Engineers of the future: student perspectives on integrating global competence in their education

ABSTRACT

Engineering curricula need to integrate global competence learning to ensure that graduates can succeed in globalised labour markets. In this context, this study examines disciplinary engineering courses, focusing on the key characteristics of globally competent educators and teaching approaches in terms of learning environments and course activities from the students’ perspective. We conducted focus group discussions with 28 students from different engineering disciplines to learn more about their perceptions and experiences. The results suggest that they felt that integrated global competence learning would require educators to demonstrate open-mindedness, a global mindset, and strong social skills. In addition, global competence teaching approaches were associated with learning environments that were described as engaging, inclusive, and student-centered, and with course activities that were related to real-world situations, included collaborative elements, and were facilitated and supported by the instructor. This study contextualises the idea of global competence in engineering education and provides valuable insights into students’ perspectives and experiences with its integration during their studies. It also critically examines students’ ideas and suggestions about opportunities for such learning in relation to educational science, and suggests a way forward for global competence in engineering education.

KEYWORDS:

• Global competence
• engineering education
• faculty development
• teaching and learning
• learning environments

1. Introduction

Engineering curricula need to integrate global competence learning to ensure that graduates can succeed in globalised labour markets. Against this background, this study examines disciplinary engineering courses, focusing on the key characteristics of globally competent educators and teaching approaches in terms of learning environments and course activities from the students’ perspective. To ground our research, we will first introduce the recently emerged idea of global competence as a core attribute of graduates living and working in a globalised environment. We will then introduce the idea of internationalising higher education, with a particular focus on broad curricular approaches to developing global competence and the associated role of engineering educators in this endeavour. Finally, we will conclude this section by outlining the rationale behind our objective to collect student perspectives and experiences on the integration of global competence in disciplinary engineering subjects.

1.1 The need of global competence for engineers

Engineering education has the responsibility to prepare graduates who are ready to meet the demands of their future professions. Globalisation has changed professional practice, and in the diverse and interconnected twenty-first century, engineers are not only required to possess technical expertise, but also global competence in order to master various intercultural and interdisciplinary collaborations. Whether graduates will work in multinational organisations, or on projects for international clients, or with potential global impacts – graduates will need to be able to work with others from different national, cultural, professional, or disciplinary backgrounds. The complex problems that engineers work on typically require the combined efforts of individuals from different backgrounds, and such diverse collaborations may even increase creativity, innovation, and performance (Hussein, Hasan, and Murtuza 2017; Wang et al. 2019). However, research has shown that diverse teams may struggle with factors such as subgroup categorisation or intergroup bias – an us-versus-them mentality – resulting in interpersonal conflict or low trust which may hinder fruitful collaboration (Homan and Greer 2013). Given that a large portion of everyday engineering work is typically taken up by communicating with others (Passow and Passow 2017), it is imperative that young engineers have a well-rounded set of competences to thrive in such diverse situations. To ensure that these evolving professional demands are met and that graduates are competitive in global labour markets, engineering education itself may need a reform to adapt traditional yet often outdated educational approaches. Similar sentiments have already found reception in professional educational initiatives such as CDIO (Crawley et al. 2014) or accreditation bodies such as ABET (2018), which emphasise the need for such competences in engineers. Consequently, engineering institutions around the world have begun to adopt aspects of the humanities within their curricula, particularly notable among them being competence-based approaches which come with the promise of flexible applicability for a variety of professional contexts (Rico-García and Fielden Burns 2020).

In the endeavour to create global graduates, the idea of global competence, which can be broadly summarised as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to thrive in the globalised world and work towards a sustainable future (e.g. (OECD 2018)), has found its way into higher engineering education. The specific competences needed are generally considered context-specific and vary to at least some extent for different professions. Popular attempts to conceptualise global competence from an engineering standpoint stem from authors such as Downey and colleagues (2006), Parkinson and colleagues (2009), or Warnick (2011). At the core of these and similar global competence models are different aspects relating to intercultural communication, teamwork and appreciation of cultural diversity, knowledge and understanding of international and global business and engineering, as well as a global mindset. The relevance of these dimensions was supported by Jesiek and colleagues’ (2014) review of work situations of global engineers, where they found global engineers to commonly encounter situations revolving around technical coordination, negotiation around different engineering cultures, and navigation of ethics, standards, and regulations. Despite growing recognition of the importance of global competence for engineering professions, scholars still lament that institutions are slow in creating the global graduates needed by industry (e.g. (Leydens 2012; Van den Beemt 2020)).

To create globally competent students, universities can take advantage of numerous opportunities, which are often summarised under the header of higher education internationalisation. Knight’s (2004) popular definition of internationalisation as ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education’ (2), has recently been revised by internationalisation experts to add both intentionality and greater inclusiveness through the words ‘in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society’ (de Wit and Hunter 2015, 3). Among the most popular higher education internationalisation activities, particularly mobility experiences, international or virtual collaborations, or specific courses, workshops, or events at the home campus hold great promise for global competence development. However, despite such activities’ high potential for competence acquisition, one must remember that without their inclusion in programme curricula, typically only a minority of students will typically benefit from such experiences. In order to promote global competence at a larger institutional scale, a more comprehensive approach addressing all students is needed (Kjellgren and Richter 2021).

