Universities open their doors to society, inviting the complexity of the world to enter engineering education through challenge-based courses. While working on complex issues, engineering students learn to deal with different kinds of uncertainty: uncertainty about the dynamics of a real-world challenge, the knowledge gaps in the problem, or the conflicting perspectives amongst the people involved. Although we know from previous research that students are likely to encounter these uncertainties in sustainability challenges, which metacognitive strategies they use to deal with them is unclear. We interviewed nine MSc students at the end of a challenge-based course at a Dutch university of technology. We asked the students how they dealt with uncertainty in collaboration with the commissioner, their student team, and the teachers. The interviews were analyzed through grounded, consensus-based coding by two researchers. Preliminary results show students use three main strategies. First, the different perspectives from peers in their team inform the position of the student. Second, students find expectation management of the commissioner essential, yet students struggle with how to do this in a professional and timely way. Third, students frame the uncertainties they encounter as part of the learning process, which allows them to accept the possibility of failure. This study provides first insights in metacognitive uncertainty strategies and suggests those strategies should become a more prominent topic in coaching students. When uncertainty becomes an explicit part of challenge-based education, students learn to deal with both the known and unknown in the transition to a sustainable society.

In order to construct a shared body of knowledge, research involving the relationship between the psychosocial learning environment (PSLE) and the physical learning environment (PLE) needs a commonly-accepted conceptual framework. By means of a thematic literature review, we collected the main aspects of the PSLE and PLE, their definitions and their relations as identified by earlier research. These findings led to a conceptual framework that structures the dimension of the PSLE into the sub-dimensions of personal development, relationships, and system maintenance and change, and the dimension of the PLE into the sub-dimensions of naturalness, individualisation, and stimulation. For each of these sub-dimensions, the framework distinguishes an intended, implemented and attained representation. A conceptual PSLE-PLE Relationship (PPR) model enables relations to be visualised. The review confirms that PSLE and PLE are interrelated in interactions between different sub-dimensions and their representations. However, evidence regarding these relationships is still weak because of the limited number of studies and their methodological limitations.