, 2023; Rodríguez-Chueca et al., 2020), there is still limited understanding on how these pedagogies can be effectively adapted to different course scopes. To address these gaps, the workshop introduced a set of CE-specific competencies relevant to engineering education, synthesized from recent studies and our preliminary findings on existing offerings in Europe and empirical data from our stakeholder study. These competencies serve as a foundation for participants to co-design a course using the principles of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011). 2.1 Expected learning outcomes After the workshop, the participants are equipped with the knowledge and practical ’ -level CE courses in varied engineering contexts. More specifically, by the end of the workshop, the participants will be able to: A. Identify key competencies and intended learning outcomes relevant to CE in engineering education. B. Evaluate and select appropriate teaching and learning methods that support these competencies. C. Propose assessment strategies aligned with course objectives and CE principles. 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN The workshop was designed as a collaborative, inclusive, and participatory session where participants co-created a course concept for CE in engineering. The workshop was relevant to all engineering educators and researchers, curriculum developers, and academic staff with an interest in integrating CE principles into their courses. 3.1 Time plan The workshop was structured around four main components with an additional opportunity for participant feedback at the end (Table 1). Table 1. Workshop time plan Run time Activity Details 10 min Introduction and framing Facilitators present the core principles of circular economy education, relevant competencies, and common challenges in course design. 5 min Group formation and briefing Participants are divided into 3-6 groups, each with a unique course context 20 min Collaborative course design in groups Groups co-develop a CE course concept using a structured template based on the principles of constructive alignment 18 min Poster presentations and plenary discussion Each group briefly presents their course design, followed by a plenary discussion to reflect on key insights and approaches. 2 min Participant feedback Participants reflect individually on their key take-aways The session began with a 10-minute introduction by the facilitators on the core principles of circular economy education, key competencies relevant to engineering contexts, and common challenges associate with CE course design. This opening segment provided a shared foundation for the collaborative work to follow. After the introduction, participants were divided into groups, each assigned a distinct course context (Table 2). To support a shared point of reference, all the course contexts were situated within the topic of CE as part of the elective curriculum for a MSc programme in engineering. This allocation ensured a common thematic context, while maintaining flexibility to support creative and context-specific course design. Participants were not expected to have prior expertise in CE applications, but rather, the activity was designed to focus on core course design elements. The group briefing took approximately five minutes. The core of the workshop consisted of a 25-minute collaborative design phase, during which each group worked with a structured template to develop a CE course concept. Participants identified intended learning outcomes, selected appropriate teaching and learning methods, and proposed assessment strategies aligned with CE principles. The course design template is structured around principles of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011), and includes guiding questions for intended learning outcomes, appropriate teaching and learning activities, resources, and corresponding assessment methodologies. The groups were also provided with a list of CE competencies to consider in the course design. In the final 15 minutes of the workshop, each group presented their course concept in a concise poster-style format, followed by a brief plenary discussion. Before ending the workshop, participants were given the opportunity to give feedback and reflect on their key takeaways and open remaining questions through an anonymous weblink. Table 2. Three course contexts used during the workshop Context Course scope Expected students Engineering discipline Course brief A 3 ECTS 50-80 Civil engineering Circular economy in this context includes, but is not limited to, urban planning, energy efficiency in buildings, and alternative construction materials. B 5 ECTS 20-30 Water and environmental engineering Circular economy in this context includes, but is not limited to, water reuse and recycling, nutrient and energy recovery, and decentralized systems. C 10 ECTS 10-20 Energy engineering Circular economy in this context includes, but is not limited to, energy systems planning, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, and waste heat integration. 3.2 Interactivity The workshop was structured to promote active engagement, peer exchange, and collaborative knowledge construction. Following an introductory presentation to ECE in engineering education, participants engaged in small-group work focused on the codesign of a master's-level course on circular economy. The session concluded with short poster-style presentations and a facilitated discussion to support cross-group learning. An individual reflection activity at the end allowed participants to consolidate key takeaways and express further questions or interests, that might be relevant for future research or similar workshops. 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE Seven participants from diverse institutions and backgrounds attended the workshop. After workshop introduction, the participants were divided into two groups to work on unique course contexts. The first group (Group A) proposed a 3 ECTS elective course organized by the civil engineering department for 50-80 students from various disciplines. G A “ - ” method, where students would explore converting hazard-related waste into usable materials. The ILOs emphasized understanding the physical aspects of hazard formation, developing design and analytical skills, and fostering collaboration and critical thinking. Teaching methods included lectures, practical examples, and casebased work. The second group (Group B) developed a 5 ECTS course organized by the water and environmental engineering department for 20-30 students. Group B’ ILOs focused on recognizing CE principles, critically comparing existing CE models, applying LCA methods, and analyzing water systems. Teaching and learning activities included flipped classroom approaches, where students teach assigned literature and materials to their peers. Assessment was structured around continuous checkpoints and a summative group presentation. During the plenary