Deliberating and communicating the potential of fusion power based on long-term foresight knowledge

\u3cp\u3eThe main aim of this contribution is to provide guidance (in terms of quality criteria) for setting up foresight exercises as a platform for discussion and communication of the benefits and drawbacks of fusion with a broad range of stakeholders. At the same time, we explore conditions that might enhance the resonance of such foresight exercises in the policy sphere. In order to address this dual aim, we first introduce a philosophical framework called 'constructivism'. Next, we give a constructivist reading of scientific foresight as a combined scientific-political practice and point out some of the main points of interest regarding the relationship between foresight knowledge and policy. We illustrate these points of interest with practical case-study examples. Finally, we draw upon our theoretical and case-study research to propose some points of particular interest for the fusion community wishing to develop long-term energy scenarios.\u3c/p\u3

The influence of learning context on engineering students’ perceived basic needs and motivation

ntroduction: Learning context plays an important role in students’ motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is important in order to foster students’ deep learning, better performance and overall well- being. According to Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation, three basic needs should be satisfied for students to achieve intrinsic motivation: the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness. However, less attention has been given to what influences those basic needs for engineering students in different learning contexts. In this study we used the SDT framework to compare two different learning contexts: project-based courses and mixed courses (lecture based courses with group assignments) to explore whether students experience differences in the satisfaction of basic needs and motivation. \u3cbr/\u3eWe aimed to answer the following research questions: \u3cbr/\u3eRQ1: What is the difference between students’ perceived satisfaction of basic needs and motivation in mixed and project courses? \u3cbr/\u3eRQ2: Which factors are considered supportive for students’ satisfaction of basic needs in each learning context? \u3cbr/\u3eMethods: Two studies were conducted in order to answer the research questions. A survey study was conducted across seven mixed courses and five project courses. Students completed questionnaires on basic needs and motivation at the end of the course. In addition, a qualitative study that focused on five of the courses was conducted, where focus groups with teachers and students were used to identify motivating and demotivating factors for each learning context. \u3cbr/\u3eResults: The students attending the project courses reported more satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness, but no differences in motivation. The qualitative study revealed that among the most motivating factors for project-based courses were: real-life problems or involvement of real stakeholders, freedom to work in an interesting project, feedback, teamwork and relevance to major studies. However, in project-based courses students reported more uncertainty or lack of guidance that affected negatively their motivation. In addition, even though the project-based courses were more autonomy supportive, some aspects of them were considered quite restricting and thus, unmotivating. The balance between autonomy and structure was a major challenge for teachers especially in project courses. \u3cbr/\u3eDiscussion: Project based courses do not guarantee higher students’ motivation in learning. Even though students enjoy the autonomy of project-based courses, it is important that learning context address students’ expectations and offer the right amount of autonomy and guidance in order to motivate them. SDT is a theoretical framework that Engineering Education can use in order to inform pedagogical interventions to foster motivation and thus improve students’ learning

Comparison and analysis of expert and student views on the use of energy scenarios in communication on fusion research

\u3cp\u3eThis article compares expert framings on energy models in order to improve communication on energy scenarios. It gives a brief theoretical elaboration on the framing concept in science and the consequences for modelling. From these insights we look into the use of energy models in communication on fusion energy decision-making. We discuss results of interviews with international energy modelling experts. We conclude that the framings of the experts are very different. We see this variety as a strength that should be exploited more to benefit the communication on fusion research. As a first step to further research in the interaction between experts and the public, we have a focus group with students. The results of both groups are often similar. However, some expert framings are narrower compared to the students which might complicate the communication. We recommend more research on expert framing in modelling.\u3c/p\u3

First-year engineering students’ experiences with a course of ethics and history of technology

Introduction \u3cbr/\u3eSeveral course aspects can affect students’ motivation and engagement with it. This study focuses on an 11-week course on ethics and history of technology (USE Base course), taught to 2000+ first-year engineering students. Previous evaluations of the USE Base course showed that students of Informatics and Applied Mathematics (INF/AM) and Biomedical Technology (BMT) reported low motivation and satisfaction with it. Our aim was to understand better the reasons behind students’ low motivation with the course and to implement educational changes to make it more relevant and interesting for them. \u3cbr/\u3eOur research questions were: \u3cbr/\u3eRQ1: Which aspects of the USE Base course do students of Informatics, Applied Mathematics (INF/AM) and Biomedical Technology (BMT) consider interesting? \u3cbr/\u3eRQ2: Are there differences in students’ deep learning and motivation with the course, compared to 2017? \u3cbr/\u3eMethods\u3cbr/\u3eFor the design our study, we used theories related to deep learning (Marton and Saljo, 1976), learning environment (Dochy et al., 2005) and Self-Determination Theory of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). To answer the research questions, we used a mixed-method approach focusing on the two target groups of INF/AM and BMT. \u3cbr/\u3eTo answer the RQ1, we performed focus-group discussions with second-year students, who had already attended the course in 2017. In addition, we invited first-year students before the beginning of the new course to provide us with feedback about the new study material. During the course, we conducted observations and held focus group discussions after the end of the course. \u3cbr/\u3eTo answer RQ2, validated questionnaires on deep learning, learning environment and motivation were electronically administered to students after the history part, after ethics part and after the final exam. Their answers were compared to the students’ answers in 2017. \u3cbr/\u3eResults \u3cbr/\u3eThe qualitative study revealed a link between students’ professional identity and the perceived relevance of the USE Base course. Students who saw ethics and knowledge of history as part of their professional identity as engineers, were more engaged and motivated during the course. \u3cbr/\u3eAn important factors affecting students’ motivation and deep learning was the perceived differences in educational approaches, (e.g. on how feedback was given, multidisciplinary groups) and the study material (e.g. long reading texts), between the USE Base course and the courses of their own departments. In terms of educational content, for all students’ clarity in the course assignment and organization of the study material was considered important. That was especially true for INF students, who needed much more structure on how the material was organized and presented. \u3cbr/\u3eThe quantitative results showed a significant increase in INF/TW students’ overall evaluation of the course, compared to the students in 2017; while the difference for students of BMT was not significant. More results of the quantitative study will be discussed. \u3cbr/\u3eConclusions \u3cbr/\u3eThe preliminary conclusions indicate that the interest of INF/TW and BMT students for the USE Base course is influenced by their way of looking at reality and their own professional identity. It also highlights the difficulties of general courses offered to students from different departments to establish a common ground in terms of educational approaches and be relevant for all of them. This study also discusses educational approaches to facilitate students’ motivation and deep learning