1.2 Engineering educators as key players for curricular global competence development

The key players for wide-scale curricular global competence education are engineering educators (Caena 2014; Barak 2017; Baily and Holmarsdottir 2019; Tichnor-Wagner et al. 2019). Educators have a formative role for their students: they are teachers, mentors, and role models, alike. Not only do they provide their students with the necessary technical expertise for starting a career as engineers, but they also shape the students’ expectations of what their future professions will be like. Given the strong influence they have on students and their development as professional engineers, it is no surprise that scholarship is beginning to take a closer look at them (see for example (Niehaus and Williams 2016; Senyshyn and Smith 2019; Galinova 2015; Rodríguez-Izquierdo 2018; Papadopoulou, Palaiologou, and Karanikola 2022)). Since students’ future professions will benefit from a certain level of global competence, it appears obvious that educators should also integrate such learning into their courses. This is easier said than done considering the complexities of global competence learning which is always grounded in a certain level of subjectivity and uncertainty – which constitutes a stark contrast to the linear logical approaches commonly found in technical subjects. Global competence is expressed in behaviour, and the type of behaviour deemed appropriate and effective varies according to each specific situation. Moreover, engineering educators may in first instance be hired for their technical expertise and research merits (Seniuk Cicek et al. 2019) rather than their holistic pedagogy, which suggests that a comprehensive integration of competences with traditional course outcomes takes some time, effort, and support – and educators possessing a certain level of global competence themselves.

There is wide consensus that educators themselves need to hone their own global competence if they are to support their students in doing the same (Baily and Holmarsdottir 2019; Tichnor-Wagner et al. 2019; Crawford, Higgins, and Hilburn 2020). This is also exemplified by calls for global competence not being offered as an elective co-curricular option, but rather being widely integrated into student curricula (Tichnor-Wagner et al. 2019) as well as teacher training (Parmigiani et al. 2022). Research has indicated positive impacts on global competence both from specific modules (Kjellgren and Keller 2018) as well as integrated global engineering courses (Dang, Davis, and Jesiek 2022). Nonetheless, particular course contexts, including the specific topic, classroom setting, and type of assignments strongly affect which types of contents can be smoothly integrated in individual courses. Accordingly, it is not surprising that other authors have stressed the need for broad university-wide global competence integration (Kjellgren and Richter 2021; Deardorff 2011). Despite this new direction for global competence in engineering education, what exactly is expected from a globally competent engineering educator has not been clearly defined. While there have been different attempts to capture global competence specifically for engineers (e.g. (Downey et al. 2006; Parkinson, Harb, and Magleby 2009; Warnick 2011)) and educators (e.g. (Tichnor-Wagner et al. 2019; Carter 2020; Kerkhoff and Cloud 2020)), these domains have, to our knowledge, not been reviewed in connection. Some of the common characteristics of good pedagogy will certainly be important in any teaching context, but for globally competent education to become a reality, it is important to identify how such characteristics can translate into teaching practices. Consequently, we believe that the specific higher education context paired with the characteristics of engineering teaching and learning and the urgency of ensuring that engineering education meets professional and societal demands, warrant an investigation into global competence in the engineering classroom. Following Caena’s (2014) appeal for involving stakeholders in such an endeavour, we will explore the topic from a student perspective.

1.3 Objectives of this study

This study presents an exploration into engineering education for global competence from a student perspective, particularly focusing on the idea of the characteristics of globally competent engineering educators and approaches for supporting students’ global competence development in disciplinary engineering classrooms. Using a major Swedish engineering university as the setting for a case study, we explore the following two research questions from a student perspective:

• What are the key characteristics educators need to support students’ global competence learning?

• How can global competence be integrated within disciplinary engineering subjects?

The first research question relates to engineering students’ perceptions of how an educator should be in order to support them in acquiring global competence. Based on that, the second research question connects to students’ perceptions on the enactment of global competence in the classroom, where we explore how educators of various engineering disciplines may support students in fostering regular disciplinary learning and global competence development in an integrated way. While there is a wealth of publications focusing on specific learning activities and their supposed (potential) outcomes for competence development, we instead want to focus on students’ practical experiences with such approaches. Competence acquisition depends largely on the learners’ willingness and motivation to learn, and well-intentioned course activities and contents may fail to deliver the desired outcomes, if not carefully designed and delivered (Kjellgren and Richter 2021; Richter and Kjellgren 2022). Considering students as major stakeholders in the educational system, and the ones directly affected by teaching practice, we consider an exploration into their perspectives as invaluable for insights into current and desired realities of engineering education.

2. Methodology

2.1 Case study context

Empirical data was collected from focus group discussions with students of different engineering disciplines at a major Swedish engineering university. The chosen university has been offering pedagogical courses covering global competence, gender and diversity, and sustainable development, which offers up several opportunities for educators to develop global competences and translate them into their teaching practice. Another advantage for our research is that the selected institution has also been offering intercultural and global competence courses to students, and those students’ understanding of the issue provided an invaluable opportunity to not only gain a stakeholder perspective, but to also collect first-hand insights into real classroom experiences.

2.2 Ethical considerations

Study participation was voluntary, retractable, and based on informed consent. Before data collection, the students in the course were informed about the study and its aims, the type of information we collected, and what their participation would entail. Students were also informed that their participation was voluntary, that they could withdraw at any time, and that their identities would remain confidential. Only data from the 28 students giving their informed consent were collected. Based on the type and nature of data collected, our study fell outside the scope of research requiring ethical review, as outlined in the national regulations and guidelines provided by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2023) and the Swedish Research Council (2017). No personal data falling under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) or the Swedish Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans (2003:460) was collected.