discussion, participants reflected on broader pedagogical considerations that cut across both course designs. One question that came up was about student preparedness. To what extent should courses require prerequisites, particularly when the students come from diverse backgrounds? This question was linked to concerns about introducing new methods/tools (e.g., LCA) within a limited course scope. Another key point was balancing student autonomy with instruction. Although there was agreement that the CE courses should simulate real-world conditions, the participants deemed important to consider the level of freedom given to students. For example, should students be responsible for finding their own case studies, or should teachers provide a curated pool to guide the analysis? The variations between the two groups highlight how course size and scope shape course design. While the smaller course encouraged breadth, interdisciplinarity and exploratory learning, the larger course allowed for greater depth and structured peer learning. The two designs have similarities that align with the principles needed in ECE (Kirchherr & Piscicelli, 2019), as both groups emphasize the importance of continuous assessment and team-based strategies. Beyond these specific course contexts, the workshop demonstrated how collaborative design tasks can foster critical dialogue among educators on how to approach interdisciplinary learning contents. The workshop highlighted both pedagogical challenges and opportunities of advancing ECE in engineering education, particularly in terms of considering innovative approaches and managing practical tensions. These questions resonate more broadly with the on-going challenge of aligning sustainabilitydriven pedagogies with curricular realities (Sundman et al., 2025). Future work could build on these insights by examining how active and interdisciplinary pedagogies can be embedded beyond isolated courses while addressing institutional barriers such as rigid curricula, limited resources, and pedagogical guidance and professional support for teachers (e.g., Mesa & Esparragoza, 2021). Doing so is essential if ECE is to progress from fragmented implementation toward systematic integration in engineering education. REFERENCES Anderberg, E., Nordén, B., & Hansson, B. (2009). Global learning for sustainable development in higher education: recent trends and a critique. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(4), 368-378. Baldasso, V., Peña-Torres, D., Sundman, J., Taka, M., Mikola, A. (2025). Circular economy for water education: Job market expectations and higher educational offerings in Finland. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education. Forthcoming. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 1-19. Broecks, K. P. F., van Egmond, S., van Rijnsoever, F. J., Verlinde-van den Berg, M., & Hekkert, M. P. (2016). Persuasiveness, importance and novelty of arguments about Carbon Capture and Storage. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 5866. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.004 Burger, M., Stavropoulos, S., Ramkumar, S., Dufourmont, J., & van Oort, F. (2019). The heterogeneous skill-base of circular economy employment. Research Policy, 48(1), 248-261. D'Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B. D., & Toppinen, A. (2017). Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 716-734. El Gamal, G. A., Gomaa, A. M., & Daowd, M. (2024). Circular Economy in Engineering Education: Enhancing Quality through Project-Based Learning and Assessment. Advanced Sciences and Technology Journal, 1(2), 1-17. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). Circular Economy Principles. Retrieved 21 August 2024 from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circulareconomy-principles Erol, S., & Hörbe, R. (2023). Bridging the Educational Gap in Circular Design and Engineering—An Educational Concept and Case Study from Austria. Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, European Commission. (2020). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN Giannoccaro, I., Ceccarelli, G., & Fraccascia, L. (2021). Features of the higher education for the circular economy: the case of Italy. Sustainability, 13(20), 11338. Janssens, L., Kuppens, T., & Van Schoubroeck, S. (2021). Competences of the professional of the future in the circular economy: Evidence from the case of Limburg, Belgium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125365. Kirchherr, J., & Piscicelli, L. (2019). Towards an education for the circular economy (ECE): five teaching principles and a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150, 104406. Mesa, J. A., & Esparragoza, I. (2021). Towards the implementation of Circular Economy in Engineering Education: A systematic review. 2021 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), OECD. (2019). Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems (Getting Skills Right, Issue. OECD Publisher. Palmer, G. (1992). The Earth Summit: What Went Wrong at Rio? Washington University Law Quarterly, 70, 1005. Renfors, S.-M. (2024). Education for the circular economy in higher education: an overview of the current state. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(9), 111-127. Rodríguez-Chueca, J., Molina-García, A., García-Aranda, C., Pérez, J., & Rodríguez, E. (2020). Understanding sustainability and the circular economy through flipped classroom and challenge-based learning: An innovative experience in engineering education in Spain. Environmental Education Research, 26(2), 238-252. Sanchez-Romaguera, V., Dobson, H. E., Tomkinson, C. B., & Bland Tomkinson, C. (2016). Educating engineers for the circular economy. The 9th International Conference on Engineering Education for Sustainable Development, 4th-7th September 2016At: Bruges, Belgium, Sumter, D., de Koning, J., Bakker, C., & Balkenende, R. (2021). Key competencies for design in a circular economy: Exploring gaps in design knowledge and skills for a circular economy. Sustainability, 13(2), 776. Sundman, J., Feng, X., Shrestha, A., Johri, A., Varis, O., & Taka, M. (2025). Experiential learning for sustainability: A systematic review and research agenda for engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 0(0), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2532591 Tiippana-Usvasalo, M., Pajunen, N., & Maria, H. (2023). The role of education in promoting circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 16(1), 92-103. Viles, E., Santos, J., Arévalo, T. F., Tanco, M., & Kalemkerian, F. (2020). A new mindset for circular economy strategies: Case studies of circularity in the use of water. Sustainability, 12(22), 9781. Whalen, K. A., Berlin, C., Ekberg, J., Barletta, I., & Hammersberg, P. (2018). ‘A ’: L education. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 335-345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.021 World Economic Forum. (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_Report_2025.pdf