Feedback for relatedness and competence:Can feedback in blended learning contribute to optimal rigor, basic needs, and motivation?

\u3cp\u3eWe inquire how peer and tutor feedback influences students' optimal rigor, basic needs and motivation. We analyze questionnaires from two courses in two subsequent years. We conclude that feedback in blended learning can contribute to rigor and basic needs, but it is not clear from our data what triggers this relation. The data show that feedback does not influence motivation.\u3c/p\u3

Introducing broad skills in higher engineering education: The Patents and Standards course at Eindhoven University of Technology

Over the years, the engineering profession has changed and evolved. e expectations that employers and society have of engineers nowadays are dierent from those of even a few decades ago, and universities have been trying to respond to these changing needs by rethinking and redesigning their courses. is paper describes the large-scale e orts by Eindhoven University of Technology to redesign its entire undergraduate program. More specifically, it elaborates on a series of three courses on patents and standards to illustrate how new academic innovations have been put into practice while also reporting a critical evaluation of these reforms. We conclude that the undergraduate program redesign has led to an almost 50% rise in intake. Additionally, despite conrming our belief that this is a better way to train engineers, the new approach has also been challenging and not always appreciated by students as much as we would like. In regards to the patents and standards courses in particular, the e orts to increase workload while maintaining student satisfaction levels eventually proved to be successful

Quality of ethics education in engineering programs using Goodlad’s curriculum typology.

Ethics education is part of many engineering curricula and at the same time a debated matter in terms of its goals, extent and educational approach. The quality of ethics education is, however, not prominently described in engineering education research (EER). To answer this gap, we perform a literature review that focuses on ethics education in EER. We analysed the data using a general quality framework that considers four elements of quality, i.e. relevance, consistency, practicality and effectiveness. We find that EER elaborates on the relevance of ethics education in three different ways: realisation of conceptual goals as honesty, integrity, or social\u3cbr/\u3eresponsibility; support of engineering concepts as complexity or risk; or instrumentally to comply with national educational standards. EER has little focus on consistency, except for the link with the entire curriculum. Also practicality is little developed, only on whether assessment is valid and reliable in ethics education. Teachers' perceptions of the instrumentality (is it helpful in teaching), congruence (does it fit the circumstances) and cost (is it feasible with the available time and resources) are less stressed. Debates on effectiveness in turn are prominent in ethics education and focus on the influence of: student characteristics and competences; course design; connection with the curriculum; and broader cultural aspects. We conclude \u3cbr/\u3ethat consistency and practicality are largely missing in ethics education in EER and that many implicit notions of relevance and effectiveness exist. This framework can make quality more explicit and impact the discussions on ethics education in EER

LED lighting across borders : exploring the plea for darkness and value-sensitive design with Libbrecht’s comparative philosophy model

This chapter discusses how a comparative philosophical model can contribute to both substantive and procedural values in energy policy. We discuss the substantive values in the mainstream light-emitting diodes (LEDs) debate and Taylor Stone’s alternative plea for darkness. We also explore Value Sensitive Design as a procedural approach. We conclude that the comparative philosophical model of Ulrich Libbrecht can appropriately broaden the set of substantive values used in VSD. We discuss the values of ‘by-itself-so’ and ‘alter-intentionality’, which come with the unforeseen necessity of accepting elements from other worldviews and of normativity in the procedural VSD approach

Community energy meets smart grids: Reviewing goals, structure, and roles in Virtual Power Plants in Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands

Community-driven energy initiatives are seen as important drivers of the energy transition. So far these initiatives focused mainly on energy generation and conservation. Recently however, some initiatives started to adopt smart grid technologies like Virtual Power Plants (VPP) which enables them to become involved in the distribution, trading and management of energy. By adopting a multiple-methods approach consisting of literature reviews on community energy and Virtual Power Plant, action research, semi-structured interviews and by mobilizing Family Resemblance, this article explores the community-based Virtual Power Plants as a novel model for energy provision. We identified five building blocks that together form a cVPP: the community involved, the community-logic under which the project operates, the portfolio of distributed energy resources aggregated and controlled by an ICT control architecture, and the roles communities can collectively play in the energy system by means of cVPP. Three practical cases in Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands highlight the diversity of cVPPs, that results from different choices and trade-offs made by various communities in diverse institutional contexts. Applying the cVPP conceptualization made visible that the three cVPPs had to comply with the incumbent energy system, making it difficult to play the preferred roles in the energy system, operate on the scale of their community and to keep their own needs and values center stage