2.3 Sample population

Since global competence is a new and highly complex concept, we decided on a purposive sample of students who already possessed insights on the topic in order to obtain informed perspectives. Therefore, we conducted focus group discussions with students who were, at the time of data collection, enrolled in a course on global competence, which furthermore was based on a prerequisite course on intercultural competence. The 28 students in our sample, who all volunteered and gave informed consent to be part of the study, represented several different disciplines and programmes, all of them studying at the master’s level.

Of the students, 22 were female and 6 male, and they all were local or long-term residents in Sweden with one or more international mobility experiences. The students came from different programmes and fields of engineering, although the majority of students were from either industrial (n = 8, 29%) or civil (n = 7, 25%) engineering or interdisciplinary programmes (n = 5, 18%), with fewer from chemical (n = 4, 14%), mechanical (n = 2, 7%) or electrical engineering (n = 2, 7%). Table 1 summarises these key characteristics.

Table 1. Characteristics of the student sample (N = 28).

Characteristic	Number of students
Gender	Female	22 (79%)
	Male	6 (21%)
Study level	Bachelor’s degree	-
	Master’s degree	28 (100%)
Engineering field	Civil Engineering	7 (25%)
	Chemical Engineering	4 (14%)
	Mechanical Engineering	2 (7%)
	Electrical Engineering	2 (7%)
	Industrial Engineering	8 (29%)
	Interdisciplinary Chemical/Civil Industrial/Chemical Electric/Mechanical	5 (18%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 1 (4%)

2.4 Data collection

Data was collected in November 2020 in the context of a global competence course the students were enrolled in, and both the course and the discussions were conducted over the video teleconferencing software Zoom. Prior to the study, students were informed about it taking place and, at the day of data collection, the course instructor again explained the purpose of the study, informed about informed consent and about their rights to later withdraw it, before asking the students to participate in the study. Under facilitation of the course instructor, the students agreeing to partake in the study were grouped into separate breakout groups of three to four students each, altogether constituting nine individual groups. These groups were then asked to discuss a set of questions amongst themselves and to take notes during their discussions. Guiding discussion questions revolved around (1) key personal and professional characteristics of globally competent educators, (2) the mindset globally competent educators should possess, (3) examples and experiences with globally competent (or incompetent) teaching the students experienced at the university, and (4) teaching approaches (e.g. activities or assignments) for global competence development within the students’ programmes. After the individual focus group discussions, the groups were recollected, and their group discussions were summarised and further elaborated within a larger group setting. The data analysed for this paper stems from both the students’ notes that were collected in the small group discussions as well as a video recording of the following large group discussion.

2.5 Data analysis

For this qualitative explorative study on student perceptions we followed an inductive research approach revolving around thematic analysis (Bryman 2012). After collecting and anonymising all data, we followed an iterative process of open and then closed coding, before constructing an index in which we clustered the emerging themes and subthemes we identified. Our analysis aims to highlight broader patterns among the students’ perspectives and experiences, however, we also use direct quotes to illustrate individual accounts.

2.6 Limitations

We acknowledge that the choice of purposive sampling has limitations due to the self-selection of course participants. As the global competence course was offered as a freestanding elective course, it attracted interested students from different fields and backgrounds. Since the students who enrolled in this elective course were not a representative sample of the general student body, e.g. in terms of gender distribution, we cannot assert the generalisability of our findings. Nevertheless, we contend that our sample population provided the advantages of possessing in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of global competence, and also representing a broad range of engineering fields, both of which were of importance for our research endeavour. A second limitation of our data is connected to the nature of our data collection. Due to difficulties of recording individual small group discussion sessions in the online format of the course, we asked students to write notes about their discussions, with only the summarising large group setting being recorded. By choosing this pragmatic approach, we were only able to collect the main points of the students’ discussions, but could not retrace the process of them finding consensus beyond some groups detailing their discussions in the larger group setting. However, we believe that our aim to uncover general patterns rather than focusing on specific or individual perspectives mitigated potential shortcomings from such an approach.

3. Results

Considering the close connection between the key characteristics a globally competent educator ought to possess and how they approach teaching for integrated global competence learning, a differentiation between internalised characteristics and consequent externalised behaviour appeared not always straight-forward during discussions. Despite these aspects being closely interrelated, we attempted to illustrate them separately: We will first address the characteristics students deemed crucial for globally competent engineering educators, before describing a variety of approaches to support student global competence development within disciplinary engineering subjects, differentiating between learning environments and course activities.

3.1 The most important key characteristics of globally competent engineering educators

Our first research question concerned the key characteristics that students expected a globally competent educator to possess. The students’ discussions brought up a variety of characteristics and related behaviours they deemed necessary so that educators would be able to support global competence development. We could broadly cluster their responses to the three overarching key characteristics of open-mindedness, global mindset, and social skills. In the following, we will briefly outline these characteristics and describe specific behaviours presumed indicative of them.

