Engineers need to be socially responsible, ethically aware and deliver positive contributions to the wicked problems² of today's global challenges. In navigating these challenges, being able to reflect is a necessary prerequisite. But if we simply ask students reflective questions, they tend to give us mostly socially desirable answers. Our university initiated an institute-wide program focused on creating learning experiences and environments for transformative reflection instead of superficial reflection. In this paper we present design principles for transformative reflection based on a literature overview and the program's accumulated experience. The principles are I) Six domains for reflection on engineering issues, II) The differentiation between the internal and external perspectives, III) Our approach to design for context-specificity of transformative reflective experiences, and IV) Four mechanisms that foster transformative reflection.

The Charles Sturt University (CSU) Engineering programme is a new course (degree programmme) established in 2016 by a university that had not previously taught engineering. This start from scratch occasion was taken as an opportunity to build an all-new programme structure and philosophy. Students at CSU Engineering complete a sequence of three semester-long Project-Based Learning (PBL) style challenges across their time face-to-face at the university; after this point, they commence four yearlong paid industry-based work placements and continue studies in an online mode during evenings, weekends, and scheduled study days. The underlying technical curriculum for the engineering programme at Charles Sturt University is delivered mostly on-line via the RealizeIT platform and is based on a philosophy of just-in-time, self-directed learning. Students have freedom in deciding when, how and, to a large extent, which elements of the curriculum they engage within the online environment. This freedom, along with the PBL-style challenges, is enabled by the structure of the technical curriculum which is broken down into fine-grained learning activities called ‘topics’. In this paper, we summarise our experiences during the first four years, and the insights gained into student behaviours when offered an opportunity to engage in self-directed learning

Objectives: Postgraduate trainee selection is a high-stakes process. While many studies focused on selection methods and psychometrics, little is known about the influence of selectors’ personal values and beliefs in the judgment and decision-making process. A better understanding of these factors is vital since selectors determine the future workforce. Methods: We interviewed programme directors (PDs) from 11 specialties in one University Hospital. Thematic analysis was conducted with a combined approach of generic and in-vivo coding. Results: PDs value excellence, ‘fit’ and personal characteristics. The content of these values are subject to personal interpretation and differ between PDs. PDs use various ‘proxies’ as alternative indicators of performance. They consider intuition, teamwork and autonomy important in judgement and decision-making. PDs find selection challenging and feel great accountability towards candidates and society. Conclusions: Selectors criteria of judgement- and decision-making often remain implicit and focus on prior achievements and ‘fit’ with the current trainee-pool, possibly compromising the workforce’s diversity. Implicit ‘proxies’ and intuitive decision-making may be an unwitting source of judgemental bias. ‘Making the implicit explicit’, by increasing awareness of personal values and beliefs and structuring the selection interview, may improve the quality of trainee selection.

Contribution: This study reports on a reliable and valid instrument that measures engineering students' perceptions of their competency levels. A better understanding of students' needs in engineering curricula will support the development of engineering students' transversal competencies. Background: Prior research has investigated how engineering students perceive competency levels in transversal competencies. However, limitations in the competency definition, psychometric properties, and generalizability were found. Research questions: 1) What is the reliability and validity of the competency level instrument? and 2) what are the transversal competency level perceptions of engineering Bachelor and Master students? Methodology: A questionnaire consisting of 36 transversal competencies was designed based on an existing industry model and administered to 1087 engineering Bachelor and Master students from the University of Technology, The Netherlands. Validity and reliability were tested through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's alpha. Findings: EFA resulted in five scales with reliable Cronbach's alpha values. CFA demonstrated a good model fit for the five-factor model with 25 items. Students perceived they are most competent in teamwork and lifelong learning competencies and less competent in entrepreneurial competencies.

In engineering education students are increasingly challenged to solve complex socio-technological problems. However, there are many uncertainties in solving those 'ill-defined wicked problems'. For students, dealing with uncertainty is not easy to master. In the minor and master programmes of Science Education and Communication at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, living Labs ('C-labs') are used to teach students to deal with real-life complex communication problems in technological innovation processes. Students collaborate in teams of four persons, all from different technological disciplines. Each team works closely with professionals who face the problem in practice. In the C-labs, design methodology is used to approach the problems in a structured way. In this study we raise the question: how do students deal with uncertainties in solving complex problems in the C-labs? To answer this question we identified 3 sources of uncertainty: attributed to the individual, to the social context and to the task [7] and monitored the students during the design process by means of surveys and interviews. Data analysis shows that students perceive all 3 kinds of uncertainty in the various stages of the design process. They use of a broad variety of responses to tackle uncertainty. The outcomes can be used to improve our ways to help students to deal with uncertainties.