Open-mindedness was perceived as being of central importance for global competence, and it was frequently named first in relation to characteristics of globally competent educators. Being open-minded was primarily described as being not only accepting, but rather welcoming towards others and their perspectives, experiences, and knowledge, while not being judgmental or discriminatory of others due to their culture or nationality, gender, or perceived level of expertise. This idea was exemplified by statements such as ‘teachers can also be wrong/not right,’ and according to the students, globally competent engineering educators should be willing to learn also from students instead of being biased towards their own knowledge. This open mindset tended to be also described in connection to a desire for seeking out new information or insights, with students describing an importance of their educators aiming to stay up to date with new information, developments, or technologies relevant for the field. Students referred to an ‘updated global perspective and information channels’ as well as being ‘up to date with new tools for more interactive teaching’ or ‘proper utilisation of digital tools during online lectures.’ Additionally, it also laid the groundwork for being willing to question structures, norms, and traditions, as well as challenge one’s own mindset and preconceived notions – ‘question what you are teaching,’ as one student summarised it.

Another big cluster of themes revolved around educators possessing a global mindset. One of the students suggested that educators need a strong ‘knowledge about the world and how it’s connected,’ a sentiment mirrored by other students describing how an educator should be knowledgeable about global issues, provide students with a global perspective, and view oneself as a global citizen. The ideal of global citizenship was further described in an educator ‘viewing, and really believing, the world as one – united – and not focusing too much on boundaries/countries.’ The idea of a global mindset was also connected to a passion for the field and its potential, and a desire to inspire change, which could also foster the same curiosity and motivation in students. Additionally, the need of contextual knowledge to connect the specific discipline or course contents with broader real-life contexts or events was brought up too, with students describing how globally competent educators should be able to share insights about historical events and current issues, and their relations to the development of the field and/or profession. Additionally, students were also eager to learn about engineering within different cultural contexts to understand more about differences in intercultural (engineering) norms, which might be encountered in practice. Some students recalled an often too narrow focus on the national context and expressed a wish to gain more insights from ‘other parts of the world.’ During related discussions, the topic of sustainable development was brought up repeatedly, and students expressed the need to allocate the social aspects of sustainability a more prominent role within their courses.

The final cluster of characteristics of globally competent engineering educators revolved around what could be categorised as social skills. These typically revolved around educators’ communication competence, especially regarding being communicative, being active listeners, and being clear in communication with students. Other ideas mentioned related to self-awareness, empathy, and being welcoming and approachable towards students. Several groups brought up the issue that especially larger classes had a ‘one-size-fits-all’ feel to it, and that educators did not appear to seem interested in them or wanted to build a closer student-teacher relationship. The perceived lack of social skills of educators was an especially prominent topic in several of the discussions, with students recounting negative experiences that could potentially be connected to stereotyping, as illustrated in the experiences of educators wrongly assuming that ‘common knowledge is perceived the same in every country’ or not realising that ‘people might come from the same country but still don’t talk the same language’ or that certain students ‘are not from Sweden based on one’s name and looks.’ In similar sense, a certain sensitivity was desired, with a student describing that educators need a certain ‘social competence to be able to feel the situation.’

3.2 Integrating global competence development into disciplinary engineering subjects

Our second research question was focused on students’ perceptions and experiences regarding the integration of global competence learning in disciplinary engineering subjects. This builds, at least partly, on the previous discussion on important educator characteristics, which certainly help in transferring global competence learning outcomes to the engineering classroom. Independent of their subjects, we believe that a careful design of course contents may allow educators to directly (i.e. by creating conditions for global competence learning) or indirectly (i.e. by inspiring or being a role model) foster their students’ global competence development. Favourable learning environments constitute the first basis for students’ global competence development, but maximising integrated competence learning within regular courses requires a careful consideration and design of course activities, as illustrated in the following pages.

3.2.1. Learning environments supportive of global competence development

A first avenue to support global competence development for students is by ensuring that learning environments are conducive to such learning. According to the students’ descriptions, such learning environments should be engaging and inspiring, inclusive, and supportive, and flexible and focused on the students.

Students emphasised the importance of an engaging teaching practice, which they related to educators being passionate about their work, the field, and its potentials, which would in turn inspire and motivate their students for their future as engineers. A suggested way of showing this passion was for the educator to be ‘sharing more about their research,’ so students could gain first-hand insights into engineering practice and be up to date on new developments. Another pedagogical aspect to this was the opinion that educators should be familiar with digital technologies and be adept at using them in their teaching. Examples that were mentioned included digital media, videos, or virtual classes with international partners. Relatedly, during the discussions it was also suggested that learning environments should be encouraging of creativity and critical thinking so students could practice their skills themselves instead of merely listening to educators, and would be able to do so in a safe place for open discussions where students would be encouraged to ‘ask why,’ as one of them put it.

Students also described how a globally competent teaching style would be inclusive and supportive in that the educator would actively attempt to involve all students, mix groups, and support the integration of exchange students in those groups. Some discussions also revealed experiences regarding a lack of such inclusiveness, which was exemplified in shared experiences of educators providing explanations or responses to local students in the local language despite the official course language being English, which would make it challenging for non-speakers to follow such conversations.

The final point to be highlighted underpinned and connected all the previous suggestions: student-focused teaching. According to the students, a globally competent educator would adopt a student-focused teaching style, and would show interest in students and their ideas, encourage open discussions, and provide them with individualised support and constructive feedback. This further related to a flexible teaching style that would address different students’ needs and involves an openness to integrate students’ input and interests during the sessions. Additionally, discussions highlighted a desire for educators being somewhat flexible with course contents and assignments to remain up to date with new developments within the field, and to allow for small adjustments for more individualised teaching meeting the students’ interests or needs better than a stringent adherence to a one-size-fits all teaching approach.

3.2.2. Course activities supportive of global competence learning

In addition to creating learning environments supportive of students’ global competence development, educators could further foster related learning outcomes by carefully crafting learning activities within their courses. Regarding course activities that could support students in acquiring and practicing their competences, the students’ discussions on ideas for, or experiences with, classroom activities supportive of global competence development related to authentic real-world situations, collaborative elements, and facilitation and support.

For the students, a first important feature of courses fostering global competence was the opportunity to work with authentic real-world situations and challenges during their exercises and activities, an idea that was expressed by students suggesting ‘class discussions on world events,’ ‘let us solve real life problems,’ or as showing ‘concrete examples of how the course can affect and change the world.’ Related to this, course activities should have a clear relevance for their future lives as engineers and connect theory with practice, as students did not merely want to listen to theory, but to be able to apply and practice what they learnt. Connecting this with the global mindset presented earlier, a student proposed that educators should present their students with ‘examples from other parts of the world – What is sustainable there? Will this product work there?’

Another point brought up by students was that collaborative elements within their courses would be a valuable practice experience for them. While all of them had experiences with regular group exercises, they suggested including other collaborative elements in courses – with students from other universities in distance courses or other types of virtual collaborations, and importantly, with industry and other stakeholders. Regarding the industry and stakeholder connection, some students recalled guest lectures from local companies, but many expressed a wish to include more international actors. They felt that this would not only allow them to interact and work with diverse others, but also give some insights into cultural differences and their effects on collaborations.

Finally, despite their wish for a strong student-focus, the students expressed the need for facilitation and support by their educator during such projects, especially regarding social integration, team building, and conflict-solving in teamwork situations. Some students mentioned negative experiences with group exercises and wished for more support in resolving arising issues. This was perceived to be especially relevant in situations where individual grades were influenced by group assignments.

4. Discussion

Global competence comprises an invaluable aspect of higher engineering education, and educators play a pivotal role for the holistic integration of such learning within their courses. Educators typically engage in regular contact with students, teach them about the profession, and constitute facilitators and role models alike – which is why they need to hone their own global competence to be able to also support their students in doing the same. After presenting engineering students’ perspectives on how engineering education for global competence should look like in terms of educator characteristics and disciplinary learning opportunities, we will now contextualise our findings and provide final contemplations on how engineering education can be adapted to offer opportunities for integrating global competence learning better in disciplinary subjects.

4.1 Reflections on the students’ wishes for engineering education

Looking at the students’ suggestions from a broader perspective, one can see how the key characteristics mentioned by them are likely favourable for creating learning environments and course activities that may be supportive of integrated global competence learning, as summarised in Figure 1. One may easily assume that an educator possessing a certain level of open-mindedness, as well as a global mindset, and social skills is able to foster engaging, inclusive, and student-focused learning environments. Likewise, the students’ descriptions of learning environments conducive of global competence development may already provide a good starting point for meaningful engagement with course activities connected to authentic real-world problems and collaborative elements, and if all these elements fall in place, it is likely that also the educator will function as facilitator and source of support. In order to better contextualise these assumptions, we will now explore these three dimensions – the characteristics of educators, learning environments, and course activities favourable for integrated global competence learning – in connection to literature on competence development and learning theory.

Figure 1. Student perspectives on how to foster global competence integration in disciplinary engineering courses.

The first dimension we will address are the characteristics of engineering educators, as they and their actions play a pivotal role in what students experience and learn in the classroom. Within our investigation, the ideas voiced by the students were categorised to the broad dimensions of open-mindedness, a global mindset, and social skills, which can be assumed to be intricately interrelated. These three characteristics could be described as the basic must-haves for any educator attempting to not only recognise the importance of global competence for the students, but also being capable to identify ways to integrate it meaningfully, skillfully introduce students to such ‘non-technical’ aspects of the profession, and eventually, model globally competent behaviours. The two dimensions of open-mindedness and social skills can almost be viewed as pedagogical core requirements for being a good teacher, although some of the experiences recounted by the students – cultural presumptions, stereotypes, or exclusion of international students due to language barriers – may, if stemming from inadvertent or careless spur of the moment decisions, negatively impact not only the students in question but also unintentionally model unfavourable behaviours to the rest of the classroom.

Our focus on these key characteristics identified by the students does in no way mean that those are the only ones of importance; they are indeed a part of a much more comprehensive set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes – global competence – for educators. Reviewing European teacher competence frameworks, Caena (2014, 316) proposed core competence requirements including, knowledge about educational processes and the teaching of specific subjects, classroom management skills, interpersonal, reflective, and research skills, critical attitude towards educational practice, positive and inclusive attitudes and commitment, as well as the flexibility to adapt teaching adapted to contextual needs. These general competences mirror the thoughts the students shared, even though aspects regarding educational processes, which students may primarily perceive via the resulting course contents, played a minor role in our study. Altogether it should not be a surprise if those competences would apply also to other educational fields, particularly when using these broad categories of open-mindedness, global mindset and social skills. However, it should be added that the specific expression of some of these competences may well vary in some instances to match the teaching and learning context. For example, particularly the global mindset, which was related to knowledge about the world and interconnectedness in relation to the educator’s engineering discipline will certainly comprise rather field-specific aspects of knowledge.

Comparing our findings to the specifically educator-focused global competence model by Tichnor-Wagner et al. (2019), we found a shared emphasis on a global mindset, appreciation for different cultures and diverse perspectives, intercultural communication skills, as well as understanding of global interconnectedness, world issues, and a mindset towards action for a more sustainable future. However, their global competence model further put emphasis on pedagogical competences, naming classroom environments valuing diversity, content-aligned global investigations, global learning partnerships, and global competence assessment, or multilingualism. Except for global competence assessment, which did not play a role in our study, the other competences suggested by Tichnor-Wagner et al. (2019) rather constitute behaviours resulting from global competence, which is why we categorised them as learning environments or course activities instead. Nevertheless, we found that the students’ practical perspectives and theoretical scholarship on educator competences largely aligned, which may suggest that our findings could possess importance even beyond the context of engineering education.

Connecting that to our second area of inquiry – learning environments – the interrelation between an educators’ characteristics and their ability to create the engaging and inspiring, inclusive and supportive, and student-focused learning environments students envisioned becomes apparent. Learning environments conducive to global competence development clearly show a strong desire for student-focused pedagogy, which has been found valuable for motivation, engagement, and learning (Pears, Nylén, and Daniels 2016; Kahn and Agnew 2017; Berdrow 2009; Huet 2018; Atadero et al. 2018). The students in our study did not want to be merely told what to do, but they wanted their educators to present them with challenges and let them think, try, and experiment themselves, while still being able to receive feedback and support for their work. However, the point was also made that educators should be open to the idea that they themselves can learn from the students. This makes sense in the realm of engineering, where technological advancements make it difficult for one individual alone to keep up with a plethora of new developments. Moreover, it also connects well with research on global competence, emphasising how the process of learning should take center stage: when open-mindedness, plurality of perspectives, self-awareness, and challenges to one’s own frames of reference are essential, everyone can take the role of the teacher or learner (Kahn and Agnew 2017). One of the students in our study recounted an experience where their educator appeared to erroneously believe all of the students should have the same ‘common knowledge.’ While we do not know how this specific situation eventually unfolded, it is clear that an educator open to re-evaluating their own beliefs could use their own faulty presumption as good starting point for a fruitful discussion on cultural differences, such as differences on what is perceived common knowledge, as well as reasons for – and consequences of – people operating under such assumptions. As engineering constitutes a very global profession and the students are likely to, in one way or another, interact with others from different cultures, such a reflection could be a great learning opportunity for everyone involved.

The student accounts on learning environments for global competence development further mirrored ideas of active learning, which can be achieved by pedagogies fostering student participation (e.g. reflections or discussions) in the classroom (Shekhar et al. 2019; Strachan and Liyanage 2015). An expansion to active learning can be seen in experiential learning, which has been described as the process of transforming experiences to knowledge (Kolb 1984). Those learning approaches might be especially useful for the acquisition of global competence, as the development of complex competences depends on learning situations connecting both action-based learning for the contextualisation of knowledge, and comprehension-based learning for its decontextualisation, as pointed out by Pittich and colleagues (2019). Indeed, the learner must not only develop the capacity for suitable actions, but also be able to flexibly adapt them to the demands of different contexts, for which authentic situations provide fruitful training grounds. This also relates to the CDIO approach within engineering, which promotes experiences connecting essential skills in an integrated way (e.g. by simulating practice through projects or case studies) to support the learning of competences useful for professional environments (Crawley et al. 2014). The provision of such learning environments is a great start for supporting student learning, but their potential impacts can only be fully realised if educators also carefully consider the design of learning activities.

Our inquiry into students’ perceptions found a demand for activities representing authentic real-world situations and having a clear relevance for the future profession, connecting theory and practice as well as collaborative elements, and being facilitated and supported by the educator. Any of these criteria offer students the chance to practice their skills in ways mirroring professional practice, but also to do so within the safety of their classroom environments. In this regard, McCloskey and Matteo (2016) described how exercises in safe environments focusing on practice, reflection, and meaningful feedback have shown great promise for competence development. Additionally, particularly the chance to fail, and reflect on that, can help to learn from mistakes or negative experiences, and may lead to impactful learning (Wallin and Adawi 2018; Brinkmann 2016; Connor, Karmokar, and Whittington 2015) – without the same risks or consequences mistakes could have in professional contexts. Moreover, we believe that such an integrative approach to practicing technical and global competence at the same time – and in the same way they may have to do that in professional practice – may also help students to realise the value of global competence, which could otherwise be obscured by outdated mindsets differentiating between hard and soft skills (Richter and Kjellgren 2022).

The students in our study also suggested specific collaborative activities they found particularly valuable, such as group projects and discussions, and collaborations involving external participants, such as other students in distance learning classes, or projects in collaboration with industry or stakeholders. However, while such collaborations could hold great value for some engineering subjects, they might not always be possible, feasible, or realistic for courses. In addition to difficulties in establishing and maintaining relationships with potential external partners, such collaborations may be very time- and resource-intensive to conduct. In situations where educators may question the return of investment of such activities, they may instead opt for less resource-intensive alternatives, such as for example guest lectures or case studies, which could provide similar learning outcomes for less effort.

When it comes to culture or communication differences, educators can also capitalise on their own students’ diversity, and bring them together for group projects or collaborative assignments as fruitful grounds for intercultural learning (Richter and Kjellgren 2022; Soria 2015; Tchibozo 2013). In addition to the disciplinary learning outcomes targeted, these activities may also provide opportunities to interact with diverse others, to learn about cultural differences and diverse perspectives, and to obtain skills relating to compromise or conflict resolution. Discussions or reflective exercises regarding such intercultural interactions may lead to valuable outcomes in terms of self-awareness or intercultural communication and collaboration competence, as well as reduce frustrations due to potential miscommunication. However, even though diversity in the classroom can provide ample opportunities for intercultural interactions, it does not automatically or directly lead to the development of global competence (Soria 2015; Shaw 2015). Students may not be realising educators’ reasoning behind assignments, and consequently not take full advantage of their potential. Furthermore, when it comes to intercultural communication, Shaw (2015) highlighted the risk that ‘mere contact unaccompanied by a deeper reflective process can actually deepen and perpetuate stereotype[s]’ (39). A common issue for the students in our study was related to problems within group assignments, particularly with individual teammates not participating or contributing in the desired manner, as well as resulting conflict situations. Educators ought to stress those activities’ relevance so students view them as learning opportunities – for example by emphasising how professional environments will often connect to collaborative work processes and students should learn how to successfully navigate in such environments and deal productively with differences in prioritisations or arising disagreements. Additionally, if it appears that students struggle to resolve misunderstandings or conflicts, educators should be available to support them in overcoming issues to work towards learning outcomes and reduce the risks of inadvertent negative consequences of student frustrations.

A particularly interesting finding highlighted in the previous discussion was the high degree in which the students’ descriptions of globally competent engineering educators, classroom environments, and activities aligned with contemporary educational scholarship. The students’ ideas clearly mirrored the currently popular emphasis on the benefits of student-centered, active, or experiential learning. However, while the idea of engineering courses mindful and considerate of global competence is certainly an enticing one, the question is how realistic – or rather feasible – this really is in practice. This point was also raised during the focus group discussions, with a student remarking that it is ‘hard to pinpoint exact qualities for an engineering professor [when] the courses and classes are highly math and logic-based with little to no personal opinion from the teacher.’ It cannot be denied that engineering spans numerous subdisciplines, and the context of specific courses may not always provide the ideal conditions for the learning of certain competences. The issue of the perceived relevance of individual competences or activities plays an important role here. Certain competences might be more or less relevant for different professions, but students may not be aware of that. Some students may rely on preconceived notions of engineers as pure technologists, and pay little attention to the more communicative, interactive, or collaborative aspects of the profession(s). Such thinking might consequently obscure the true relevance of, for example, collaborative exercises, which is why it is crucial for educators to not only let the students experience such exercises, but also explicitly point out their relevance and connection to practice (Richter and Kjellgren 2022). This again relates to the final point the students made: activities should be facilitated and supported by their educator. While students wanted to try out and test what they have learnt, to be creative, and to practice working with authentic problems and situations, they still highly valued their educators’ feedback and guidance.

4.2 Global competence in engineering education: final reflections and the road ahead

Our final contemplations revolve around the opportunities of making the vision of engineering education including global competence learning a reality. A crucial point that was not directly related to the research questions but featured prominently in the discussions was the issue of educating engineering educators to become more globally competent. Students shared ideas of having educators take courses in global competence, and inspiring their colleagues to develop more global competence. It is clear that educators have a strong influence on students, and several authors have called for the need of global competence education for educators (e.g. (Niehaus and Williams 2016; Senyshyn and Smith 2019; Galinova 2015; Rodríguez-Izquierdo 2018)). We here only focused on three, albeit broad, key characteristics that students felt educators should exhibit to be able to support students in their global competence learning. However, a comprehensive discussion on globally competent educators would certainly have to include many more competences beyond the key aspects identified in this study. The idea that educators who themselves had global competence training were more likely to practice globally competent teaching (Kerkhoff and Cloud 2020; Mejri and Meadows 2022) should be no surprise. The complex nature of global competence makes it essential to integrate them thoroughly and meaningfully within courses (Arasaratnam-Smith 2020; Winberg et al. 2020). Accordingly, targeted training for educators might provide invaluable support for integrating them into their own classes’ formal or informal learning outcomes.

Ideas on good pedagogy have changed during recent decades, and educators are increasingly required to be mindful of aspects that were not always part of traditional engineering education. After recent shifts towards introducing aspects of sustainability, gender, or diversity, an upcoming trend towards global competence encompassing all these dimensions is only a question of time. Several engineering institutions have already started training initiatives for globally competent educators (see for example (Kjellgren and Keller 2018; Bagiati et al. 2012)), and we believe that the key characteristics and teaching approaches for global competence outlined here could be of great value for similar efforts. While the idea of broad institutional initiatives for educator global competence appears an obvious asset for engineering universities, such an endeavour is not without obstacles. Besides logistics and resources, a crucial factor for the success of any such activities is the individual educators’ motivation. Top-down approaches to educational reform may quickly meet resistance or disregard if the relevance and benefits of such changes are not clear to those affected by them. This might be an especially pronounced issue in the case of engineering education, which habitually follows longstanding teacher-centered traditions focusing on technical aspects conveyed during lectures or labs rather than holistic approaches to engineering (Barak 2017). It should be clear that there is a need for educators to be able to innovate and adapt to new developments outside the classroom, making considerate choices when balancing educational objectives and student needs (Caena 2014). An educational reform from teacher- to learner-centered approaches might face challenges especially when educators were largely trained differently themselves (Kapp 2011), which may be particularly pronounced when it comes to longstanding faculty that is suddenly confronted with criticism of their teaching traditions. Mohd-Yusof and colleagues' (2018) study on the issue found that engineering educators, despite considering student-centered approaches as the most meaningful ones during their own learning, nevertheless implemented teacher-centric approaches due to their own training. Additionally, there is a risk that educators without industry perspective might not even be aware of the advantages and potentials of integrating global competence aspects in their courses. In some cases that might even be caused by a lack of understanding of what exactly something like global competence (or any similar concept chosen by the institution) even entails. In other cases, the educators might need support to identify how such learning could be integrated in their courses. In any case, educational campaigns addressing those issues might be the easiest way forward for creating such necessary awareness, acknowledgement, and knowledge.

After overcoming such initial obstacles, the next step for creating globally competent educators is the provision of opportunities, support, and encouragement to partake in such educational efforts. There are numerous institution-backed formal and informal opportunities for global competence development for different staff members, ranging from specific courses, to workshops, seminars, or global learning opportunities in the form of intercultural collaborations or projects (Kjellgren and Richter 2021; Parmigiani et al. 2022). Specific global competence training may also help battle the perception of highly technical courses not allowing, or being suitable for, global competence learning. While not all potential competences fit all disciplinary or course contexts, it would be wrong to assume that there is no place for such learning. In this regard, Kahn and Agnew (2017) have suggested that ‘not all coursework needs to include global learning outcomes, but it is increasingly understood that all courses can be internationalised, including the hard sciences’ (58). Many of the ways to do so – including real-life case studies, conveying cultural or historical backgrounds to topics, or emphasising collaboration, critical discussions, and practical experiences – were already proposed by the students in our sample. Considering that the perspectives of these students – as learners in a global competence course rather than educational experts – aligned so remarkably well with scholarship would also suggest great promise for integrating them in teacher education. Nonetheless, a course would only be the start, and in the same sense that global competence acquisition is a continuous process, there is also a need for continuous professional development to meet competence needs (Caena 2014). Institutions need to provide educators not only with opportunities, but also incentives to support them and their students to become globally competent.

5. Conclusion

The idea of global competence has begun to permeate higher education, and with global interconnectedness constantly increasing, the need to prepare individuals to collaborate with diverse others will only grow in the coming years. With globalisation and technological advancements creating new avenues for intercultural collaborations around the world, the engineering profession will remain on the forefront of such developments, and engineering education will have to catch up to ensure that graduates are ready for the challenges awaiting them. Successful engineers must possess global competence, and universities must realise that globally competent educators are an essential asset, both for their own teaching and research endeavours, and for preparing the globally competent graduates needed to create a sustainable future. We here presented engineering students’ perspectives on the key characteristics of globally competent engineering educators and ways in which they can support their students’ global competence development.

With the rising need of globally competent educators, such insights and their connections to different professional contexts will be an invaluable addition for universities and teacher training initiatives. However, while our study provided a first exploration into student perspectives on the issue, it is not without limitations. Our sample was chosen based on a purposive sampling methodology, and while this decision of specifically focusing on students with advanced knowledge of the complexities of global competence provided the great advantage of well-informed insights, it came with the consequence of a lack of representability of the study population. Considering the limited sample size and the primary focus on engineering education, we believe that future research, both in terms of greater number of respondents, and in terms of different disciplinary contexts, could provide more insights into competences needed by educators. Additionally, another potentially fruitful avenue for further research would be engineering educators’ perspectives, both to show their perceptions and experiences with integrating such learning, and to complement the thoughts and ideas proposed by students. We could further imagine that many of the ideas and activities suggested by students could very well already be implemented by educators who possess interesting insights into the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of such approaches. Additionally, the educators’ thoughts on the relevance of specific aspects of global competence, both for their courses and their students’ future professions in the field, as well as the educators’ feelings regarding their responsibility for including such learning within their subjects would be interesting topics for further research.

In summary, our study has provided exploratory insights into a number of educator and classroom characteristics that are valuable for global competence learning in engineering education. While incorporating the aspects of globally competent learning environments and learning activities suggested here should be straightforward, it remains critical that educators can confidently select those that are relevant to their discipline and adapt them to their specific course contexts. Given the often already crowded engineering curricula, the resource intensity of creating new activities, and the importance of tailoring them to specific disciplinary contexts, it is also crucial to provide educators not only with support and resources, but also with recognition and incentives for such efforts. We therefore urge universities to introduce broad global competence training to provide valuable opportunities for such reflection, and to clearly encourage and incentivise the work of engineering educators in ensuring that not only they, but also their students, are equipped with the competences needed to thrive in our rapidly evolving globalised world.

Acknowledgements

This study was co-funded by a local grant from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, registration number V-2021-0505. We would like to thank Alena Ipanova, course responsible for the global competence course, for her role in conducting the focus group sessions, and the participating students for their time and commitment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan: [Grant Number V-2021-0505].

Notes on contributors

Tanja Richter

Tanja Richter is a PhD student at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, where she researches global competence development at higher education institutions. Her work focuses on the global competences needed by engineering graduates, and different curricular and co-curricular approaches to integrating these into engineering education.

Björn Kjellgren

Björn Kjellgren is an associate professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. He has a PhD in sinology and has previously worked as a researcher in social anthropology. His research interests are in global competence education, especially in relation to multilingualism, communication, and the internationalisation of higher education at home and abroad.